Houg Alberta Ltd. v. 417034 Alberta Ltd., (1991) 117 A.R. 196 (CA)

• Judge: Côté, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: June 07, 1991
• Citations: (1991), 117 A.R. 196 (CA)

Houg Alta. Ltd. v. 417034 Alta. Ltd. (1991), 117 A.R. 196 (CA);

    2 W.A.C. 196

MLB headnote and full text

In the Matter of the Planning Act, being Chapter P-9 of the Revised Statutes of Alberta, 1980 and In the Matter of the Decision of the Development Appeal Board Municipal District of Bonnyville approving the Application by 417034 Alberta Ltd., to construct a Motor Vehicle Garage and Dealership on a portion of N. 1/4 27-62-2-W4th

Houg Alberta Ltd. (applicant) v. 417034 Alberta Ltd. (respondent)

(Appeal No. 9103-0294-AC)

Indexed As: Houg Alberta Ltd. v. 417034 Alberta Ltd.

Alberta Court of Appeal

Côté, J.A.

June 7, 1991.

Summary:

Houg Alberta Ltd. applied for leave to appeal from a decision of a development appeal board. Houg also applied to add the relevant municipality as a party.

The Alberta Court of Appeal granted both applications.

Land Regulation - Topic 4148

Land use control - Appeals to the courts - Leave to appeal, practice - [See Practice - Topic 2389 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 207

Practice - Limitation period, commence­ment of - Houg applied to the Alberta Court of Appeal for leave to appeal from a decision of a development appeal board - The Planning Act required that the ap­plication be made "within 30 days after the issue" of the decision - The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that a decision is not issued until it is received by the party and in this case the 30 days commenced run­ning when the decision was brought to the attention of the applicant by a lawyer (see paragraphs 27 to 36).

Practice - Topic 2389

Nullities and irregularities - What consti­tutes a nullity - A development appeal board granted a landowner a development permit - A neighbour filed a motion for leave to appeal the board's order, but the municipality was not named in the notice of motion as required by the Planning Act - The applicant (neighbour) applied to add the municipality as a party - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the motion for leave to appeal was not a nullity and was curable (see paragraphs 14 to 26).

Words and Phrases

Made - The Alberta Court of Appeal referred to the meaning of the word "made" as found in s. 152(2) of the Planning Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. P-9 (see paragraph 29).

Words and Phrases

Issue - The Alberta Court of Appeal referred to the meaning of the word "issue" as found in s. 152(2) of the Planning Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. P-9 (see paragraph 30).

Cases Noticed:

Edmonton Nurseries v. Edmonton (1976), 2 A.R. 14; 1 Alta. L.R.(2d) 226, refd to. [para. 24].

Fraser v. Calgary (City) (1978), 10 A.R. 456; 6 Alta. L.R.(2d) 210 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Bowen v. Edmonton (City) (1977), 3 A.R. 63; 2 Alta. L.R.(2d) 112 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 4, rule 38, rule 132, rule 133, rule 558, rule 560 [para. 26].

Planning Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. P-9, sect. 152(4) [para. 15].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Laux, Planning Law and Practice in Alberta, p. 474 [paras. 24, 29].

Counsel:

R.P. Newton, for Houg Alberta Ltd.;

W.R. Lovatt, for 417034 Alberta Ltd.;

L.J. Burgess, for Municipal District of Bonnyville.

This application was heard by Côté, J.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The decision of Côté, J.A., was delivered at Edmonton, Alberta on June 7, 1991.