Kindersley (Town) v. McTaggart, 2000 SKQB 130

• Judge: Baynton, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: March 24, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2000 SKQB 130;(2000), 192 Sask.R. 268 (QB)

Kindersley v. McTaggart (2000), 192 Sask.R. 268 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] Sask.R. TBEd. MY.007

Town of Kindersley (applicant) v. Bob McTaggart (respondent)

(2000 Q.B. No. 245; 2000 SKQB 130)

Indexed As: Kindersley (Town) v. McTaggart

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Baynton, J.

March 24, 2000.

Summary:

The Town of Kindersley applied for a declaration that: (a) the petition for bylaw presented to council by the respondent pur­suant to s. 88(1) of the Urban Municipality Act requested a bylaw that was not within council's jurisdiction; and (b) the bylaw was not capable of amendment to make its intent clear pursuant to s. 88(1.1) of the Act.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the subject matter of the requested bylaw was within the jurisdiction of the Town. However, the court held that the requested bylaw was not capable of amend­ment to make its intent clear.

Municipal Law - Topic 3502

Bylaws - Voting on bylaws by electors - Petition for - Validity of - The respondent presented a petition for bylaw to the coun­cil of the Town of Kindersley pursuant to s. 88(1) of the Urban Municipality Act - The petition requested a bylaw which would prevent council from raising taxes, fees or rates or creating new fees unless approved by the majority of electors in a referendum - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the subject matter of the requested bylaw was within the Town's jurisdiction - However, the court held that the requested bylaw was not capable of amendment to make its intent clear pursuant to s. 88(1.1) - If a request for a bylaw lacked sufficient particulars so that council would be required to fill in gaps in order to put a bylaw to the elec­tors, then that request was not a legal request pursuant to s. 88 and council was not required to act on it.

Cases Noticed:

Cholod et al. v. Regina (City), [1976] 2 S.C.R. 484; 6 N.R. 525, refd to. [para. 10].

Leugner v. Moose Jaw (City), [1988] S.J. No. 532 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 10].

Valley View Heritage Association Inc. et al. v. Estevan (City) et al. (No. 1) (1989), 81 Sask.R. 81 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 10].

Brown et al. v. Calgary (City) et al. (1980), 22 A.R. 148; 110 D.L.R.(3d) 465 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Statutes Noticed:

Urban Municipality Act, S.S. 1983-84, c. U-11, sect. 88 [para. 11].

Counsel:

R.J. Ard, for the applicant;

S.L. Thair, for the respondent.

This application was heard before Baynton, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following fiat on March 24, 2000.