L. Letourneau Homes Ltd. v. Edmonton (City), (1976) 5 A.R. 138 (CA)

JudgeMcDermid, Prowse and Moir, JJ.A.
CourtCourt of Appeal (Alberta)
Case DateNovember 26, 1976
Citations(1976), 5 A.R. 138 (CA)

Letourneau Homes Ltd. v. Edmonton (1976), 5 A.R. 138 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

L. Letourneau Homes Ltd. v. City of Edmonton

Indexed As: L. Letourneau Homes Ltd. v. Edmonton (City)

Alberta Supreme Court

Appellate Division

McDermid, Prowse and Moir, JJ.A.

November 26, 1976.

Summary:

This case arose out of the applicant's application to the City of Edmonton for a certificate approving the conversion of an apartment building into a condominium under the Condominium Property Act, R.S.A. 1970, c. 62, s. 8. The City refused to grant the certificate on the ground that the property had insufficient parking space and would consequently "interfere with the existing or likely future amenity of the neighbourhood, having regard to the circumstances of the case and the public interest" within the meaning of s. 8(2)(c). The applicant applied for an order in the nature of mandamus requiring the City to issue the certificate. The Alberta Supreme Court dismissed the application. The applicant appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and directed the City to issue the certificate. The Court of Appeal held that parking facilities were not a relevant consideration respecting the "amenity of the neighbourhood" in the granting of a certificate of approval by a municipality, where the condominium plan complied with parking bylaw requirements - see paragraphs 21 to 35.

McDermid, J.A., dissenting, was of the opinion that the proposed condominium was required to comply with the existing parking bylaw which it did not, although the building when constructed complied with the then existing requirements - see paragraphs 1 to 14.

Land Regulation - Topic 3201

Land use control - Building or development permits - Development defined - Planning Act, R.S.A. 1970, c. 276, s. 2(f) - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the conversion of an existing apartment building into a condominium was not a development within the meaning of s. 2(f) of the Planning Act - The Court of Appeal held that increased restrictions respecting parking imposed since the building was constructed were inapplicable to the change from an apartment building to a condominium, since the change did not require a development permit - See paragraphs 22 to 31.

Land Regulation - Topic 3846

Land use control - Condominiums - Condominium plan - Approval of - Relevant considerations - Approval by municipality - Condominium Property Act, R.S.A. 1970, c. 62, s. 8(2)(c) - Parking - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that parking facilities were not a relevant consideration respecting the "amenity of the neighbourhood" in the granting of an approval by a municipality for a condominium plan, where the condominium complied with the existing parking bylaw - See paragraphs 21 to 35 - McDermid, J.A., set out the standard to be used by a municipality in considering the "amenity of the neighbourhood" and the public interest within the meaning of s. 8(2)(c) - See paragraphs 14 to 19.

Practice - Topic 9260

Appeals - Judgments by appeal court - Operation and effect - Judgment on appeal to take effect from date of decision appealed from - The City of Edmonton refused to approve the applicant's condominium plan in June, 1975 - In December, 1975, statutory restrictions were placed on the approval of condominium plans - In November, 1976, the Alberta Court of Appeal held that the City of Edmonton should have approved the plan in June, 1974 - The Court of Appeal held that the approval should be directed to be issued, notwithstanding the intervening statutory restrictions -See paragraphs 36 to 39.

Cases Noticed:

Steadman v. Steadman, [1974] 2 All E.R. 977, consd. [para. 16].

Robinson v. Minister of Town and Country Planning, [1947] K.B.D. 724, consd. [para. 19].

Statutes Noticed:

Condominium Property Act, R.S.A. 1970, c. 62(8) [paras. 2, 24].

Planning Act, R.S.A. 1970, c. 276, sect. 2(f) [para. 28]; sect. 121(1) [para. 29]; sect. 134 [para. 34].

Temporary Rent Regulation Measures Act, S.A. 1975, c. 84, sect. 37(2), sect. 37(3), sect. 37(4) [para. 36].

Counsel:

D.E. Grossman, for the appellant;

H.F. Wilson, for the respondents.

This case was heard before McDERMID, PROWSE and MOIR, JJ.A., of the Alberta Supreme Court, Appellate Division.

On November 26, 1976, the judgment of the Appellate Division was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

McDERMID, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 1 to 20;

PROWSE, J.A. - see paragraphs 21 to 40.

MOIR, J.A., concurred with PROWSE, J.A.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT