Melcor Developments Ltd. v. Edmonton (City) and Development Officer of City of Edmonton, (1982) 37 A.R. 532 (QB)

• Judge: Crossley, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: April 28, 1982
• Citations: (1982), 37 A.R. 532 (QB)

Melcor Dev. Ltd. v. Edmonton (1982), 37 A.R. 532 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Melcor Developments Ltd. v. Edmonton, City of and Development Officer of the City of Edmonton

(No. 8003 29756)

Indexed As: Melcor Developments Ltd. v. Edmonton (City) and Development Officer of City of Edmonton

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Crossley, J.

April 28, 1982

Summary:

The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for a declaration and an order of mandamus with respect to matters in relation to a development agreement. The defendants made submissions to strike out the plaintiff's statement of claim. The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the action.

Estoppel - Topic 387

Estoppel by record - Res judicata - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Matters or claims available in prior proceedings - The plaintiff brought an action against the defendants respecting a development agreement - The plaintiff brought a previous action against the defendant with respect to the same agreement which the court adjudicated on - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the second action, because issues raised in the action could have been raised and determined in the first action - See paragraph 17.

Administrative Law - Topic 3586

Judicial review - Mandamus - Bars - Existence of alternate remedy - The plaintiff brought an action against the defendants for an order of mandamus with respect of matters in relation to a development agreement - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the action - The court held that mandamus was not the appropriate remedy, because of the existence of alternate remedies under ss. 83, 152 and 153 of the Planning Act, S.A. 1977, and in the development agreement - See paragraphs 7 to 10.

Administrative Law - Topic 4562

Judicial review - Declaratory actions - Bars - Existence of alternate remedy - The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for a declaration with respect to matters in relation to a developed agreement - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the action - The court held that a declaration was not the appropriate remedy, because of the existence of alternate remedies under ss. 83, 152 and 153 of the Planning Act, S.A. 1977, and in the development agreement - See paragraphs 7 to 10.

Cases Noticed:

Re Chad Investments (1971), 20 D.L.R.(3d) 67 (Alta. C.A.), consd. [para. 8].

North American Montessori Academy v. Development Appeal Board of Edmonton (1977), 7 A.R. 39 (Alta. C.A.), consd. [para. 8].

Re Harelkin and the University of Regina, [1979] 3 W.W.R.(N.S.) 676; 26 N.R. 364, consd. [para. 8].

Henderson v. Henderson (1843), 67 E.R. 313, consd. [para. 13].

Doering v. Town of Grandview, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 621; 7 N.R. 299 consd. [para. 15].

Athabasca Realty Company Limited v. Foster et al., 14 Alta. L.R.(2d) 383, consd. [para. 15].

Statutes Noticed:

Planning Act, S.A. 1977, sect. 83, sect. 152, sect. 153 [para. 8].

Counsel:

J.N. Agrios, Q.C., and K. Wakefield, for the plaintiff;

F.A. Laux, L.B. Chrzanowski, for the defendants.

This case was heard before CROSSLEY, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on April 28, 1982.