Miraculous Growth Investments Inc. et al. v. Safety Codes Council et al., 2011 ABCA 335

• Judge: McFadyen, McDonald and Bielby, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: October 07, 2011
• Citations: 2011 ABCA 335;(2011), 515 A.R. 209

Miraculous Growth Inv. Inc. v. Safety Codes Council (2011), 515 A.R. 209; 532 W.A.C. 209 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] A.R. TBEd. NO.112

Miraculous Growth Investments Inc. and Robert Meyer (appellants) v. Safety Codes Council (respondent) and The City of Edmonton (respondent)

(1003-0289-AC; 2011 ABCA 335)

Indexed As: Miraculous Growth Investments Inc. et al. v. Safety Codes Council et al.

Alberta Court of Appeal

McFadyen, McDonald and Bielby, JJ.A.

November 24, 2011.

Summary:

The applicant corporation owned a building in Edmonton commonly described as a semi- detached dwelling or duplex. Following an inspection of the building, a City of Edmonton Safety Codes Officer issued an order directing the applicants to cease using the building as a boarding and rooming house. On appeal, the Safety Codes Council issued an order varying the earlier order so as to require the applicants to return the building's occupancy from a rooming house to its original intended use and occupancy as a residential duplex building having not more than one single family use per duplex unit. The applicants appealed.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 503 A.R. 43, dismissed the appeal. The applicant appealed and applied to adduce fresh evidence on the appeal.

The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the application and the appeal.

Administrative Law - Topic 3221

Judicial review - General - Unreasonableness of decision attacked (incl. reasonableness simpliciter) - The applicant corporation owned a building in Edmonton commonly described as a semi-detached dwelling or duplex - Following an inspection of the building, a City of Edmonton Safety Codes Officer issued an order directing the applicants to cease using the building as a boarding and rooming house - On appeal, the Safety Codes Council issued an order varying the earlier order so as to require the applicants to return the building's occupancy from a rooming house to its original intended use and occupancy as a residential duplex building having not more than one single family use per duplex unit - The applicants appealed - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The Council made no error - The applicants had renovated the building, originally constructed as a residential duplex, before renting each of the 14 resulting bedrooms to unrelated tenants under separate leases - They did not obtain a permit for this change in occupancy of the building, as required by s. 6(1) of the Permit Regulation - Alberta's fire and building codes imposed different standards on residences used for single family purposes than on residences used by multiple individuals under separate tenancies - The safety codes officer issued her order after concluding that the use of this duplex contravened several of the codes' provisions - Those provisions would not have applied to the duplex had each side of it been used as a single family residence - While the Safety Codes Act and the codes did not expressly define the terms "single family use" or "rooming house", the Council did not err in concluding that the duplex was not being used as two "single family" residences - Municipal zoning or planning bylaws which mandated the maximum number of related or unrelated persons who could occupy certain types of residences did not excuse breaches of the codes - Any conflict between municipal bylaws and the codes had to be resolved in favour of the provisions of the codes - See paragraphs 22 to 34.

Land Regulation - Topic 2003

Land use control - General principles - Application of legislation - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3221 ].

Land Regulation - Topic 3206

Land use control - Building or development permits - Policies, guidelines, codes, circulars, etc. - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3221 ].

Cases Noticed:

Dr. Q., Re, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226; 302 N.R. 34; 179 B.C.A.C. 170; 295 W.A.C. 170; 2003 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 13].

Tirion Properties Ltd. et al. v. Safety Codes Council, [2008] A.R. Uned. 577; 2008 ABQB 549, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Palmer, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759; 30 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 15].

Conseil de la magistrature (N.-B.) v. Moreau-Bérubé, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 249; 281 N.R. 201; 245 N.B.R.(2d) 201; 636 A.P.R. 201; 2002 SCC 11, refd to. [para. 19].

Moreau-Bérubé v. New Brunswick (Judicial Council) - see Conseil de la magistrature (N.-B.) v. Moreau-Bérubé.

Mattel Inc. v. 3894207 Canada Inc. et al. (2006), 348 N.R. 340; 2006 SCC 22, refd to. [para. 20].

Counsel:

T.D. Marriott, for the respondent, Safety Codes Council;

M.D. Teeling, for the respondent, The City of Edmonton;

Robert Meyer, the appellant, appeared in person.

This application and appeal were heard on October 7, 2011, by McFadyen, McDonald and Bielby, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The following memorandum of judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered on November 24, 2011.