Mohr v Strathcona
| Jurisdiction | Alberta |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Alberta) |
| Judge | Thomas W. Wakeling |
| Citation | 2018 ABCA 441 |
| Docket Number | 1803-0175-AC |
| Date | 21 December 2018 |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
4 practice notes
-
Mohr v Strathcona (County)
...for its conclusion that ‘[t]he facility is consistent with the County’s Municipal Development Plan’?” (Mohr v Strathcona (County), 2018 ABCA 441 at para [3] To answer that question, it is necessary to address whether the proposed development might not have complied with the County’s 2017 Mu......
-
Stubicar v Calgary (Subdivision and Development Appeal Board)
...Reasonable chance of success has been described as “modest and relatively easy to meet”: Mohr v Strathcona (County), 2018 ABCA 441 at para 38. As stated in Legacy Inc v Red Deer (City), 2018 ABCA 393 at para 64, “[t]he applicant must simply demonstrate that a ground of ......
-
Urban v. Calgary (Subdivision and Development Appeal Board)
...easy to meet. The applicant must simply demonstrate that a ground of appeal is arguable, or not frivolous”: Mohr v Strathcona (County), 2018 ABCA 441 at para [6] The applicants seek permission to appeal on three questions: a) ......
-
Clarity Development Advisory v Edmonton (Subdivision and Development Appeal Board)
...v Calgary (Subdivision and Development Appeal Board), 2022 ABCA 299 at para 15, [2022] AJ No 1117 (QL); Mohr v Strathcona (County), 2018 ABCA 441, at para 38, 82 Alta LR (6th) [29]           I am satisfied on the record that is before me tha......
5 cases
-
Mohr v Strathcona (County), 2020 ABCA 187
...for its conclusion that ‘[t]he facility is consistent with the County’s Municipal Development Plan’?” (Mohr v Strathcona (County), 2018 ABCA 441 at para [3] To answer that question, it is necessary to address whether the proposed development might not have complied with the County’s 2017 Mu......
-
Stubicar v Calgary (Subdivision and Development Appeal Board), 2022 ABCA 299
...Reasonable chance of success has been described as “modest and relatively easy to meet”: Mohr v Strathcona (County), 2018 ABCA 441 at para 38. As stated in Legacy Inc v Red Deer (City), 2018 ABCA 393 at para 64, “[t]he applicant must simply demonstrate that a ground of ......
-
Urban v Calgary (Subdivision and Development Appeal Board)
...easy to meet. The applicant must simply demonstrate that a ground of appeal is arguable, or not frivolous”: Mohr v Strathcona (County), 2018 ABCA 441 at para IV. Analysis 6 The applicants seek permission to appeal on three questions: a) whether the SDAB erred in law by permitting the respon......
-
Clarity Development Advisory v Edmonton (Subdivision and Development Appeal Board)
...v Calgary (Subdivision and Development Appeal Board), 2022 ABCA 299 at para 15, [2022] AJ No 1117 (QL); Mohr v Strathcona (County), 2018 ABCA 441, at para 38, 82 Alta LR (6th) 29 I am satisfied on the record that is before me that the applicant's appeal is not frivolous. 30 For all of ......
Get Started for Free