Oakwood Development Ltd. v. St. François Xavier (Rural Municipality), (1985) 61 N.R. 321 (SCC)

• Judge: McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson and Le Dain, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 16, 1984
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1985), 61 N.R. 321 (SCC);31 MPLR 1;20 DLR (4th) 641;18 Admin LR 59;37 RPR 101;JE 85-899;[1985] 6 WWR 147;[1985] ACS no 49;[1985] SCJ No 49 (QL);[1985] 2 SCR 164;1985 CanLII 50 (SCC);33 ACWS (2d) 3;61 NR 321;36 Man R (2d) 215

Oakwood Dev. v. St. François Xavier (1985), 61 N.R. 321 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Oakwood Development Ltd. v. Rural Municipality of St. François Xavier

Indexed As: Oakwood Development Ltd. v. St. François Xavier (Rural Municipality)

Supreme Court of Canada

McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson and Le Dain, JJ.

September 19, 1985.

Summary:

A land developer applied to a municipal council for approval of a subdivision plan. The municipal council denied the application. The land developer applied for a declaration that it was lawfully entitled to develop the land and for mandamus to require the council to hear and determine the application for subdivision. The Manitoba Court of Queens Bench, in a decision reported in 17 Man.R.(2d) 241, allowed the mandamus application but denied declaratory relief. The municipality appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal, in a decision reported in 17 Man.R.(2d) 241, allowed the appeal and dismissed the developer's action. The developer appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and granted the mandamus order requiring the municipality to reconsider the subdivision application, although for different reasons than the order was granted at trial.

Administrative Law - Topic 2145

Natural justice - Administrative decisions or findings - Failure to consider evidence - The Supreme Court of Canada adopted the position that the failure of an administrative decision maker to take into account a highly relevant consideration is just as erroneous as the improper importation of an extraneous consideration - See paragraph 15.

Administrative Law - Topic 3653

Judicial review - Mandamus - Municipalities - Subdivision approval - Granting of - A municipal council refused a land developer's subdivision application because it determined that the land was prone to flooding - The council refused to hear any information from the developer respecting the flooding problem - The developer sought an order of mandamus - In granting the order the Supreme Court of Canada held that the council's failure to take into account relevant factors, including how to remedy the flooding, was a failure by council to exercise its discretion in accordance with proper principles.

Land Regulation - Topic 2711

Land use control - Subdivision control - Subdivision applications - General - The Supreme Court of Canada reviewed the statutory framework respecting subdivision approval in Manitoba - See paragraphs 7 to 13.

Land Regulation - Topic 2714

Land use control - Subdivision control - Subdivision application - Relevant considerations - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a municipal council's concern over flooding was a relevant consideration in deciding whether to grant or withhold subdivision approval - The court also held that where flooding was relevant on a subdivision application, it was improper for council not to hear the applicant's information respecting the flooding problem.

Cases Noticed:

Simpson v. City of Vancouver, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 71; 7 N.R. 550, refd. to [para. 5].

Re Municipal Act (1959), 28 W.W.R.(N.S.) 428, refd. to [para. 7].

Westminster Corporation v. London & N.Y. Rwy., [1905] A.C. 426, refd. to [para. 14].

Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture, [1968] A.C. 997, refd. to [para. 15].

Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C. R. 121, refd. to [para. 15].

Baldwin & Francis Ltd. v. Patents Appeal Tribunal, [1959] A.C. 663, refd. to [para. 15].

R. v. Paddington Valuation Officer ex parte Peachey Property Corp. Ltd., [1966] 1 Q.B. 380 (C.A.), refd. to [para. 15].

Smith & Rhuland Ltd. v. R. ex rel. Brice Andrews, [1953] 2 S.C.R. 95, refd. to [para. 18].

Statutes Noticed:

Planning Act, S.M. 1975, c. 29; C.C. S.M., P. 80, sect. 1(a), sect. 1(q), sect. 60(1) [para. 8]; sect. 62(1) [para. 11].

Planning Act Regulations, Reg. 30/77, sect. 6(1) [para. 9]; sect. 7 [para. 11]; sect. 11 [para. 13].

Counsel:

Sidney Green, Q.C., for the appellant;

Richard Scott, Q.C., and Robert Adkins, for the respondent.

This case was heard on November 16, 1984, before McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson and LeDain, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The following decision of the Supreme Court of Canada was rendered by Wilson, J., on September 19, 1985: