Okotoks (Town) v. Foothills No. 31 (Municipal District) et al., 2012 ABQB 53

• Judge: McMahon, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: January 17, 2012
• Citations: 2012 ABQB 53;(2012), 532 A.R. 237 (QB)

Okotoks v. Foothills No. 31 (2012), 532 A.R. 237 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] A.R. TBEd. FE.032

Town of Okotoks (applicant) v. Municipal District of Foothills No. 31 and Alberta Foothills Properties Ltd. (respondent)

(1101 07464; 2012 ABQB 53)

Indexed As: Okotoks (Town) v. Foothills No. 31 (Municipal District) et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

McMahon, J.

January 23, 2012.

Summary:

The Town of Okotoks applied for a declaration that a bylaw of the Municipal District of Foothills No. 31 was invalid and void pursuant to s. 536 of the Municipal Government Act.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 8023

Actions against municipalities - Applicability of limitation period - Challenging bylaws - The Town of Okotoks applied for a declaration that a bylaw of the Municipal District of Foothills No. 31 was invalid and void pursuant to s. 536 of the Municipal Government Act - The respondents asserted that Okotoks was out of time in bringing the application based on the 60 day limitation in s. 537 of the Act and the six month limitation in rule 3.15(2) of the Alberta Rules of Court - Okotoks argued that s. 537 of the Act was limited to appeals on procedural issues and not substantive issues such as the validity or legality of a bylaw - Okotoks also argued that rule 3.15 was inapplicable - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - The relief sought by Okotoks was time-barred by rule 3.15(2) - Section 537 dealt solely with procedural issues - The only procedural issue raised by Okotoks here related to the in-camera meeting between the respondents after the public hearing and before final passage of the bylaw - The result was that s. 537 did not bar the remaining issues.

Municipal Law - Topic 3890

Bylaws - Quashing bylaws - Judicial review - Practice - Limitation period - [See Limitation of Actions - Topic 8023 ].

Cases Noticed:

Barker v. Palmer (2005), 389 A.R. 10; 2005 ABQB 815, refd to. [para. 14].

Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation v. Alberta (Minister of Energy) et al. (2011), 505 A.R. 72; 522 W.A.C. 72; 2011 ABCA 29, refd to. [para. 18].

Urban Development Institute v. Rockyview No. 44 (Municipal District) (2002), 321 A.R. 253; 2002 ABQB 651, refd to. [para. 23].

United Taxi Drivers' Fellowship of Southern Alberta et al. v. Calgary (City), [2002] 8 W.W.R. 51; 303 A.R. 249; 273 W.A.C. 249 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Associated Cab Limousine Ltd. v. Calgary (City) (2003), 339 A.R. 159; 312 W.A.C. 159; 2003 ABCA 215, refd to. [para. 24].

Love et al. v. Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (Flagstaff (County) (2002), 317 A.R. 261; 284 W.A.C. 261; 2002 ABCA 292, refd to. [para. 34].

Statutes Noticed:

Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-26, sect. 537 [para. 14].

Counsel:

Gilbert J. Ludwig (Wilson Laycraft) and Frederick A. Laux, Q.C., (Shores Jardine LLP), for the applicant;

Joanne Klauer (MacPherson Leslie & Tyerman LLP), for the respondent, Municipal District of Foothills No. 31;

K. Hugh Ham and Jennifer Sykes (Municipal Counsellors), for the respondent, Alberta Foothills Properties Ltd.

This application was heard on January 17, 2012, by McMahon, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following memorandum of decision on January 23, 2012.