Olson et al. v. Edmonton (City), (1977) 5 A.R. 44 (CA)

• Judge: McDermid, Clement and Haddad, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: June 24, 1977
• Citations: (1977), 5 A.R. 44 (CA)

Olson v. Edmonton (1977), 5 A.R. 44 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Olson et al. v. City of Edmonton

Indexed As: Olson et al. v. Edmonton (City)

Alberta Supreme Court

Appellate Division

McDermid, Clement and Haddad, JJ.A.

June 24, 1977.

Summary:

This case arose out of the issue of a development permit by the Development Officer of the City of Edmonton. The development permit was issued with respect to an 80 unit high- rise condominium. Pursuant to s. 128 of the Planning Act an aggrieved person filed an appeal from the decision of the Development Officer with the Development Appeal Board. However, the notice of appeal was filed one day late due in part to a misunderstanding between the aggrieved person and city officials. The Development Appeal Board made a preliminary finding that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal despite the late filing of the notice of appeal. The Development Appeal Board reversed the decision of the Development Officer to grant the development permit.

On appeal to the Alberta Court of Appeal the appeal was allowed and the decision of the Development Appeal Board was quashed. The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the Development Appeal Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because of the failure of the aggrieved person to file a notice of appeal within the time limit prescribed by s. 128 of the Planning Act.

Administrative Law - Topic 9125

Boards and tribunals - Administrative appeals - Jurisdiction on appeal, conditions precedent - Filing of a notice of appeal within the prescribed time - The Development Officer of the City of Edmonton issued a development permit for an 80 unit high-rise condominium - An "aggrieved person" filed a notice of appeal with the Development Appeal Board - The notice of appeal was filed one day late due in part to a misunderstanding between the aggrieved person and city officials - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the Development Appeal Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because of the failure of the aggrieved person to file a notice of appeal within the time limit prescribed by s. 128 of the Planning Act.

Cases Noticed:

Re Loblaws Ltd. and Ludlow Investments Ltd. (1975), 56 D.L.R.(3d) 329, dist. [para. 11].

Service Employees' International Union, Local No. 333 v. Nipawin District Staff Nurses Association of Nipawin et al. (1974), 41 D.L.R.(3d) 6, folld. [para. 13].

Statutes Noticed:

Planning Act, S.A. 1963, c. 43, sect. 128 [para. 3].

Counsel:

B. Vogel, for the appellant;

C.E. Frost, for the respondent.

The judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal was delivered by CLEMENT, J.A., at Edmonton, Alta., on June 24, 1977.