Osman Auction Inc. v. Edmonton (City) et al., (2015) 602 A.R. 55

• Judge: Wakeling, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: March 24, 2015
• Citations: (2015), 602 A.R. 55;2015 ABCA 135

Osman Auction Inc. v. Edmonton (2015), 602 A.R. 55; 647 W.A.C. 55 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] A.R. TBEd. AP.066

Osman Auction Inc. (applicant) v. City of Edmonton (respondent) and Subdivision and Development Appeal Board of the City of Edmonton (respondent)

(1403-0280-AC; 2015 ABCA 135)

Indexed As: Osman Auction Inc. v. Edmonton (City) et al.

Alberta Court of Appeal

Wakeling, J.A.

April 14, 2015.

Summary:

A City of Edmonton development officer decided that Osman Auction Inc. was required to pay a proportionate a share of the installation costs of storm and sanitary sewers that would soon service the industrial area where it was located ($175,000). The Subdivision and Development Appeal Board confirmed the development officer's decision. Osman applied for leave to appeal pursuant to s. 688(3) of the Municipal Government Act.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Wakeling, J.A., allowed the application and granted leave.

Land Regulation - Topic 3239

Land use control - Building or development permits - Judicial review or appeals to courts - The Subdivision and Development Board confirmed a decision by a City of Edmonton development officer that Osman Auction Inc. had to pay a proportionate share of the installation costs of storm and sanitary sewers in the industrial area where it was located - Osman objected because it planned to use its own septic system - Osman applied for leave to appeal pursuant (Municipal Government Act (MGA), s. 688(3)) - Section 688(3) provided for appeals on questions of law of sufficient importance to merit a further appeal which had a reasonable chance of success - The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Wakeling, J.A., allowed the application and granted leave - The appeal involved the interpretation of two provisions of the MGA, which were questions of law of great importance to Osman, the City of Edmonton, et al. - Osman's position had sufficient merit and a reasonable change of success - There was an arguable point - The appeal was not frivolous.

Cases Noticed:

Carleo Investments Ltd. v. Strathcona (County) et al., [2014] A.R. Uned. 304; 2014 ABCA 302, refd to. [para. 30, footnote 9].

Edmonton (City) v. Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (Edmonton (City)) et al. (2014), 584 A.R. 248; 623 W.A.C. 248; 2014 ABCA 337, refd to. [para. 33, footnote 10].

Boychuk v. Edmonton Police Service et al., [2014] 8 W.W.R. 250; 575 A.R. 103; 612 W.A.C. 103 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34, footnote 11].

R. v. Govenlock (G.W.) (2015), 599 A.R. 316; 643 W.A.C. 316; 2015 ABCA 122, refd to. [para. 34, footnote 13].

Can v. Calgary Chief of Police et al. (2014), 584 A.R. 147; 623 W.A.C. 147; 315 C.C.C.(3d) 337; 2014 ABCA 322, refd to. [para. 34, footnote 14].

Guaranty Properties Ltd. v. Edmonton (City) (1999), 244 A.R. 367; 209 W.A.C. 367; 1999 ABCA 309, affing. (1998), 220 A.R. 223; 1998 ABQB 68, refd to. [para. 37, footnote 15].

Statutes Noticed:

Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-26, sect. 688(3) [para. 1].

Counsel:

J.H. Hockin, Q.C., for the applicant;

M.S. Gunther, for the respondent, City of Edmonton;

K.L. Hurlburt (no appearance) for the respondent, Subdivision and Development Appeal Board for the City of Edmonton.

This application for leave to appeal was heard in Edmonton, Alberta, on March 24, 2015, before Wakeling, J.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal, who delivered the following decision on April 14, 2015.