Pilot Butte (Town) v. Aaron Enterprises Inc., 2016 SKCA 36

JudgeJackson, Herauf and Whitmore, JJ.A.
CourtCourt of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
Case DateDecember 10, 2015
JurisdictionSaskatchewan
Citations2016 SKCA 36;(2016), 476 Sask.R. 174 (CA)

Pilot Butte v. Aaron Ent. Inc. (2016), 476 Sask.R. 174 (CA);

    666 W.A.C. 174

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] Sask.R. TBEd. MR.036

Town of Pilot Butte (appellant) v. Aaron Enterprises Inc. (respondent)

(CACV2605; 2016 SKCA 36)

Indexed As: Pilot Butte (Town) v. Aaron Enterprises Inc.

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Jackson, Herauf and Whitmore, JJ.A.

March 17, 2016.

Summary:

Aaron Enterprises Inc. sought to develop a subdivision on land in the Town of Pilot Butte. In accordance with the Planning and Development Act, the Town proposed a servicing agreement that would require Aaron to pay servicing fees ranging from $181,075 to $190,618 per hectare. Aaron refused to execute the agreement and applied to have the Saskatchewan Municipal Board set the amount and timing of payment of the servicing fee. The Board held that $96,480 per hectare was a reasonable servicing fee, and that 50% should be paid upon approval of the subdivision and the other 50% 180 days later. The Town appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Municipal Law - Topic 1422

Powers of municipalities - Respecting land - Development or redevelopment of - [See Municipal Law - Topic 1662 ].

Municipal Law - Topic 1483

Powers of municipalities - Particular powers - Imposition and collection of taxes or fees - [See Municipal Law - Topic 1662 ].

Municipal Law - Topic 1662

Powers of municipalities - Statutory appeals from exercise of powers - Jurisdiction of appeal board - Aaron Enterprises Inc. sought to develop a subdivision on land in the Town of Pilot Butte - The Town proposed a servicing agreement that would require Aaron to pay servicing fees ranging from $181,075 to $190,618 per hectare - Aaron refused to execute the agreement and applied to have the Saskatchewan Municipal Board set the amount and timing of payment of the servicing fee - The Board held that $96,480 per hectare was a reasonable servicing fee, and that 50% should be paid upon approval of the subdivision and the other 50% 180 days later - The Town appealed, arguing that the Board did not have jurisdiction to alter, vary or impose a servicing fee different than that calculated by the Town under the Planning and Development Act - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - Section 176(4)(b) of the Act dealt with appeals where there was no servicing agreement in place and stated that a party could apply to the Board for a decision respecting "the proposed terms and conditions" of the agreement - Section 176(3) dealt with appeals where there was a servicing agreement in place and specifically stated that the Board could vary the fee requested by the Town - If the Board could vary fees under s. 176(3), it would be absurd if it could not fix them under s. 176(4) - It was also within the Board's authority to impose a time limit for the payment of fees - Section 176(4) represented a legislative check on the discretion of municipal councils.

Municipal Law - Topic 2142

Municipal taxation or levies - Development charges - Time for imposition or payment - [See Municipal Law - Topic 1662 ].

Municipal Law - Topic 2143

Municipal taxation or levies - Development charges - Authority to impose - [See Municipal Law - Topic 1662 ].

Municipal Law - Topic 2146

Municipal taxation or levies - Development charges - Statutory appeal, judicial review or action - [See Municipal Law - Topic 1662 ].

Counsel:

Jeff Grubb, Q.C., and Andrea Johnson, for the appellant;

Randall Sandbeck, Q.C., and Jenna Kraushaar, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on December 10, 2015, before Jackson, Herauf and Whitmore, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. Herauf, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the court on March 17, 2016.

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • Risseeuw v SK College of Psychologists, 2017 SKQB 8
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
    • January 11, 2017
    ...is widely known and accepted. See: Re Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd, [1998] 1 SCR 27; Pilot Butte (Town) v Aaron Enterprises Inc., 2016 SKCA 36, 398 DLR (4th) 566; and v Saskatchewan Government Insurance, 2015 SKCA 38, 457 Sask R 254. In Ballantyne, this was said: [19] The leading case with r......
1 cases
  • Risseeuw v SK College of Psychologists, 2017 SKQB 8
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
    • January 11, 2017
    ...is widely known and accepted. See: Re Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd, [1998] 1 SCR 27; Pilot Butte (Town) v Aaron Enterprises Inc., 2016 SKCA 36, 398 DLR (4th) 566; and v Saskatchewan Government Insurance, 2015 SKCA 38, 457 Sask R 254. In Ballantyne, this was said: [19] The leading case with r......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT