Pine Falls Development Corp. v. Alexander (Rural Municipality), 2014 MBQB 163

• Judge: Clearwater, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: August 07, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: 2014 MBQB 163;(2014), 309 Man.R.(2d) 43 (QB)

Pine Falls Dev. v. Alexander (2014), 309 Man.R.(2d) 43 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. AU.019

Pine Falls Development Corporation (plaintiff) v. Rural Municipality of Alexander (defendant)

(CI 11-01-75451; 2014 MBQB 163)

Indexed As: Pine Falls Development Corp. v. Alexander (Rural Municipality)

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Winnipeg Centre

Clearwater, J.

August 7, 2014.

Summary:

Tembec Inc. planned to close a pulp and paper mill. Manitoba Conservation approved Tembec's closure plan and granted an operating permit. Tembec sold the mill complex and its approved waste disposal lands to the plaintiff, a "brownfield redeveloper", assigning the closure plan and operating permit to it. The defendant rural municipality issued a stop work order (the OTR), halting the mill's demolition and the deposit of demolition waste. The plaintiff's action alleged that the OTR was illegal. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench granted the motion, quashing the OTR.

Practice - Topic 5702

Judgments and orders - Summary judgments - Jurisdiction or when available or when appropriate - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench reviewed the law regarding summary judgment, concluding, "As provided in Queen's Bench Rule 20.03(4), if I were to decide that there is a genuine issue with respect to a claim or a defence, I may nevertheless grant judgment in favour of either party on either the issue or generally, unless, on the whole of the evidence before me, I am either unable to find the facts necessary to decide the questions of fact or law, or it would not be just to decide the issues on the motion." - See paragraphs 16 to 19.

Practice - Topic 5702

Judgments and orders - Summary judgments - Jurisdiction or when available or when appropriate - Tembec Inc. planned to close a pulp and paper mill - Manitoba Conservation approved Tembec's closure plan and granted an operating permit - Tembec sold the mill complex and its approved waste disposal lands to the plaintiff, a "brownfield redeveloper", assigning the closure plan and operating permit to it - The defendant rural municipality issued a stop work order (the OTR), halting the mill's demolition and the deposit of demolition waste - The plaintiff's action alleged that the OTR was illegal - The plaintiff sought summary judgment to quash the OTR - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held that the matter was suitable for summary judgment - There was no genuine dispute as to the facts established relevant to the issues of jurisdiction and control of the ongoing operation of the private waste disposal sites - To the extent that there might be a triable issue as to whether the approved closure plan constituted an intensification of use to such an extent that it became unlawful, this could be determined on the evidence that was led - See paragraphs 20 to 24.

Land Regulation - Topic 2803

Land use control - Exemptions - Nonconforming use - Change of - [See Municipal Law - Topic 1430 ].

Land Regulation - Topic 2804

Land use control - Exemptions - Nonconforming use - Scope of exemption - [See Municipal Law - Topic 1430 ].

Land Regulation - Topic 2865

Land use control - Exemptions - Loss of exemption - Change or discontinuance of use - Change of use - [See Municipal Law - Topic 1430 ].

Municipal Law - Topic 1430

Powers of municipalities - Respecting land - Land use - Tembec Inc. planned to close a pulp and paper mill - Manitoba Conservation approved Tembec's closure plan and granted an operating permit - Tembec sold the mill complex and its approved waste disposal lands to the plaintiff, a "brownfield redeveloper", assigning the closure plan and operating permit to it - The defendant rural municipality issued a stop work order (the OTR), halting the mill's demolition and the deposit of demolition waste - The plaintiff's action alleged that the OTR was illegal - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, quashing the OTR - The private waste disposal site was regulated by Manitoba Conservation - Manitoba Conservation's issuance of permits created a lawful use of the lands - That use was not deemed to have ceased because the mill was no longer operative - To interpret the legislation as suggested by the defendant would unlawfully interfere with the plaintiff's vested rights - Section 93 of the Planning Act supported land owners' rights to maintain their valid acquired rights to the use and intensity of use of their lands - Manitoba did not intend to deprive land owners of their acquired rights - The existing use of the lands was not materially changed by a one-time increase in the nature and type of waste arising from the mill's demolition - The deposits were not an "intensification" of the existing use or "too remote" from the initial activities so as to lose the protections of the lawful non-conforming use - The site's purpose remained the same - The closure was a "reasonable evolution" - Ongoing monitoring was Manitoba Conservation's responsibility - The OTR was ultra vires the defendant's jurisdiction - See paragraphs 25 to 52.

Pollution Control - Topic 8066

Land - Waste disposal - General - Authority - Jurisdiction - [See Municipal Law - Topic 1430 ].

Statutes - Topic 2263

Interpretation - Presumptions and rules in aid - Against interference with vested rights - [See Municipal Law - Topic 1430 ].

Cases Noticed:

Homestead Properties (Canada) Ltd. v. Sekhri et al. (2007), 214 Man.R.(2d) 148; 395 W.A.C. 148; 2007 MBCA 61, appld. [para. 16].

Atlas Acceptance Corp. et al. v. Lakeview Development of Canada Ltd. et al. (1991), 74 Man.R.(2d) 276 (Q.B.), affd. (1992), 78 Man.R.(2d) 161; 16 W.A.C. 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Puolitaipale Estate et al. v. Grace General Hospital et al. (2002), 170 Man.R.(2d) 32; 285 W.A.C. 32; 2002 MBCA 147, refd to. [para. 17].

Hryniak v. Mauldin (2014), 453 N.R. 51; 314 O.A.C. 1; 366 D.L.R.(4th) 641; 2014 SCC 7, appld. [para. 19].

Saint-Romuald (Ville) v. Olivier et al., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 898; 275 N.R. 1; 2001 SCC 57, appld. [para. 34].

Heutinck v. Oakland (Township) (1997), 105 O.A.C. 364; 42 M.P.L.R.(2d) 258 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

Morgan v. Thiessen (2012), 278 Man.R.(2d) 292; 2012 MBQB 151, affd. (2013), 288 Man.R.(2d) 158; 564 W.A.C. 158; 2013 MBCA 6, refd to. [Schedule B].

Danylchuk et al. v. Wolinsky et al. (2007), 225 Man.R.(2d) 2; 419 W.A.C. 2; 2007 MBCA 132, refd to. [Schedule B].

Canusa Medexpress Ltd. v. 4624450 Manitoba Ltd. et al., [2005] Man.R.(2d) Uned. 113; 39 R.P.R.(4th) 133; 2005 MBQB 302, refd to. [Schedule B].

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Derksen Brothers Holdings Ltd. et al. (1995), 100 Man.R.(2d) 224; 91 W.A.C. 224 (C.A.), refd to. [Schedule B].

St. Clements (Rural Municipality) v. Zucawich (2013), 294 Man.R.(2d) 146; 581 W.A.C. 146; 2013 MBCA 65, refd to. [Schedule B].

Perchaluk v. Roblin (Town) (2010), 257 Man.R.(2d) 284; 2010 MBQB 238, refd to. [Schedule B].

Denos Pawn and Sales Ltd. et al. v. Winnipeg (City) (2007), 221 Man.R.(2d) 262; 2007 MBQB 256, refd to. [Schedule B].

Lanty v. Ontario (Minister of Natural Resources), [2006] O.T.C. 47; 89 L.C.R. 161 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [Schedule B].

Tymkin v. Ewatski et al. (2003), 176 Man.R.(2d) 165; 2003 MBQB 164, refd to. [Schedule B].

Annapolis County (Municipality) v. Hankinson et al. (2002), 205 N.S.R.(2d) 304; 643 A.P.R. 304; 30 M.P.L.R.(3d) 246; 2002 NSSC 149, refd to. [Schedule B].

R. v. Consolidated Maybrun Mines Ltd. et al., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 706; 225 N.R. 41; 108 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [Schedule B].

Klassen v. Morden Hospital District No. 21 et al. (1992), 80 Man.R.(2d) 195 (Q.B.), refd to. [Schedule B].

Ecclesiastical Insurance Office v. Michaud, [2008] Man.R.(2d) Uned. 80; 304 D.L.R.(4th) 245; 2008 MBCA 129, refd to. [Schedule B].

Chaves et al. v. Shum et al. (2004), 184 Man.R.(2d) 164; 318 W.A.C. 164; 2004 MBCA 56, refd to. [Schedule B].

Bird Construction Co. v. Theo C. Ltd. et al., [2004] Man.R.(2d) Uned. 104; 2004 MBQB 212, refd to. [Schedule B].

Blanco et al. v. Canada Trust Co. et al. (2003), 173 Man.R.(2d) 247; 293 W.A.C. 247; 2003 MBCA 64, refd to. [Schedule B].

Pearson v. Plester et al. (1995), 100 Man.R.(2d) 162; 91 W.A.C. 162 (C.A.), refd to. [Schedule B].

Fouillard v. Ellice (Rural Municipality) (2007), 220 Man.R.(2d) 113; 407 W.A.C. 113; 2007 MBCA 108, refd to. [Schedule B].

4500911 Manitoba Ltd. v. Stuartburn (Rural Municipality) (2003), 177 Man.R.(2d) 313; 304 W.A.C. 313; 2003 MBCA 122, refd to. [Schedule B].

4310845 Manitoba Ltd. v. Morris (Rural Municipality) (2001), 161 Man.R.(2d) 202; 2001 MBQB 333, refd to. [Schedule B].

Halifax (Regional Municipality) v. Dunphy et al. (2001), 191 N.S.R.(2d) 394; 596 A.P.R. 394; 16 M.P.L.R.(3d) 166; 2001 NSSC 11, refd to. [Schedule B].

Langley (Township) v. Wood (1999), 126 B.C.A.C. 136; 206 W.A.C. 136; 173 D.L.R.(4th) 695; 1999 BCCA 260, refd to. [Schedule B].

Communities Economic Development Fund v. 5250821 Manitoba Ltd. et al. (2011), 269 Man.R.(2d) 35; 2011 MBQB 193, refd to. [Schedule B].

TDL Group Corp., Re (2009), 67 M.P.L.R.(4th) 40 (Ont. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [Schedule B].

Forbes v. Caledon (Town), [2009] O.T.C. Uned. 508; 57 M.P.L.R.(4th) 19 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [Schedule B].

Ottawa (City) v. Capital Parking Inc. (2002), 158 O.A.C. 174; 59 O.R.(3d) 327 (C.A.), refd to. [Schedule B].

Boykiw v. Development Appeal Board (Calgary) and Calgary (City) (1992), 127 A.R. 380; 20 W.A.C. 380; 90 D.L.R.(4th) 558 (C.A.), refd to. [Schedule B].

Statutes Noticed:

Planning Act, S.M. 2005, c. 30; C.C.S.M., c. P-80, sect. 93 [para. 34].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Cherniak, Jason, Legal Non-Conforming Uses After Saint-Romuald: A Response, http://cherniaklawyer.com/articles/legal-non-conforming-uses-afte.html, generally [Schedule B].

Madigan, Brian, Legal Non-Conforming Use, www.OntarioRealEstateSource.com, generally [Schedule B].

Polowin, Michael and Gafni, Elad, The Evolution of Legal Non-Conforming Rights (2010), 4 D.M.P.L.(2d), Issue 13 [Schedule B].

Rogers, Ian MacFee, The Law of Canadian Municipal Corporations (2nd Ed. 2009), vol. 2, c. XVII, pp. 769 to 832.98; vol. 3, p. WP-157 [Schedule B].

Sullivan, Ruth, Dreidger on The Construction of Statutes (3rd Ed. 1994), p. 186 [Schedule B].

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes (5th Ed. 2008), c. 24, pp. 711 [para. 31, Schedule B]; 712 [Schedule B].

Wood, Dennis H., and Myers, Johanna, Legal Non-Conforming Uses Under the Planning Act (2006), generally [Schedule B].

Counsel:

David G. Boghosian and Laura M. Day, for the plaintiff;

Christian L. Monnin, for the defendant.

This motion was heard by Clearwater, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Centre, who delivered the following judgment on August 7, 2014.