Prouse v. Lands Appeal Bd., 2015 SKQB 66
|Court:||Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan|
|Case Date:||February 27, 2015|
|Citations:||2015 SKQB 66;(2015), 469 Sask.R. 212 (QB)|
Prouse v. Lands Appeal Bd. (2015), 469 Sask.R. 212 (QB)
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite:  Sask.R. TBEd. MR.045
Darrell Prouse, Charlene Prouse, Brittany Prouse and Buddy Prouse (appellants) v. The Lands Appeal Board and Clinton Holmes (respondents)
Darrell Prouse, Charlene Prouse, Brittany Prouse, and Buddy Prouse (appellants) v. The Lands Appeal Board and Whitesand Grazing Co-Operative Ltd. (respondents)
(2014 QBG No. 143; 2014 QBG No. 144; 2015 SKQB 66)
Indexed As: Prouse v. Lands Appeal Board (Sask.) et al.
Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench
Judicial Centre of Yorkton
February 27, 2015.
The Prouses operated a family farm. Their applications to lease two parcels of grazing land under the Provincial Lands Act were dismissed. Their appeals to the Lands Appeal Board were dismissed. The Prouses appealed.
The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal.
Administrative Law - Topic 6164
Judicial review - Statutory appeal - Grounds for review - Error of law - General - The Prouses operated a family farm - Their applications to lease two parcels of grazing land under the Provincial Lands Act were dismissed - Their appeals to the Lands Appeal Board were dismissed - The Prouses appealed, asserting that the allocation of the land by the Lands Branch and the Appeal Board was not in accordance with the Lands Branch's policy or guidelines - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal - An appeal under the Act was solely on a question of law - What the Prouses asserted was not a question of law, but a dispute on the facts and their application to the policy developed by the Lands Branch - The Minister's policy under the Act and its application were not reviewable on this appeal - Neither the policy nor the guidelines were legislative authority binding on the Lands Branch or the Appeal Board - The setting and application of the guidelines and policy were questions of fact for determination by those entities - In any event, the court was not in a position to calculate the allocation differently - Nor could the court say that material evidence had been disregarded or overlooked in the calculations - The Appeal Board determined that the calculations were done consistently with the current policy - There was no error in principle in the findings of fact such as to be considered an error of law - See paragraphs 52 to 84.
Administrative Law - Topic 6261
Judicial review - Statutory appeal - Record on appeal - General - The appellants appealed two decisions of the Lands Appeal Board under the Provincial Lands Act - At issue was the record on appeal, including "document #4", which was not part of the material before the Board, and the appellants' self-made recording of the appeal - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that both items were excluded from the record on appeal, stating, "The record on appeal should be exactly as its title suggests: a record of the material that was before the appeal body and which material is considered to be of assistance to this Court on appeal." - In the absence of an agreement that document #4 formed part of the Appeal Board's file, it was not part of the record - Regarding the recording, nothing confirmed its accuracy and completeness and nothing indicated that the appellants had permission to make the recording - Surreptitious recording of proceedings was specifically discouraged - See paragraphs 23 to 40.
Administrative Law - Topic 8203
Administrative powers - General - Ministerial guidelines - [See Administrative Law - Topic 6164 ].
Crown - Topic 685
Authority of ministers - Exercise of - Administrative or policy decisions - Appeals or judicial review - [See Administrative Law - Topic 6164 ].
Crown - Topic 6766
Crown lands - Leases - Agricultural leases - [See Administrative Law - Topic 6164 ].
Evidence - Topic 3688
Documentary evidence - Private documents - Photographs, movies, videotapes, etc. - Sound or tape recordings - [See Administrative Law - Topic 6261 ].
Daku v. Agriculture and Foods Lands Appeal Board (Sask.) et al. (1998), 165 Sask.R. 1 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 25].
Sweeten v. Sweeten,  B.C.T.C. Uned. E69; 1996 CanLII 2972 (S.C. Master), refd to. [para. 35].
Rawlek v. Rawlek,  B.C.T.C. 1466; 2003 BCSC 1466, refd to. [para. 35].
Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act v. Southam Inc. et al.,  1 S.C.R. 748; 209 N.R. 20, refd to. [para. 43].
Guy v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal (N.S.) et al. (2008), 261 N.S.R.(2d) 89; 835 A.P.R. 89; 2008 NSCA 1, refd to. [para. 64].
Toussaint v. Canada (Attorney General),  4 F.C.R. 367; 372 F.T.R. 63; 2010 FC 810, refd to. [para. 68].
Ainsley Financial Corp. et al. v. Ontario Securities Commission et al. (1994), 77 O.A.C. 155; 21 O.R.(3d) 104 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 69].
Canadian Federation of Students (B.C.) et al. v. Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority et al.,  2 S.C.R. 295; 389 N.R. 98; 272 B.C.A.C. 29; 459 W.A.C. 29; 2009 SCC 31, refd to. [para. 70].
British Columbia Component v. Canadian Federation of Students (Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority) - see Canadian Federation of Students (B.C.) et al. v. Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority et al.
Friends of the Oldman River Society v. Canada (Minister of Transport and Minister of Fisheries and Oceans),  1 S.C.R. 3; 132 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 71].
Maple Lodge Farms v. Canada (Minister of Economic Development),  2 S.C.R. 2; 44 N.R. 354, refd to. [para. 72].
P.S.S. Professional Salon Services Inc. v. Human Rights Commission (Sask.) et al. (2007), 302 Sask.R. 161; 411 W.A.C. 161; 2007 SKCA 149, refd to. [para. 81].
Troy A. Baril, for the appellants;
Tavengwa M. Runyowa, for the respondent, Whitesand Grazing Co-Operative Ltd.;
Nancy M. Drew, for the respondent, The Lands Appeal Board;
Ronald J. Balacko, Q.C., for the respondent, Clinton Holmes.
This appeal was heard by Megaw, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Yorkton, who delivered the following judgment on February 27, 2015.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP