R. v. Stairs (M.), (1992) 126 N.B.R.(2d) 375 (TD)

• Judge: McLellan, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick (Canada)
• Case Date: June 19, 1992
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (1992), 126 N.B.R.(2d) 375 (TD)

R. v. Stairs (M.) (1992), 126 N.B.R.(2d) 375 (TD);

    126 R.N.-B.(2e) 375; 317 A.P.R. 375

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Michael Stairs (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(F/CR/1/92)

Indexed As: R. v. Stairs (M.)

New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench

Trial Division

Judicial District of Fredericton

McLellan, J.

June 25, 1992.

Summary:

Stairs was convicted in Provincial Court of storing commercial vehicles and equipment on a property in contravention of s. 9 of the New Maryland Zoning Regulation. He appealed.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 5660.8

Equality and protection of the law - Land use control - The permissible home occu­pations listed in s. 17 of the New Mary­land Zoning Regulation were white collar professional occupations - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, opined that the provision dis­criminated against blue collar occupations contrary to s. 15(1) of the Charter - See paragraphs 16 to 24.

Land Regulation - Topic 2610

Land use control - Zoning bylaws - En­actment and interpretation - Validity of zoning bylaw - Uncertainty - The zoning regulation of an unincorporated rural area authorized use of land for, inter alia, a home occupation - The regulation listed several permitted home occupations, sub­ject to a prohibition against storage of commercial vehicles and equipment except in a building - The operator of a small contracting business was denied a building permit for a storage building on the ground that his business was not permitted as a home occupation - He submitted that the regulation was vague and inconsistent and the list was not exhaustive - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, rejected the argument - See paragraphs 8 to 15.

Land Regulation - Topic 2610

Land use control - Zoning bylaws - En­actment and interpretation - Validity of zoning bylaw - Discrimination - [See Civil Rights - Topic 5660.8 ].

Land Regulation - Topic 2694

Land use control - Zoning bylaws - En­forcement - Delay - [See Limitation of Actions - Topic 1044 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 1044

Prosecutions - Laying of charge - When time begins to run - On December 7, a contractor was charged with storing com­mercial vehicles and equipment on his property on April 10 in contravention of the zoning bylaw under the Community Planning Act - He appealed his conviction on the basis of a six month limitation period in s. 95(3) of the Act - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, held that the charge was not out of time, where there was an appeal pend­ing in the case before the Provincial Planning Appeal Board (s. 95(4)) - See paragraphs 4 to 7.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Valley Forest Products Ltd. (1990), 110 N.B.R.(2d) 181; 276 A.P.R. 181 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Andrews v. Law Society of British Col­umbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 20].

Alcoholism Foundation of Manitoba v. Winnipeg, [1990] 6 W.W.R. 232; 65 Man.R.(2d) 81; 69 D.L.R.(4th) 697, refd to. [para. 23].

Riverpark South Residents Association Inc. v. Winnipeg, [1992] M.J. 154; 79 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 23].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 21]; sect. 15(1) [para. 3].

Community Planning Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. C-12, sect. 95 [para. 1]; sect. 95(2) [para. 6]; sect. 95(3), sect. 95(4) [para. 4].

Community Planning Act Regulations, New Maryland Zoning Regulation, Reg. 84-294, sect. 8(b)(ii) [para. 10]; sect. 9 [para. 1]; sect. 17(1) [para. 2]; sect. 17(2)(b), sect. 17(2)(f) [para. 11]; sect. 17(2)(g) [para. 12].

New Maryland Zoning Regulation - see Community Planning Act Regulations.

Counsel:

Robert W. MacPherson, for the appellant;

J.T. Keith McCormick, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on June 19, 1992, before McLellan, J., of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, Judicial District of Fredericton, who delivered the following judgment on June 25, 1992.