Taylor et al. v. Registrar of South Alberta Land Registration District et al., 2005 ABCA 200

• Judge: O'Leary, Russell and Hunt, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: June 16, 2004
• Citations: 2005 ABCA 200;(2005), 367 A.R. 73 (CA)

Taylor v. Alta. Land Registration (2005), 367 A.R. 73 (CA);

    346 W.A.C. 73

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] A.R. TBEd. JN.073

Faron Taylor, Mike Marshall and Archie Bushfield (appellants/petitioners) v. The Registrar of South Alberta Land Registration District, Airdrie Airpark Ltd., and Condominium Corporation No. 0111530 (respondents/respondents)

(0301-0314-AC; 2005 ABCA 200)

Indexed As: Taylor et al. v. Registrar of South Alberta Land Registration District et al.

Alberta Court of Appeal

O'Leary, Russell and Hunt, JJ.A.

June 16, 2005.

Summary:

The Registrar of the South Alberta Land Registration District registered a condominium plan of lands owned by the respondent airport. The plan had been approved by Transport Canada pursuant to the Aeronautics Act. The petitioners applied to have the registration quashed, arguing that the subdivision approval had to be given by the Municipality, as required by the Municipal Government Act.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 342 A.R. 332, dismissed the application. The petitioners appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, Hunt, J.A., dissenting, allowed the appeal and directed the Registrar to cancel the registration of the condominium plan.

Constitutional Law - Topic 1017

Interpretation of Constitution Act - General principles - Laches - The Registrar of the South Alberta Land Registration District registered a condominium plan of lands owned by the respondent airport - The plan had been approved by Transport Canada pursuant to the Aeronautics Act - The petitioners applied to have the registration quashed, arguing that the subdivision approval had to be given by the Municipality, as required by the Municipal Government Act - The respondents argued that if the federal government did not have exclusive jurisdiction, they were entitled to rely on the defence of laches - The Alberta Court of Appeal directed the Registrar to cancel the registration of the condominium plan - The court rejected the defence of laches - The doctrine of laches did not apply in a constitutional division of powers case - Exclusive jurisdiction to approve the condominium plan could not be conferred on the federal government through the operation of the doctrine of laches - See paragraphs 60 to 65.

Constitutional Law - Topic 2511

Determination of validity of statutes or acts - General principles - Interjurisdictional immunity - The Registrar of the South Alberta Land Registration District registered a condominium plan of lands owned by the respondent airport - The plan had been approved by Transport Canada pursuant to the Aeronautics Act - The petitioners applied to have the registration quashed, arguing that the subdivision approval had to be given by the Municipality, as required by the Municipal Government Act - At issue was the use of 82 units of the plan, which were to be sold to finance the airport's expansion and were not dedicated to aviation use - The Alberta Court of Appeal directed the Registrar to cancel the registration of the condominium plan - The sale of the units as a source of financing was not sufficient to make those units vital to the aeronautics operations - The requirement of approval of the plan under provincial legislation did not affect a vital, essential or integral part of the planned expansion of the airport - Accordingly, the entirety of the plan did not fall within exclusive federal jurisdiction over aeronautics and the Municipality's approval was required - See paragraphs 29 to 59.

Constitutional Law - Topic 6121

Federal jurisdiction (s. 91) - Aeronautics - General - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 2511 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 7227

Provincial jurisdiction (s. 92) - Property and civil rights - Land - Use - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 2511 ].

Real Property - Topic 7864

Title - Registration of instruments, etc. - Setting aside registration - Grounds - The Registrar of the South Alberta Land Registration District registered a condominium plan of lands owned by the respondent airport - The plan had been approved by Transport Canada pursuant to the Aeronautics Act - The petitioners applied to have the registration quashed, arguing that the subdivision approval had to be given by the Municipality, as required by the Municipal Government Act - The respondents argued that if the federal government did not have exclusive jurisdiction, they were entitled to rely on the defence of laches - The Alberta Court of Appeal directed the Registrar to cancel the registration of the condominium plan - Section 76(1) of the Land Titles Act provided that "if a registration of an instrument ... is made ... that registration ceases to be voidable when any person has in good faith acquired rights for value in the subdivided land" - No third party had acquired rights for value in the land - Registration of the condominium plan remained voidable - Laches did not apply - See paragraphs 66 to 68.

Real Property - Topic 7864

Title - Registration of instruments, etc. - Setting aside registration - Grounds - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 2511 ].

Real Property - Topic 8012.4

Title - Registration of instruments, etc. - Land titles system - Registration of condominium or strata plan - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 1017 and Constitutional Law - 2511 ].

Real Property - Topic 8020

Title - Registration of instruments, etc. - Land titles system - Requirement of approval of registration of instruments which subdivide land - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 1017 and Constitutional Law - 2511 ].

Cases Noticed:

Mississauga (City) v. Greater Toronto Airports Authority et al. (2000), 138 O.A.C. 1; 192 D.L.R.(4th) 443; 50 O.R.(3d) 641 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2001), 274 N.R. 196 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 23, 92].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [paras. 26, 94].

Johannesson v. West St. Paul (Rural Municipality), [1952] 1 S.C.R. 292, refd to. [paras. 29, 98].

Air Canada v. Liquor Control Board (Ont.) et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 581; 214 N.R. 1; 102 O.A.C. 1; 148 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [paras. 31, 98].

Canadian Western Bank et al. v. Alberta (2005), 361 A.R. 112; 339 W.A.C. 112; 2005 ABCA 12, refd to. [para. 34].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2, refd to. [paras. 35, 93].

Montcalm Construction Inc. v. Minimum Wage Commission (Que.) et al., [1979] 1 S.C.R. 754; 25 N.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 52, 107].

K.M. v. H.M., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 3; 142 N.R. 321; 57 O.A.C. 321; 96 D.L.R.(4th) 289, refd to. [para. 64].

Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Hurd (1874), L.R. 5 P.C. 221, refd to. [para. 64].

Ontario Hydro v. Labour Relations Board (Ont.) (1993), 158 N.R. 161; 66 O.A.C. 241; 107 D.L.R.(4th) 457 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 65].

Hamilton Harbour Commissioners v. Hamilton (City) et al. (1976), 21 O.R.(2d) 459 (C.A.), refd to [para. 99].

Agence Maritime Inc. v. Canada Labour Relations Board, [1969] S.C.R. 851, refd to. [para. 101].

Letter Carriers' Union of Canada v. Canadian Union of Postal Workers et al., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 178, refd to. [para. 101].

Paul v. Forest Appeals Commission (B.C.) et al., [2003] 2 S.C.R. 585; 310 N.R. 122; 187 B.C.A.C. 1; 307 W.A.C. 1; 2003 SCC 55, refd to. [para. 102].

Ordon et al. v. Grail, [1998] 3 S.C.R. 437; 232 N.R. 201; 115 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 105].

Commission de transport de la communauté urbaine de Québec v. Commission des champs de bataille nationaux, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 838; 115 N.R. 106; 34 Q.A.C. 282, refd to. [para. 105].

Bell Canada v. Commission de la santé et de la securité du travail (Que.) and Bilodeau et al., [1988] 1 S.C.R. 749; 85 N.R. 295; 15 Q.A.C. 217, refd to. [para. 109].

Attorney General for Manitoba v. Attorney General for Canada, [1929] A.C. 260; 1 D.L.R. 369, refd to. [para. 113].

Orangeville Airport Ltd. v. Caledon (Town) et al. (1976), 11 O.R.(2d) 546 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 134].

Cotter v. Cotter (1986), 13 O.A.C. 81; 53 O.R.(2d) 449 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 149].

Farm Credit Corp. v. Corriveau et al., [1993] 6 W.W.R. 360; 110 Sask.R. 127 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 149].

R. v. Willis (I.I.) (1996), 192 A.R. 151 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 149].

Statutes Noticed:

Land Titles Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. L-4, sect. 76(1) [para. 66].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada, (3rd Ed. 1992) (Looseleaf Supp.), vol. 1, p. 15-27 [para. 104].

Magnet, Joseph Eliot, Constitutional Law of Canada: Cases, Notes and Materials, (8th Ed. 2001), vol. 1, pp. 340, 341 [para. 119].

Counsel:

R. Kambeitz, for the appellants;

C.J. Tomalty and M.J. Bailey, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on June 16, 2004, before O'Leary, Russell and Hunt, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The reasons for judgment of the court were released on the same date and included the following opinions:

O'Leary, J.A. (Russell, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 69;

Hunt, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 70 to 150.