Timberline Haulers Ltd. and Norwood Disposal Ltd. v. Grande Prairie (City), (1990) 110 A.R. 16 (CA)

• Judge: Stratton, Irving and Côté, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: September 24, 1990
• Citations: (1990), 110 A.R. 16 (CA)

Timberline Haulers v. Grande Prairie (1990), 110 A.R. 16 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Timberline Haulers Ltd., operating as Norwood Disposal and Norwood Disposal Ltd. (appellants/plaintiffs) v. City of Grande Prairie (respondent/defendant)

(Appeal No. 8803-0739-AC)

Indexed As: Timberline Haulers Ltd. and Norwood Disposal Ltd. v. Grande Prairie (City)

Alberta Court of Appeal

Stratton, Irving and Côté, JJ.A.

September 24, 1990.

Summary:

A garbage contractor brought an action for damages against the City of Grande Prairie for breach of an agreement which allegedly gave the contractor an exclusive franchise to collect and dispose of all garbage within the city.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a judgment reported 89 A.R. 188, dismissed the action. The court held that although the city had the authority to grant an exclusive franchise, the agreement and bylaw in question did not do so. Alternatively, if the contractor had an exclusive franchise it would be disentitled to damages for failing to mitigate its loss. The contractor appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Municipal Law - Topic 2445

Contracts by municipality - Contracts to provide services - Garbage collection - A garbage contractor submitted that an agreement with the City of Grande Prairie and the corresponding bylaw gave it the exclusive franchise to collect and dispose of all garbage within the city - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench interpreted the contract and held that it did not give the contractor an exclusive franchise - The court noted that the contract did not require the city to interfere with any arrangement made by commercial businesses with a competitor of the contractor - The Alberta Court of Appeal affirmed that the bylaw did not grant a monopoly.

Municipal Law - Topic 3740

Bylaws - Construction or interpretation - Bylaws granting franchises, permits or other special privileges - [See Municipal Law - Topic 2445].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 538(4) [para. 11].

Counsel:

I.H. Baker, for the appellants;

P.G. Sully and R.R. Nelson, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on September 19, 1990, before Stratton, Irving and Côté, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal.

On September 24, 1990, the following memorandum of judgment was delivered by the court: