Winfield Developments Ltd. v. Winnipeg (City), (1989) 60 Man.R.(2d) 285 (CA)

• Judge: Philp, Twaddle and Lyon, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: September 06, 1989
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1989), 60 Man.R.(2d) 285 (CA)

Winfield Dev. Ltd. v. Winnipeg (1989), 60 Man.R.(2d) 285 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Winfield Developments Ltd. (plaintiff/appellant/applicant) v. The City of Winnipeg (defendant/respondent/respondent)

(No. 356/88)

Indexed As: Winfield Developments Ltd. v. Winnipeg (City)

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Philp, Twaddle and Lyon, JJ.A.

September 6, 1989.

Summary:

A commercial land developer challenged the City of Winnipeg's authority to impose the terms of a subdivision development agreement requiring the developer to build street access before building permits were issued.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a judgment reported 54 Man.R.(2d) 185, dismissed the developer's action. The developer appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported 58 Man.R.(2d) 140, dismissed the developer's appeal. The developer sought leave of the Manitoba Court of Appeal, pursuant to s. 37 of the Supreme Court Act, to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Meanwhile, an application for leave to appeal was filed in the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the application.

Practice - Topic 9090

Appeals - Supreme Court of Canada - Leave to appeal by a provincial court of appeal - A developer sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada while an application for leave to appeal was filed and pending in the Supreme Court - The Manitoba Court of Appeal opined that it was not appropriate to seek leave to appeal in the provincial appeal court where there was an application for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court of Canada.

Practice - Topic 9090

Appeals - Supreme Court of Canada - Leave to appeal by a provincial court of appeal - The Manitoba Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada where it was not satisfied that the questions of law raised by the appellant "ought to be submitted to the Supreme Court for decision" - The court stated that the test for exercising its discretion was whether there were special circumstances to warrant the exercise of its discretion where it was desirable that the Supreme Court control it own agenda.

Cases Noticed:

Central Computer Services Limited et al. v. Toronto Dominion Bank, [1980] 3 W.W.R. 587; 1 Man.R.(2d) 402 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].

Campbell v. East-West Packers (1969) Ltd. (No. 2) (1982), 20 Man.R.(2d) 146; 143 D.L.R.(3d) 136, refd to. [para. 3].

Statutes Noticed:

Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26, sect. 37 [para. 1].

Counsel:

S. Green, Q.C., for the applicant;

M.S. Samphir and M.E. Cavett, for the respondent.

This application was heard before Philp, Twaddle and Lyon, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal.

On September 6, 1989, Philp, J.A., delivered the following judgment of the Court of Appeal.