Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Municipal law – Boards and tribunals – Should “broad and purposive” approach properly afforded to delineation of municipal jurisdiction likewise apply to interpretation of legislation enabling financing of municipal infrastructure? – What deference ought to be afforded a municipal or regional development and planning tribunal in regards to interpretation of development and planning legislation? – Did reviewing court fail to apply proper standard of review applicable to proceedings of this nature? – If a party has not adduced sufficient evidence to prove its case on a balance of probabilities before an administrative tribunal, should a reviewing court make new findings of fact drawn from inferences alone to “tip the scales”? – When should a reviewing court remit matter back to administrative tribunal for a rehearing due to insufficient evidence being adduced? – Did Court of Appeal exceed its jurisdiction by effecting a de facto collateral attack on Applicant’s off-site levy bylaw? – Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-26, ss. 648(2)(b), 648(4), 650(1)(c).

In May 2005, Kiewit Energy Canada Corp. (the Respondent or “Kiewit”) entered into an option to purchase a parcel of lands for development. The option to purchase was expressly subject to the City of Edmonton (the Applicant or the “City”) issuing a development permit, on satisfactory terms, to the Respondent. The permit ultimately provided that the Respondent would enter into a municipal improvement servicing agreement pursuant to which it was required to pay the sum of $309,823.24 for its proportionate share of future sanitary sewers, and said payment was made by the Respondent accordingly. On December 1, 2011, the Respondent applied for a further development permit in connection with the lands at issue. The permit issued by the City imposed as a condition that the Respondent enter into a further servicing agreement requiring payment of $984,383 for an off-site arterial roadway assessment. The Municipal Government Act of Alberta, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-26, provides that an off-site levy may be collected only once in respect of land that is the subject of a development or subdivision. On this basis, the Respondent refused to pay the new arterial roadway assessment and filed a development appeal with the City’s Subdivision and Development Appeal Board.