Category: Municipal Law Page 2 of 8

Municipal Government Board Rules on Development Impacts to the G8 Legacy Wildlife Underpass in the Bow Valley

On March 9, 2017

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: Municipal Government Board Rules on Development Impacts to the G8 Legacy Wildlife Underpass in the Bow Valley

Case Commented On: Town of Canmore v M.D. of Bighorn No. 8, 2017 ABMGB 10

Say again? The Municipal Government Board created by the Municipal Government Act, RSA 2000, c M-26 to adjudicate on municipal affairs such as linear property assessment, annexation, subdivision, and inter-municipal disputes has ruled on a significant wildlife issue in the Bow Valley? And not just any wildlife issue – a dispute concerning the functionality of the G8 Legacy Wildlife Underpass – a key wildlife connectivity feature located just east of Canmore and built with funds provided from the G8 Economic Summit hosted in Kananaskis during June 2002. How can this be? Well really, it should not be. There is a longstanding and seemingly bitter municipal dispute ongoing between the MD of Bighorn and Canmore over urban development in the Bow Valley, and the Board has just ruled in favour of proposed development by the MD of Bighorn for the hamlet of Dead Man’s Flats. However, the dispute between the MD of Bighorn and Canmore over development is just smoke and mirrors for what is really at stake here – the integrity of the G8 Legacy Wildlife Underpass as a highly used connectivity feature that allows wildlife to avoid crossing the highway while moving through the human-congested Bow Valley. With all due respect to the members of the Municipal Government Board who heard this matter and deliberated on the issues, I think the Board accepted pie-in-the-sky solutions to a serious and escalating land use problem in the Bow Valley. In my humble opinion the Board ought to have declined jurisdiction to hear this dispute. For reasons set out below, I suggest the Lieutenant Governor in Council should refer this to the Natural Resources Conservation Board pursuant to section 4(f) of the Natural Resources Conservation Act, RSA 2000, c N-3.

Lost and Found? – The Captive Audience Doctrine Returns in Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform v The City of Grande Prairie (City)

By Ola Malik

On January 19, 2017

In Constitutional, Municipal Law

By: Ola Malik

PDF Version: Lost and Found? – The Captive Audience Doctrine Returns in Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform v The City of Grande Prairie (City)

Case Commented On: Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform v The City of Grande Prairie (City), 2016 ABQB 734 (CanLII)

Does your freedom to express yourself include forcing me to listen? This question invokes the captive audience doctrine, a concept previously discussed at some length here. The doctrine lies at the heart of a decision in which the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR) argued that the City of Grande Prairie’s refusal to post CCBR’s pro-life advertisement on the sides of the City’s buses infringed upon its freedom of expression. The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench decision in Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform v The City of Grande Prairie (City), 2016 ABQB 734 (CanLII) (CCBR) follows on the heels of American Freedom Defence Initiative v Edmonton (City), 2016 ABQB 555 (CanLII ) (AFDI), blogged about here, which similarly dealt with the limits of advertising on city buses. Taken together, the CCBR and AFDI decisions are most helpful to municipalities seeking to limit the placement of controversial advocacy messaging in public places.

No Offence, But I Hate You: American Freedom Defence Initiative v Edmonton (City)

By Ola Malik

On December 5, 2016

In Constitutional, Municipal Law

By: Ola Malik, Jeff Watson and Holly Wong

PDF Version: No Offence, But I Hate You: American Freedom Defence Initiative v Edmonton (City)

Case Commented On: American Freedom Defence Initiative v Edmonton (City), 2016 ABQB 555 (Can LII )

Our Canadian courts are jealous guardians of the freedom of expression, which the Canadian Charter protects in section 2(b). The rationale for protecting freedom of expression is that society should be free to discuss and decide what is true, what is right and what is good. As with most things Canadian, we have accepted that the way in which we speak to one another should be politely regulated. Our courts have accepted that for expression to be truly valued, our public square must provide everyone with the opportunity to speak as equals, where no one is made to feel marginalized or devalued. How very Canadian, indeed! To a large extent, how we speak to one another is as important as what we say, and that, in our view, is a good thing. Defining the limits of appropriate speech isn’t just an exercise in legal abstractions, nor does it just involve lawyers. Rather, it goes to the heart of how all of us live together in a peaceful community with our neighbours and what we, together as a community, aspire to be.

Those of us who practice municipal law and who are interested in freedom of expression issues have been eagerly awaiting the case of American Freedom Defence Initiative v Edmonton (City), 2016 ABQB 555 (AFDI). Indeed, we were so intrigued by the issues this case raises that we commented on them long before trial, here, and in a companion piece titled “Controversial Advertising on City Buses – Are Municipalities Ready for What’s To Come?” (2015) 7:5 DMPL (2d) 1-6.

Community Consultation Is “Not Mere Window Dressing” in Development Permit Applications

By Nickie Nikolaou

On June 14, 2016

In Administrative Law, Municipal Law

By: Nickie Nikolaou

PDF Version: Community Consultation Is “Not Mere Window Dressing” in Development Permit Applications

Case Commented On: Thomas v Edmonton (City), 2016 ABCA 57 (CanLII)

Disputes between developers of new residential properties and landowners, especially in the context of mature neighborhoods, are common when variances are sought from local land-use bylaw standards. In Thomas v Edmonton (City), the Court of Appeal tipped the scales slightly in favor of landowners where the bylaw mandates community consultation. The Court held that where a development standard variance is required, and the applicable zoning bylaw mandates community consultation, that consultation is a condition precedent to obtaining a valid development permit. Moreover, the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (SDAB) has no authority to waive the requirement.

Shades of Grey in the Ride-Sharing World

By Theresa Yurkewich

On March 15, 2016

In Municipal Law

By: Theresa Yurkewich

PDF Version: Shades of Grey in the Ride-Sharing World

The past few months have seen a hubbub of debate surrounding Uber, the taxi industry, and whether ride-sharing services are presently incorporated under municipal bylaws, and if not, whether they should be (for previous posts on this subject see here, here and here).

In Alberta, and more particularly Edmonton and Calgary, it became a race to test the present regulatory framework and adapt it if necessary. In navigating around the bylaws, Uber was offering a lower cost method of transportation to the status quo taxi service. Concerns were raised on three main topics: fares, fees, and safety. Fast forward to this month, and both municipalities have an adapted framework in place, and the Government of Alberta has weighed in on insurance requirements for drivers operating for hire. In the midst of what seems like a saga of Uber battles, this post will discuss the amendments and outline what they mean for ride-sharing in Alberta.