Supreme Court

Decision Information

Treeshin v Yellowknife (City)

Court Supreme Court
Date 1994-05-24
Other citations (1994) – [1994] N.W.T.R. 237 (S.C.) – 26 C.P.C. (3d) 120
File numbers CV 05158
Judge(s) Vertes
Location Yellowknife
Cases and statutes considered Cases considered:
Orr v. Hutyra, [1992] N.W.T.R. 178 (S.C.)
Patterson v. Board of Education of Saskatoon School Division No. 13 (1982), 132 D.L.R. (3d) 631 (Sask. Q.B.)
Re Mary Jane Brown Estates (1956), 19 W.W.R. 616 (B.C.S.C.)
Carmel Exporters (Sales) Ltd. v. Sea-Land Service, [1981] 1 W.L.R. 1068 (Q.B.)
R. v. M. (1971), 3 C.C.C. (2d) 76 (B.C.S.C.)
Re Bramalea Ltd. et al. (1979), 23 O.R. (2d) 509 (Co. Ct.)
Duthie v. Mandin et al., [1984] 6 W.R. 217 (Sask. Q.B.)
Houg Alberta v. 417034 Alberta (1991), 117 A.R. 196 (C.A.)
Bowen v. Edmonton (1977), 2 Alta. L.R. (2d) 112 (C.A.)
Janes v. Brown, [1955] 3 D.L.R. 221 (Ont. C.A.)
Bearss v. R. (1956), 18 W.W.R. 90 (Sask. C.A.)
Re Cessland Corp. et al (1979), 100 D.L.R. (3d) 378 (Ont. H.C.)
Brooks et al v. Silin, [1941] 2 W.W.R. 52 (Alta. D.C.)
Re Pachal's Beverages (1972), 31 D.L.R. (3d) 620 (Sask. Q.B.)
Re Hoeppner, [1976] 4 W.W.R. 481 (B.C.S.C.)
Figol v. Edmonton (1969), 71 W.W.R. 321 (Alta. C.A.)

Statutes considered:
Planning Act, R.S.N.W.T. 1988, c. P-7, s. 51
Planning Act, R.S.N.W.T. 1988, c. P-7, s. 52
Planning Act, R.S.N.W.T. 1988, c. P-7, s. 53
Judicature Act, R.S.N.W.T. 1988, c. J-1, s. 20
Planning Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. P-9
Northwest Territories, Rules of the Court of Appeal Respecting Civil Appeals, R. 6
Northwest Territories, Rules of the Court of Appeal Respecting Civil Appeals, R. 9
Decision information:

Abstract: This is an application for leave to appeal, pursuant to s. 51(2) of the Planning Act, a decision of the Development Appeal Board whereby a development was rescinded
Decision: The Court determined that the words of s. 51(2) of the Planning Act regarding appeals are to be interpreted to mean that there must be at least filing of the application for leave and service of the application upon the affected parties. Although proper service was not made within the 30 day limitation, there was informal notice given to the Respondents by way of a faxed copy of the Originating Notice. The Court held that this was sufficient service to be in compliance with the wording of s. 51(2) of the Planning Act and therefore the application for leave to appeal was brought within the required time limit. Leave to appeal was granted on the questions as worded by Justice Vertes.
Subjects: Planning and zoning - Planning authorities - Appeals
Civil procedure - Appeals - Leave to appeal

Decision Content

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.