Supreme Court

Boyd v. City of YK et al, 2004 NWTSC 57
Date: 20040903
Docket: S-1-CV-2004000247

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

IN THE MATTER of the Planning Act, R.S.N.W.T. 1988, Chapter P-7:

AND IN THE MATTER OF the decision of the Development
Appeal Board of the City of Yellowknife dated June 17, 2004;


BETWEEN:

ADRIAN BOYD

    Appellant

- and -

THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE and HOMES NORTH LTD.

    Respondents


Transcript of the Oral Reasons for Judgment by The Honourable Justice A. Lutz, at Yellowknife, in the Northwest Territories, on August 20th, A.D. 2004.


APPEARANCES:

Mr. C.F. McGee:  Counsel for the Appellant

Ms. S.M. MacPherson:  Counsel for the Respondent
    City of Yellowknife

Mr. A. Denroche:  Counsel for the Respondent
    Homes North Ltd.

Mr. G.D. Tait:    Counsel for the Development
    Appeal Board of the City of Yellowknife


THE COURT:   I agree there was a certain innocence around the Development Appeal Board, and it exists, I suppose, because members of the board are not experts. But it is not, as counsel have said, a case where it was scandalous or outrageous conduct.

As Madam Justice McLachlin, as she then was, spoke of in a decision, referenced in the Foliot decision that counsel have provided, there is no intent here to mark the Court's disapproval of the conduct of the parties to the litigation. I think they misunderstood their role, misunderstood the parameters of the process.

It is, of course, however, public interest litigation, because I suspect that from now on there will be, perhaps, a little more attention paid to what impression is conveyed at these meetings and so that the process itself, which seems to be not that complicated, will be imparted to the public and so the public will know, because the Appellant here was driven to do something when he should not have been.

So, on the one hand, it may be said that he was premature, he wouldn't know that from the impression that was left at this meeting on the 16th of June in comments made by people who are responsible in the City.

As a result, the Appellant is entitled to be rewarded for his costs, and the costs that he will get

[Page 1]

will be $7,000, together with all reasonable disbursements, GST and any other matters that are properly claimable as one would claim if it were a party and party costs matter.

Is there anything further?

MS. MacPHERSON:  No, sir.

MR. McGEE:   No, sir. Thank you.


Certified to be a true and accurate transcript pursuant to Rules 723 and 724 of the Supreme Court Rules.

Jill MacDonald, CSR(A), RPR
Court Reporter

[Page 2]