Decision Content
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]
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.