Colhoun vs RM Lumsden, COURT_Statement_of_Claim_re__R_M_.pdf February 2021
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
- 3 -<br />
12. The property <strong>re</strong>fe<strong>re</strong>nced in Resolution No. 2019-578, being NW 32-19-21<br />
W3, Surface Parcel No. 111090192 (“NW 32”), is not the subject matter <strong>of</strong> the Subdivision,<br />
the Subdivision Application, nor owned by Norman or Laura. For further clarity, Emshay<br />
Enterprises Ltd. is the <strong>re</strong>giste<strong>re</strong>d owner <strong>of</strong> NW 32.<br />
13. On or around January 28, 2020, Je<strong>re</strong>my Dela Cruz (“Mr. Dela Cruz”),<br />
Planning Consultant for the Government <strong>of</strong> Saskatchewan, commented on the<br />
inappropriateness <strong>of</strong> Resolution No. 2019-578, stating:<br />
…Under 184 <strong>of</strong> The Planning and Development Act, 2007 the approving authority may<br />
<strong>re</strong>qui<strong>re</strong> the owner <strong>of</strong> land that is subject <strong>of</strong> the proposed subdivision to provide without<br />
compensation part <strong>of</strong> that land in any location that the approving authority considers<br />
necessary to the Crown. The important clause is that the <strong>re</strong>quest <strong>of</strong> the dedication must be<br />
applicable to the subject land <strong>of</strong> the proposed subdivision and cannot be extended outside<br />
<strong>of</strong> the proposed subdivision application….<br />
14. In <strong>re</strong>sponse to the comments <strong>of</strong> Mr. Dela Cruz, the R.M. passed Resolution<br />
No. 2020-119 at the Regular Council Meeting held on March 19, 2020 (“Resolution No.<br />
2020-119”), which <strong>re</strong>ads, in part, that “we deny Development Application #2019-038 to<br />
<strong>re</strong>zone and subdivide land…The <strong>RM</strong> is unwilling to initiate highway commercial <strong>re</strong>zoning<br />
proceedings unless it is ensu<strong>re</strong>d that the developer has secu<strong>re</strong>d land to upgrade the<br />
undeveloped access road to a standard suitable for highway commercial development.”<br />
15. As a <strong>re</strong>sult, Norman and Laura we<strong>re</strong> forced to appeal the decision to the<br />
Planning Appeals Committee (the “Appeal”), a committee <strong>of</strong> the Saskatchewan Municipal<br />
Board (the “SMB”). The Appeal was set down for a hearing date <strong>of</strong> September 22, 2020 (the<br />
“Hearing Date”).<br />
16. Prior to the Hearing Date, the R.M. had failed and/or <strong>re</strong>fused to p<strong>re</strong>sent<br />
Norman and Laura with a serving ag<strong>re</strong>ement in <strong>re</strong>lation to the Subdivision Application.