Colhoun vs RM Lumsden, COURT_Statement_of_Claim_re__R_M_.pdf February 2021

More documents

Recommendations

Info

- 3 - 12. The property referenced in Resolution No. 2019-578, being NW 32-19-21 W3, Surface Parcel No. 111090192 (“NW 32”), is not the subject matter of the Subdivision, the Subdivision Application, nor owned by Norman or Laura. For further clarity, Emshay Enterprises Ltd. is the registered owner of NW 32. 13. On or around January 28, 2020, Jeremy Dela Cruz (“Mr. Dela Cruz”), Planning Consultant for the Government of Saskatchewan, commented on the inappropriateness of Resolution No. 2019-578, stating: …Under 184 of The Planning and Development Act, 2007 the approving authority may require the owner of land that is subject of the proposed subdivision to provide without compensation part of that land in any location that the approving authority considers necessary to the Crown. The important clause is that the request of the dedication must be applicable to the subject land of the proposed subdivision and cannot be extended outside of the proposed subdivision application…. 14. In response to the comments of Mr. Dela Cruz, the R.M. passed Resolution No. 2020-119 at the Regular Council Meeting held on March 19, 2020 (“Resolution No. 2020-119”), which reads, in part, that “we deny Development Application #2019-038 to rezone and subdivide land…The RM is unwilling to initiate highway commercial rezoning proceedings unless it is ensured that the developer has secured land to upgrade the undeveloped access road to a standard suitable for highway commercial development.” 15. As a result, Norman and Laura were forced to appeal the decision to the Planning Appeals Committee (the “Appeal”), a committee of the Saskatchewan Municipal Board (the “SMB”). The Appeal was set down for a hearing date of September 22, 2020 (the “Hearing Date”). 16. Prior to the Hearing Date, the R.M. had failed and/or refused to present Norman and Laura with a serving agreement in relation to the Subdivision Application.
- 4 - 17. On the Hearing Date, the SMB made a verbal request for the R.M. to negotiate the terms of the Subdivision Application in good faith, and also required the R.M. to provide Norman and Laura with a serving agreement on or before November 4, 2020. 18. Following November 4, 2020, there were continued delays in the R.M. completing and providing a servicing agreement to Norman and Laura. As at the date hereof, Norman and Laura have not yet received confirmation from the R.M. that a servicing agreement has been entered into, despite executing same and paying the required fee to the R.M. 19. Between the date of the Subdivision Application and the date hereof, Norman and Laura have witnessed numerous applications of a similar nature from third parties be approved by the R.M., including an application from an adjacent landowner. For further clarity, Norman and Laura submit that the Subdivision Application is being subjected to a unique set of rules, reviews, and is not being moved forward in a timely manner. 20. As a result of the difficulty Normand and Laura have experienced in moving this matter forward, they have sustained the following damages: (a) (b) (c) (d) Costs associated with retaining third party professionals to assist with the Subdivision Application; Costs associated with the Appeal; Increased costs and standby costs in relation to the Development; and Lost revenue and opportunities in relation to the delay in completion and approval of the Subdivision Application. Procedural Fairness 21. It is trite law that the R.M. owes a duty of fairness to Norman and Laura in all decisions that affect their rights, privileges, or interests. Moreover, in the event a prescribed
Page 1 and 2: COURT FILE NUMBER Q.B.G. No. _____
Page 3: - 2 - 7. In or around 2015, Norman
Page 7 and 8: - 6 - 24. Norman and Laura also cla
Page 9: - 8 - (c) (d) (e) Interest pursuant

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

Delete template?

Save as template?