Colhoun vs RM Lumsden, COURT_Statement_of_Claim_re__R_M_.pdf February 2021

More documents

Recommendations

Info

- 5 - process is in place, compliance with said process sets a minimum level of procedural fairness to be afforded and creates a legitimate expectation that it will be followed. 22. Norman and Laura submit that the R.M. has breached the duty of fairness owed to them. Examples of such procedural unfairness include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) Failing to “enter into a servicing agreement within 90 days after the day that the municipality receives the subdivision application,” contrary to Section 172(5) of The Planning and Development Act, 2007, SS 2007, c P-13.2 (the “Act”); Failing to provide, amend and/or address issues surrounding any required servicing agreement in a timely and reasonable manner; Failing and/or refusing to consider the Subdivision Application in a timely and reasonable manner; Imposing conditions in a servicing agreement without authority, particularly the requirement to utilize land owned by a third party for road widening, contrary to Section 184 of the Act; Failure to consider and apply Section 3(a) of the Road Development Policy; Failure to raise concerns in regard to road widening in a timely and reasonable manner. For example, the failure to raise any such concern during the fiveyear period the Joint Concept Plan was being considered; and Preferring other subdivision/rezoning applications over the Subdivision Application. 23. As a result of the actions of the R.M., Norman and Laura have sustained damages including, but not limited to, the damages outlined at Paragraph 20 above, in an amount to be proven at trial.
- 6 - 24. Norman and Laura also claim that the Subdivision Application be returned to the R.M. for a decision to be made in accordance with the principles of natural justice. 25. Norman and Laura also claim for elevated costs in relation to this action as a result of the R.M.’s mishandling the Subdivision Application, resulting in the necessity to commence the within action. Negligence 26. Further, or in the alternative, Norman and Laura submit that they and the R.M. had a sufficient relationship to impose a duty of care, which required the R.M. to act in a fair, just and reasonable manner. Norman and Laura further submit that the failure and/or refusal of the R.M. to consider the Subdivision Application in a reasonable manner gave rise to reasonably foreseeable damages. 27. Norman and Laura submit that the R.M. was negligent in carrying out its duty of care as follows: (a) (b) (c) The conduct outlined at Paragraph 22 above; Failing to properly read, interpret and apply the Act; and Failing to correct the errors in a timely and reasonable manner, despite same being repeatedly brought to the attention of the R.M. 28. As a result of the actions of the R.M., Norman and Laura have sustained damages including, but not limited to, the damages outlined at Paragraph 20 above, in an amount to be proven at trial. 29. Norman and Laura submit that the R.M. is unable to rely upon the statutory immunity outlined in Section 339 of the Municipalities Act as, at all material times, the R.M. lacked a bona fide belief that its actions were justified, had knowledge that its actions were
Page 1 and 2: COURT FILE NUMBER Q.B.G. No. _____
Page 3 and 4: - 2 - 7. In or around 2015, Norman
Page 5: - 4 - 17. On the Hearing Date, the
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?