Colhoun vs RM Lumsden, COURT_Statement_of_Claim_re__R_M_.pdf February 2021

- 7 -
not justified, had the intention to cause harm to Norman and Laura, and/or its behavior was
markedly inconsistent with the legislative context.
Malfeasance of Public Office
30. Further, or in the alternative, at all material times, the R.M. engaged in
deliberate and unlawful conduct that was likely to cause harm, and did in fact cause harm to
Norman and Laura. Such conduct included, but was not limited to, the conduct outlined at
Paragraphs 13 and 16 above.
31. 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 11 above, in an
amount to be proven at trial.
Vicarious Liability
32. Further, or in the alternative, the R.M. is vicariously liable for the actions of
the development officer by virtue of Section 356 of the Municipalities Act, whom Norman
and Laura submit denied them procedural fairness, acted in a negligent manner, and/or acted
with malfeasance, as outlined at Paragraphs 22 and 27 above.
33. As a result of the actions of the R.M., or agent thereof, 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.
34. Therefore, the Plaintiffs, Norman Colhoun and Laura Colhoun, claim from the
Defendant, Rural Municipality of Lumsden No. 189, as follows:
(a)
(b)
General damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
Referral of the Subdivision Application back to the R.M. to be decided in
accordance with the principles of natural justice;