Client Update: Make Your List and Check it Twice: IRAC Sends a Holiday Reminder to Municipalities

The Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission (the “Commission”) has issued a holiday reminder to municipalities in Prince Edward Island about the importance of preparation, accuracy, and transparency when making decisions related to land use and development. On December 18, 2015, the Commission released its judgment on an appeal from a decision by the City of Charlottetown (the “City”) which refused to rezone a parcel of land.The appeal was allowed, and the City was ordered to rezone the property. The City has 20 days to appeal the decision to the Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal.

The property at issue was located adjacent to the Belvedere Golf  Course. Both the owner of the property and the proposed developer applied to the City for rezoning. The property was zoned as open space; however, the owner and the developer sought new zoning to allow for a medium density residential development. Notice was provided to the public and nearby residents. A public meeting was also held to solicit input on the proposed rezoning. Both the planning department and the planning board recommended approval of the application to rezone the property, but a majority of council ultimately rejected the application.In a subsequent letter, the City notified the developer of the decision made by council. The developer then appealed the decision to the Commission.

In allowing the appeal and reversing the decision made by the City, the Commission found that the City did not satisfy its duty of procedural fairness to the developer and failed to decide the application on its merits. The Commission had three main concerns about the decision-making process followed by the City:

I. Preparation
The Commission found that the minutes from the meeting of council revealed that the councillors who spoke against rezoning had failed to properly inform themselves about the application before entering the chamber to vote on the project:

It is clear from the minutes of Council that the councillors who chose to speak had not bothered to inform themselves on the matter of the application before them. Those councillors spoke of concerns for which there were answers in the record, expressed concerns about matters which could have been and should have been canvassed by them long before they entered the Council chamber for a vote on such an important matter.3

II. Accuracy
The Commission found that the minutes from the meeting of council were inaccurate and did not properly reflect the concerns actually expressed by the councillors who opposed rezoning:

The Commission is concerned with the inaccuracies as set out in these minutes of the meeting. The verbatim Minutes of Council show that there were no concerns raised with respect to drainage. The only reference to drainage was a confirmation from the chairman of Planning Board that the developers had provided a draft drainage plan by a certified civil engineer. Drainage matters may have come up earlier in the application process but they certainly were not a concern at the regular meeting of Council on July 14, 2014 and it was improper for that concernto have been stated as such, in the minutes of Council.4

III. Transparency
The Commission found that the letter delivered by the City to the developer after rejection of the application did not actually explain the reasons and rationale given by the majority of council opposed to the project:

The Commission is very concerned with the letter noted above that was forwarded to the developer. This is the only communication sent to the developer to explain to the developer the reason why its application was rejected by Council. The reason and rationale set out in this letter is not the reason that is recorded in the Council’s Minute of July 14, 2014 and cannot be gleaned from the verbatim transcript of the Council meeting. It is not acceptable that the written explanation given to the developers as to why their project was rejected states a reason that was not even an issue at the Council meeting.5

Lessons for Municipalities
This holiday decision from the Commission is a reminder for municipalities about the importance of:

  • ensuring that councillors are prepared and properly informed about the content of any application that is before them for a decision;
  • ensuring that the minutes for all meetings related to any application are recorded accurately and capture the actual reasons being expressed in favour of or against a project; and
  • ensuring that letters to any parties affected by a decision of council explain and summarize why council made its decision.

If you have any questions about this update or would like assistance in implementing this recent decision into your practices and procedures, please do not hesitate to contact our municipal government team at Stewart McKelvey in Charlottetown, Perlene MorrisonJonathan Coady and Will Horne.

1 Order LA15-06.
2 Councillors Lantz, Hilton, and Coady voted in favour of the rezoning application.
3 Order LA15-06 at para. 33.
4 Order LA15-06 at para. 35.
5 Order LA15-06 at para. 37.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


Generic filters
Filter by Custom Post Type

 
 

Client Update: Not a “token gesture”: Nova Scotia Court of Appeal confirms deductibility of future CPP disability benefits from tort damages

January 18, 2019

Jennifer Taylor In an important decision for the auto insurance industry, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal has confirmed that future CPP disability benefits are indeed deductible from damages awarded in Nova Scotia cases for…

Read More

Client Update: Change is the only constant – Bill C-86 changes in federal labour and employment regulation

January 18, 2019

Brian Johnston, QC and Matthew Jacobs Bill C-86, enacted as SC 2018, c. 27, will effect massive changes upon how federal labour and employment relations are regulated. They come into effect in 2019 with staggered…

Read More

2018 Year in Review: Atlantic Canada Labour & Employment Law Developments

January 17, 2019

We can all make 2019 a success by building on the year that was. For employers, 2018 was a year of many notable developments in labour and employment law across the country. We saw Ontario…

Read More

Client Update: Atlantic Canada pension and benefits countdown to 2019

December 28, 2018

Level Chan and Dante Manna As 2018 comes to an end, we countdown some pension and employee benefits developments in the last year that we anticipate may lead to developments in 2019. Discrimination in benefits…

Read More

Client Update: Canada’s Proposed Cannabis Edibles, Extracts and Topicals Regulations Revealed

December 21, 2018

Kevin Landry The first look at regulations for cannabis edibles, extracts and topicals has arrived. The Federal Government has opened a 60-day consultation period respecting the strict regulation of additional cannabis products. Notice of the consultation was accompanied…

Read More

Client Update: Recent Supreme Court of Nova Scotia decision drives home the importance of credibility

December 20, 2018

Erin Best and Kara Harrington “This case is about pain, how it was caused, by what accident and the opinions of dueling experts.”¹ “In this case, like so many, the assessment of the evidence depends…

Read More

Client Update: Land use planning in Prince Edward Island: the year in review

December 20, 2018

Jonathan Coady and Michael Fleischmann Overview Once again, the time has come to review the year that was and to chart the course for the year ahead. For municipalities, developers and planning professionals throughout Prince…

Read More

Client Update: Nova Scotia Labour Standard Code changes – domestic violence leave & pregnancy / parental eligibility

December 14, 2018

Following the various Stakeholder Consultations (which Stewart McKelvey participated in on behalf of Nova Scotia Employers), the Government has changed the Labour Standards Code Regulations effective January 1, 2019 to: a) provide for up to…

Read More

Client Update: Coming to Canada? You may need biometrics / Mise à Jour : Vous pensez bientôt venir au Canada? Vous pourriez avoir besoin de fournir vos données biométriques

December 6, 2018

Version française à suivre Sara Espinal Henao Canada has expanded its permanent and temporary immigration requirements to include biometrics – the measurement of unique physical characteristics, such as fingerprints and facial features. The new requirements,…

Read More

Proposed Changes to IP Law: Will they impact your business?

December 3, 2018

Many businesses rely on trade-mark, copyright, and patent law for the protection of their intellectual property (IP). The Federal Government recently proposed changes to IP laws, which may impact your business. Bill C-86, Budget Implementation Act,…

Read More

Search Archive


Generic filters
Filter by Custom Post Type