The appellant, Cronauer, is appealing for the ability to erect three billboards close to a highway in Alberta. The Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (SDAB) allowed the erection of billboards, but subject to the condition that the appellant apply for a permit from Alberta Transportation. Alberta Transportation does not give such permits, and evidence was before the SDAB to this effect. The primary issue on appeal is whether 3.13(g) and 3.18(d) of the Land Use Bylaw, (the “Bylaw”) of the County of Grande Prairie No. 1 permitted the SDAB to impose the condition. Both subsections state that “A permit from Alberta Transportation may be required.”
The appellant argued that these statements were only informative, and did not give the SDAB the discretion to impose these conditions. However, the Court determined otherwise, based on Driedger’s interpretation of law: “the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context, in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act and the intention of Parliament.” The Court determined that based on the Municipal Government Act (“the MGA”), under which the Bylaw was enacted, and based on the purpose of the law as stated in s. 2 of the Bylaw, the two subsections indeed give the SDAB the authority to impose the condition of obtaining a permit from Alberta Transportation, even if such a permit doesn’t exist.
May 30, 2011
Link to Decision
Mike Kholodenko & Mary Phan
No comments:
Post a Comment