The Applicant/Cross-Respondent, Hazkar Developments Inc. (“Hazkar”), brought an Application for Judicial Review of a decision by the Respondent/Cross-Applicant, the Town of Cochrane (the “Town”), refusing a land use re-designation of a parcel of land to accommodate up to 11 single-detached homes. The Town cross-applied to dismiss Hazkar’s Judicial Review Application on the basis that it had not served “directly affected parties” with notice of the Judicial Review Application within the requisite timeframe.

The issue before the Court was whether a group of residents (the “Residents”) who live near the proposed development were “directly affected” persons. Rule 3.15 requires that “every person or body directly affected” by a Judicial Review Application be served with it. The Town argued that because the Municipal Government Act, RSA 2000, c 21 (the “MGA”) requires adjacent landowners to be notified for land use re-designations, they must also be served with an Application for Judicial Review of a decision regarding a land use re-designation.

The Court disagreed and confirmed that the requirements under the MGA should not be conflated with the requirements under the Rules. Case law cited by the Town was distinguished on the basis that it dealt with Rule 3.75 which governs when a person can be added as a Respondent to an Originating Application. The Court confirmed that determining whether someone is an “affected person” for the purposes of Rule 3.15 is a factual exercise.

However, the Court ruled that the Residents were “affected persons” under Rule 3.15. They had presented remarks at the original land use hearing and raised legitimate concerns about how the proposed development would impact their lives. This was sufficient in the Court’s view to require that they be notified of the Judicial Review Application. The Cross-Application to strike the Judicial Review Application was granted.