The Appellants appealed the Decision of the Chambers Judge dismissing their Application for Summary Judgment. The Action was commenced by the Respondents via an Originating Application seeking, inter alia, an Order striking an Edmonton municipal Bylaw. The Appellants argued that the Originating Application was not brought within six months and thus was barred by Rule 3.15. The Appellants further argued that the Chambers Judge erred in law in failing to follow Okotoks (Town) v Foothills (Municipal District No 31), 2013 ABCA 315 (“Okotoks”) where the Court held that the passing of a municipal Bylaw “was a decision or act of a person or body” and thus was subject to Rule 3.15(2).

The Chambers Judge had referenced Okotoks and held that it was in direct conflict with United Taxi Drivers’ Fellowship of Southern Alberta v Calgary (City of), 2002 ABCA 131, reversed on other grounds 2004 SCC 19 (“United Taxi”). In United Taxi, the Court held that a limitation under the old Rules did not affect the Court’s ability to determine if a municipality had the proper jurisdiction to enable legislation.

The Court of Appeal held that Okotoks 2013 and United Taxi were not in conflict. United Taxi dealt with a void bylaw (ultra vires), while Okotoks 2013 dealt with a voidable bylaw (intra vires). The Court held that this Action dealt with whether statutory preconditions were met and thus whether the bylaw was void; thus the limitation period did not apply and the Appeal was dismissed.