The Applicant municipality applied to strike and/or summarily dismiss an Originating Application for Judicial Review commenced by the individual Respondents, who sought to declare a bylaw invalid.

The Applicant made the Application on the grounds that the Originating Application had not been filed within the six-month limitation period provided for in Rule 3.15(2).  

The Court noted that Summary Judgment/ Dismissal is granted where an Originating Application had not commenced within the six-month period provided for in Rule 3.15. It found that that a bylaw was a “decision or act” of a municipality within the scope of Rule 3.15 and that the period to file and serve an Originating Application must be strictly interpreted and not varied by the Court. As a result, the Court dismissed the Originating Application.

The Court took into consideration the six-month limitation period provided for in Rule 3.15 and the direction for counting months in Rule 13.4(1) in conjunction with Ministerial Order 27/2020 that provided for an extension of the limitation period by 75 days in its determination that the limitation period ran started running on the date of the bylaw decision on March 10, 2020 to November 24, 2020.

The Court rejected the Respondents’ position that the limitation period in Rule 3.15 was impacted by challenges to the bylaw that alleged (1) a breach of procedural fairness; and (2) that the advertisement of the bylaw had not complied with the notice requirements in the Municipal Government Act.