SOBEYS WEST INC v EDMONTON (CITY), 2015 ABCA 32
1.5: Rule contravention, non-compliance and irregularities
1.8: Interpretation Act
3.9: Service of originating application and evidence
6.4: Applications without notice
13.3: Counting days
14.29: Format of Extracts of Key Evidence
14.40: Applications to single appeal judges
14.41: Responses to applications to single appeal judges
14.44: Application for permission to appeal
The Plaintiffs sought Leave to Appeal a Decision of the Edmonton Sub-Divisional and Development Appeal Board which granted the Respondent liquor stores a development permit subject to some special rules. During the course of preparing for the Appeal, the parties sought the Court’s direction with respect to some of the new Appeal Rules. Justice Slatter explained that the panel that hears the Appeal will decide what evidence it is prepared to hear. Under Rule 14.29, any additional extracts of key evidence must have a detailed table of contents identifying each document.
His Lordship also provided the parties with directions with respect to the issue of the filing deadlines under the Rules: with respect to Applications to single Justices of Appeal, the applicable Rules are Rules 6.4, 14.40(2), 14.41 and 14.44. Under Rule 14.44, an Application for Permission to Appeal must be filed within the applicable time limit. Rule 14.40(2) requires the Applicant to file and serve its materials 10 days before the hearing, and 14.41 requires a Respondent to file and serve its materials 5 days before the hearing. The Court then applied the “Counting Days” method under Rule 13.3 and the accompanying Information Note, and specified the deadlines for both the Applicant and the Respondent in this case.
The Court further noted that Rule 1.8(b) provides that s. 22 of the Interpretation Act, RSA 2000, c I-8 does not apply to the . Failure to meet the deadline under and could have various consequences, including the presumption that no Costs are available for a late step under (a)(i). Under Rule 1.5(4), late filings by a Respondent will not be allowed to prejudice an Applicant. Justice Slatter also stated that the presiding Justice may decline to set down a matter that has missed a deadline, and may strike an Appeal or Application in extreme cases of missed deadlines.
Slatter J.A. concluded that the Plaintiff had met the test for leave to Appeal with respect to some of the issues raised, and the Application was allowed to that extent.View CanLII Details