The Appellant appealed a municipal Order requiring the Appellant to cut overgrown grass and remove a derelict motorhome from their property. The Order was issued under the Municipal Government Act, RSA 2000, c M-26, and was upheld by the City of Edmonton’s Community Standards and Licensing Appeal Committee (“CSLAC”), with only a minor portion struck for being overbroad. The Appellant appealed to the Court of King’s Bench, arguing that the decision was unreasonable and procedurally unfair.

The Court applied a patent unreasonableness standard and found that the CSLAC’s decision was reasonable. It held that the statutory definition of nuisance in the applicable bylaw governed the analysis, not broader common law definitions relied on by the Appellant. The evidence showed that the grass exceeded 10 cm and the motorhome was damaged and in disrepair, which clearly met the bylaw definition of nuisance. The Court also rejected arguments that the Order was issued to the wrong party, that it was barred by res judicata, or that it was unfair compared to neighbouring properties.  

Justice Akgungor further held that there was no procedural unfairness as the Appellant had sufficient notice, received the relevant evidence, and was able to respond. Akgungor J. also held that the refusal to disclose the identity of the complainant and information about neighbouring properties was appropriate because it was not relevant to whether a nuisance existed. The Court also rejected allegations of bias and other arguments, including claims of abuse of process and intimidation, as meritless. The Appeal was dismissed.