DIDOW v EDMONTON (CITY)

The Applicants sought permission from the Court to appeal a decision of one of the Respondents, the Edmonton Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (the “Board”), pursuant to Rule 14.44.

Feehan J.A. considered the preliminary issue of whether the Applicants properly filed and served the Board and another Respondent, the City of Edmonton (the “City”), with their Application, pursuant to Rule 14.44 and section 688 of the Municipal Government Act, RSA 2000, c M-26 (the “Act”).

Justice Feehan found that they did not, and held that the Application could not succeed because the Applicants had failed to serve their Application on both the Board and the City within the 30-day deadline set out in the Act. Feehan J.A. emphasized that the Courts are unable to grant an extension and that this deadline is strictly applied.

The Court dismissed the Application and ruled that there would be no Costs Award. Justice Feehan invoked Rule 9.4(2), noting that the Court would prepare the resulting Order.

The Applicants sought permission from the Court to appeal a decision of one of the Respondents, the Edmonton Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (the “Board”), pursuant to Rule 14.44.

Feehan J.A. considered the preliminary issue of whether the Applicants properly filed and served the Board and another Respondent, the City of Edmonton (the “City”), with their Application, pursuant to Rule 14.44 and section 688 of the Municipal Government Act, RSA 2000, c M-26 (the “Act”).

Justice Feehan found that they did not, and held that the Application could not succeed because the Applicants had failed to serve their Application on both the Board and the City within the 30-day deadline set out in the Act. Feehan J.A. emphasized that the Courts are unable to grant an extension and that this deadline is strictly applied.

The Court dismissed the Application and ruled that there would be no Costs Award. Justice Feehan invoked Rule 9.4(2), noting that the Court would prepare the resulting Order.