Parties are expected to argue over whether a Saskatchewan Municipal Board decision should stand or not.
Published Oct 21, 2023 • Last updated 1 day ago • 3 minute read
In this file photo from May of 2018, then White City Mayor Bruce Evans is seen during the Town’s launch of a proposal to form one integrated full-service urban community with neighbouring subdivisions in White City. Photo by TROY FLEECE /Regina Leader-Post
A Halloween showdown is scheduled in Saskatchewan’s top court between White City and the Rural Municipality of Edenwold.
A hearing is slated for Oct. 31 for both parties to make arguments in front of a panel of judges in the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal relating to a January Saskatchewan Municipal Board (SMB) decision to deny an annexation bid by White City, which would’ve seen it take over lands from the neighbouring R.M.
Advertisement 2
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.
Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account.Get exclusive access to the Regina Leader-Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on.Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists.Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists.Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.
SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES
Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.
Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account.Get exclusive access to the Regina Leader-Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on.Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists.Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists.Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.
REGISTER TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES
Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.
Access articles from across Canada with one account.Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.Enjoy additional articles per month.Get email updates from your favourite authors.
Article content
Article content
The SMB decision was appealed by White City, and the Appeal Court decided the case would be heard, as relayed in a decision written by Justice Jerome Tholl, released in May.
Tholl wrote the appeal’s questions “raise new and unsettled points of law in relation to decisions of the committee.”
Since then, both parties have worked on filing written arguments, known as factums, which outline much of what Appeal Court judges will likely hear later this month.
White City is seeking to have the SMB decision set aside and the matter sent back to the SMB Committee to be reheard. The R.M. maintains the SMB decision was sound and it should be left to stand.
The town feels that the SMB committee failed to provide adequate reasons, on a number of fronts, for its decision to deny the bid.
“The Town submits that a reader should be able to conclude why the Committee made a given conclusion, and why it rejected the contrary submission as being deficient in law or fact.”
Related Stories
White City’s bid to annex RM of Edenwold lands denied by municipal board
White City submits formal boundary alteration request to RM of Edenwold
By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.
Article content
Advertisement 3
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
On this, the R.M.’s factum reads: “The points raised by the Appellant are not errors of law but a list of grievances regarding the Committee’s rejection of the Town’s arguments and evidence.”
“While succinct, the reasons were sufficient to communicate why the application was denied.”
The Municipal Board Act lays out a list of factors meant to be considered in an application for a municipal boundary change — many of which White City submits that the SMB committee “failed to address or discuss.”
Here, the R.M.’s view is that the committee is only required to consider the factors affecting involved municipalities.
The town suggests the committee “without reason, failed to discuss” specific evidence, including that which would’ve spoken to White City’s need to annex the land.
On this point, the R.M.’s factum reads: “The Appellant’s issues appear to be the Committee did not reach the conclusion the Town wanted it to rather than the Committee did not consider the Town’s evidence.”
Regardless, the R.M. submits, the SMB decision presented no legal error that would’ve impacted the outcome, in this regard.
Advertisement 4
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
White City holds that the SMB committee also disregarded previous decisions concerning annexation and time frames to be considered.
“Again, no justification was provided as to why prior decisions were not to be followed,” the White City factum reads.
However, the R.M. submits that the committee “stayed true to the generally accepted principles from previous decisions,” and noted it had considered all of the evidence, even if some was not mentioned.
“Not all parties can be successful when they put their case before a decision-maker,” the R.M.’s factum dryly suggests.
Each party’s factum runs more than 120 paragraphs, and presents arguments in much greater depth than is presented here.
It is yet unclear when a decision on the matter will be rendered by the court.
bharder@postmedia.com
With some online platforms blocking access to the news upon which you depend, our website is your destination for up-to-the-minute news, so make sure to bookmark leaderpost.com and sign up for our newsletters here so we can keep you informed.
Article content
>>> Read full article>>>
Copyright for syndicated content belongs to the linked Source : Leader Post – https://leaderpost.com/news/saskatchewan/white-city-annexation-case-to-be-heard-in-appeal-court-this-month
