Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal questioned due to failure to serve the City of Edmonton within the 30-day statutory period.

• Application of section 688 of the Municipal Government Act regarding mandatory service on the municipality and SDAB.

• Distinction between naming the correct respondent and actual timely service on the necessary parties.

• Whether the Court can extend or cure late service under the Municipal Government Act or Alberta Rules of Court.

• Standing of the City of Edmonton as a necessary party to the appeal process.

• Effect of non-compliance with statutory service requirements on the right to appeal.

Facts of the case

The City of Edmonton applied to strike Stanley Boonstra’s application for permission to appeal a decision of the Edmonton Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (SDAB) dated February 13, 2025. The SDAB decision upheld a Stop Order against Mr Boonstra for “Minor Industrial Use” issued November 20, 2024, by a Development Compliance Officer related to a property in a Small Scale Residential Zone. The SDAB decision listed Mr Boonstra’s corporation, SNOW Enterprises Ltd, as the appellant and The City of Edmonton, Development Authority as the respondent. For the striking application, neither the City nor the SDAB raised concerns about Mr Boonstra’s standing.

Mr Boonstra filed his application for permission to appeal on March 17, 2025, naming “The City of Edmonton, Development Authority” as the respondent and did not name or serve the City of Edmonton. He stated in writing to the Court’s Case Management Officer that his arguments were against the SDAB decision and that the City had no standing and was acting in bad faith. The City contended it was a necessary party under section 688 of the Municipal Government Act (MGA), which requires service on the affected municipality. The Case Management Officer later added the City as a respondent and changed the existing respondent’s name to “Edmonton Subdivision and Development Appeal Board.”

The City first became aware of Mr Boonstra’s application on April 1, 2025, when counsel for the SDAB delivered a copy, which was outside the 30-day time-period for service specified in the MGA. The SDAB supported the City’s request to strike and stated it was not served until March 25, 2025, 38 days after the decision. On May 29, 2025, all parties agreed to adjourn Mr Boonstra’s permission to appeal application to September 17, 2025, but the City’s application to strike proceeded.

Discussion of policy terms and statutory provisions

Section 688 of the MGA was central to the decision. It requires that an application for permission to appeal must be filed and served within 30 days after the decision sought to be appealed, and notice must be given to the subdivision and development appeal board and the municipality, who are respondents to the application. The Court found that the MGA does not provide for any extension of the 30-day period, nor does it incorporate the Alberta Rules of Court provisions that might allow for extension or curing of late service. The Court relied on previous decisions, including Northern Sunrise (County) v De Meyer, 2009 ABCA 205, and The Green Company Ltd v Calgary (Subdivision and Development Appeal Board), 2019 ABCA 11, confirming that service on the municipality within the statutory time limit is mandatory and jurisdictional.

Mr Boonstra argued that he became aware of the requirement to serve the City only after receiving the City’s application to strike and that no prejudice arose from the late service. He also argued for retroactive recognition of service, but the Court held that a nunc pro tunc order is not available when the statutory time limit has expired and that the City need not demonstrate prejudice.

Outcome and reasoning

The Court held that it had no jurisdiction to extend the time for service and therefore no jurisdiction to hear or grant Mr Boonstra’s application for permission to appeal. The application was struck. The City declined to seek costs against Mr Boonstra, and the parties were ordered to bear their own costs. The City of Edmonton was the successful party, and no monetary award or costs were ordered in its favor as the City declined to seek costs and the order was for each party to bear their own costs.