Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Whether a plaintiff must first quash a bylaw under The Cities Act before seeking injunctive relief against a municipality.

• Interpretation of sections 313 and 320 of The Cities Act regarding legal remedies for municipal bylaw disputes.

• Assessment of when a statement of claim can be struck as frivolous or an abuse of process.

• The court's inherent jurisdiction to prevent improper use of its processes by litigants.

• The right of a self-represented litigant to amend a claim before it is struck.

• Standard of review applicable to decisions to strike claims and deny amendments.

Facts and procedural background

Cary Tarasoff, a homeowner in Saskatoon, filed a lawsuit against the City of Saskatoon after the city amended its zoning bylaw to allow multi-unit dwellings in areas previously zoned for single-family homes. The amendment was part of the city’s effort to qualify for federal funding under the Housing Accelerator Fund (HAF), a program aimed at increasing housing density. Tarasoff opposed the change, citing concerns about potential negative effects on infrastructure and property values. He attended public consultations and later filed a statement of claim alleging misrepresentation, breach of contract, negligence, private nuisance, and unjust enrichment. His main request was for injunctive relief, including a suspension or halt of the HAF process until adequate engineering studies were completed.

Alongside the claim, he also sought a temporary injunction to pause the HAF approvals. That application was dismissed by a Chambers judge, who later granted the City’s application to strike his entire claim under Rule 7-9(2) of The King’s Bench Rules. The judge ruled the claim was frivolous and an abuse of process because Tarasoff had not used the statutory mechanism under section 320 of The Cities Act to challenge the zoning bylaw. She concluded that section 313 barred any legal action regarding the bylaw unless it had been quashed. Tarasoff appealed.

Court of Appeal decision

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the Chambers judge’s decision. The court held that the judge erred in law by treating sections 313 and 320 of The Cities Act as a complete bar to injunctive or declaratory relief. While section 313 precludes damage claims for actions under an illegal bylaw unless it is first quashed, the court clarified that it does not prevent other forms of relief such as injunctions or declarations. Citing a long line of case law, both historical and modern, the court confirmed that actions challenging the legality of bylaws through means other than quashing (e.g., seeking an injunction to restrain enforcement) are valid.

The court further explained that section 320 provides a process to quash a bylaw but is not the only permissible route for contesting municipal action. Plaintiffs may seek court intervention through declarations or injunctions even without initiating proceedings under section 320, provided the legal basis is sound. The Chambers judge's failure to consider this and her reliance on the procedural omission to justify striking the entire claim were found to be legal errors.

In addition, the appellate court held that the Chambers judge wrongly denied Tarasoff the opportunity to amend his claim. Given that striking a claim deprives a plaintiff of access to the courts, an opportunity to amend should generally be granted unless the claim is clearly unsalvageable. The denial in this case was based entirely on an incorrect legal premise, rendering the decision flawed.

The matter was remitted to the Chambers judge to determine whether Tarasoff's claim should be struck under Rule 7-9(2)(a) for disclosing no reasonable cause of action and to consider whether amendments should be permitted. No order as to costs was made.