Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Mike Terrigno sought a 30-to-60-day extension from the Court of King's Bench of Alberta to satisfy outstanding prior-to-release conditions on a conditionally approved development permit for a multi-tenant industrial office/warehouse building.

• Two conditions remained unfulfilled — an executed road widening agreement and a utility right-of-way agreement — due to an ongoing dispute between Terrigno and Rocky View County over the wording of these agreements.

• Rocky View County's Land Use Bylaw caps time extensions for prior-to-release conditions at a maximum of three twelve-month extensions (36 months), and the Applicant had already received four such extensions.

• The Applicant argued the Court possessed inherent jurisdiction under the Judicature Act to extend the Bylaw's maximum time limit, while the County maintained the proper recourse was an appeal to the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (SDAB).

• No evidence was presented to support the Applicant's allegations of a "history of high-handed, unreasonable, and improper conduct" by the County amounting to "bad faith and an abuse of public authority."

• Justice O.P. Malik dismissed the application, finding no legal or equitable justification for overriding the Bylaw's time limits, particularly when the claim rested primarily on expediency and convenience.

The development permit and its conditions

On September 7, 2021, Rocky View County's development authority issued a Notice of Decision conditionally approving Mike Terrigno's development permit application for the construction of a multi-tenant industrial office/warehouse building, subject to various prior-to-release conditions. The original deadline to satisfy these conditions and obtain a development permit expired on March 31, 2022. Terrigno was subsequently granted four twelve-month extensions, which extended the deadline to March 31, 2026. Despite these extensions, two conditions remained outstanding: an executed road widening agreement and a utility right-of-way agreement.

The dispute over agreement wording

The central factual dispute revolved around the terms of the outstanding agreements. On February 24, 2026, the County advised the Applicant that it would not grant him a further extension. On February 27, the County sent its draft agreements to the Applicant. Terrigno responded with proposed revisions on March 4. On March 5, the County informed him that there was insufficient time to consider his revisions. The County characterized Terrigno's proposed revisions as substantial, constituting a material re-write of the agreements and significantly departing from its approved, standard-form templates. Terrigno, who was self-represented, accused the County of coercive and unreasonable conduct, arguing that it was unfair for the County to require him to sign agreements whose terms he disputed, especially when it refused to consider his proposed changes. He further asserted that the County was acting contrary to its obligations as a public authority.

The statutory and bylaw framework

The case was governed by the Municipal Government Act (MGA), RSA 2000, c M-26, which establishes the statutory framework governing land development in Alberta. Part 17 of the MGA sets out the rules for municipal planning, subdivision, and land development, empowering municipal districts to create statutory plans and land use bylaws, and to appoint development authorities responsible for deciding development permit applications. Section 640 of the MGA requires the County to enact a land use bylaw. A stated purpose of Rocky View County's Land Use Bylaw, Bylaw C-8000-2020, is to establish a method of making decisions on applications for development, including the issuing of development permits and the discretionary power of the development authority. Section 52(b) of the Bylaw authorizes the development authority to provide written time extension agreements in alignment with the Bylaw. However, section 66 of the Bylaw limits these agreements with respect to prior-to-release conditions to a maximum of three extensions, each lasting twelve months. The Court noted that it did not know on what basis the development authority granted the Applicant an additional twelve-month extension over and above what the Bylaw allows, and that if the Bylaw were applied as written, the Applicant's deadline to satisfy the disputed conditions expired on March 31, 2025.

The Applicant's jurisdictional arguments

Terrigno argued that the Court of King's Bench, as a superior court with inherent jurisdiction, possessed the authority to grant remedies for all legal and equitable claims properly brought before it, pursuant to section 8 of the Judicature Act, RSA 2000, c J-2. He asserted that this included the power to extend the maximum time limit imposed by the Bylaw for fulfilling prior-to-release conditions. He further argued that there was no reasonable alternative administrative remedy available to him, because initiating a new development permit application or appealing the development authority's decision to the SDAB would entail significant time, delays, and costs. In support of his arguments, he relied on Strickland v Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 37, Alberta Turkey Producers v Leth, 2006 ABQB 497, Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Canadian Pacific System Federation v Canadian Pacific Ltd, [1996] 2 SCR, AltaLink Management Ltd v Edmonton (City), 2005 ABQB 333, and Spruce Grove Gun Club v Parkland (County), 2018 ABQB 427.

The County's position and the role of the SDAB

Rocky View County contended that the Court lacked the jurisdiction to alter the maximum time extensions prescribed by the Bylaw. Should the Applicant dispute the development authority's decision, the County submitted that recourse lay in an appeal to the SDAB. It further asserted that the SDAB possesses the mandate to review the conditions attached to a development permit, including the form and substance of the agreements, relying on McCauley Community League v Edmonton (City), 2012 ABCA 86. In response to the Court's inquiry, the County confirmed that it would suspend the expiry of the Applicant's Notice of Decision while an appeal to the SDAB remains pending.

The ruling and outcome

Justice O.P. Malik of the Court of King's Bench of Alberta dismissed Terrigno's application. The Court found no authority that would permit it to unilaterally alter the maximum time limit established by the Bylaw for an applicant to fulfil prior-to-release conditions. Justice Malik agreed with the County that the SDAB possesses the mandate to review the conditions attached to the development permit and any issues relating to its expiry. Although the Court occasionally exercises its jurisdiction to review such issues in special circumstances, Justice Malik found that none existed in this case, and that the Applicant had not yet utilized the review or appeal processes available under the statutory scheme. The Court held that the Applicant had not demonstrated any legal or equitable justification for extending the maximum time limits set out in the Bylaw, especially when the application was based primarily on considerations of expediency and convenience. The Applicant's options, as identified by the Court, are to submit a new development permit application or to appeal the development authority's refusal to consider the prior-to-release conditions fulfilled to the SDAB. Terrigno's claim for elevated costs — premised on allegations of a "history of high-handed, unreasonable, and improper conduct" by the County amounting to "bad faith and an abuse of public authority" — was also rejected, as there was no evidence before the Court to support such allegations. The Court declined to award costs to either party. Rocky View County was the successful party in the proceeding. No monetary amount was ordered, granted, or awarded, as the dispute concerned a procedural extension of time rather than a damages claim.