Background:

• Chemtrade Logistics Inc. filed a Judicial Review Application against two development permits issued by the City of Fort Saskatchewan.
• The permits involved industrial developments within a legally required 500-meter "setback" of Chemtrade’s sour gas pipeline, which carries hazardous hydrogen sulphide.
• Chemtrade argued that the permits breached safety regulations and procedural fairness, citing risks to public safety.

Key Issues:

1. Adequate Alternative Remedy:

   • The respondents argued that Chemtrade had statutory appeal rights under the Municipal Government Act (MGA), making judicial review unnecessary.
   • Chemtrade contended the statutory remedies were inadequate, as procedural issues (e.g., late notice of permits) prevented effective use of appeal mechanisms.

2. Exceptional Circumstances:

   • Chemtrade argued that risks to public safety due to potential sour gas exposure justified judicial review, even if statutory remedies existed.

Court Analysis:

• Summary Dismissal Test: The court evaluated whether the Judicial Review Application lacked merit or whether alternative remedies were sufficient.
• Permit #1: Late notice prevented Chemtrade from filing a timely appeal. The court found the failure of notice created procedural unfairness, constituting exceptional circumstances.
• Permit #2: Chemtrade did not appeal, arguing no statutory appeal was available due to the permit’s specific nature. The court found insufficient evidence that Chemtrade had an adequate alternative remedy.
• Public Safety: The court emphasized the significant risks associated with sour gas exposure, underscoring the need for judicial oversight to ensure compliance with safety regulations.

Conclusion:

• The court dismissed the applications for summary dismissal, allowing Chemtrade's Judicial Review Application to proceed.
• It highlighted that public safety concerns justified judicial intervention.
• No monetary award specified.