Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 23 MAY 2022

Collateral Attacks Fail Against Municipalities

CLC (Canadian Litigation Counsel)
Explore more from CLC (Canadian Litigation Counsel)

The order also delayed that action by the City to give the property owner the opportunity to apply for and appeal the development permit.

CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Nabeel Peermohamed (Brownlee LLP)
Nabeel Peermohamed (Brownlee LLP)

In Ekman v Brooks (City), the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench reinforced that it will not tolerate litigation by instalments (or  "collateral attacks") and will respect previous decisions made by courts and subdivision development and appeal boards when it comes to litigation that repeats previously adjudicated allegations.

Rather than filing a lawsuit against a municipality, the proper path for the plaintiff would have been to file appeals with the Alberta Court of Appeal, as required in the Municipal Government Act  (MGA).

In this case, the property owner did not obtain a development permit prior to building an elaborate playground including five wooden structures and a zip line on their residential property. The owner also built two temporary structures to store tools and materials.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

The Coldcard Exploit: Why Victims May Have Two Routes To Recovery

A five-year-old firmware defect in Coldcard hardware wallets has enabled attackers to systematically drain an estimated $116 million in Bitcoin from over 5,200 victims since July 2026. This unprecedented exploit raises critical questions about manufacturer liability and creates two distinct legal pathways for recovery: blockchain tracing against the perpetrators and potential litigation against Canadian manufacturer Coinkite for product defects that undermined the fundamental security promise of devices mar
CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
WeirFoulds LLP
WeirFoulds LLP
Article

Plaintiffs Awarded A Total Of $800,000 In Damages For Defamation (Murdy v. Barrette)

A Canadian court awarded $800,000 in damages to a couple defamed by serious false allegations of sexual assault and criminal misconduct spread through social media. The case examines how factors like the severity of accusations, use of social media platforms, and a defendant's failure to mount a defense can dramatically escalate defamation damages beyond typical awards.
CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Gardiner Roberts LLP
Gardiner Roberts LLP
Article

Ontario’s New AI Rules: What Lawyers And Expert Witnesses Need To Know

Ontario's Rules of Civil Procedure now include strict amendments requiring lawyers and expert witnesses to certify the authenticity of every citation and authority used in court materials. These new anti-hallucination provisions impose significant penalties for presenting AI-generated fabricated authorities, fundamentally shifting accountability for artificial intelligence use in litigation.
CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Soloway Wright
Soloway Wright
Article

Not Beyond Reproach: Alberta Court Confirms Jurisdiction Over Alberta Energy Regulator

The Alberta Court of King's Bench has confirmed its jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief against the Alberta Energy Regulator despite a broadly worded statutory privative clause. This landmark decision, arising from Sumerian Oil & Gas's application to stay a suspension order affecting approximately 900 wells, represents one of the first considerations of the Supreme Court of Canada's recent Democracy Watch ruling and may significantly impact future disputes involving AER orders.
CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
MLT Aikins LLP
MLT Aikins LLP
Article

Do Canadian Manufacturers Owe A Duty To Develop Safer Alternatives?

The British Columbia Court of Appeal has left open the possibility that pharmaceutical manufacturers may owe a duty of care to develop safer alternatives to their existing products, even when those products are properly approved and labeled. This decision in Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. I.F. contrasts sharply with a recent California Supreme Court ruling that rejected such a "duty to innovate," potentially setting Canada on a divergent path in product liability law.
CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Torys
Torys