Skip to content

Narrow screen resolution Wide screen resolution Auto adjust screen size Increase font size Decrease font size Default font size default color brick color green color
PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS . . . but horseowners' ZONING CHALLENGE triggers VIRAL SUPPORT ! 2018/12/18 16:40  
Not CONDO nor Building Scheme challenges, but a cautionary tale of NEW BRUNSWICK township governancers being damned if they do / damned if they don’t :

The challenged zoning NOs are here judicially held procedurally fair - along with an interesting discussion of the part time governance environment. ( Is it reminiscent of condo/strata/Building Scheme boards ? )

BUT these NOs have triggered not only an 800 signature petition by neighbours in supporting the challengers, but national media attention !

Like some covenant challengers, these can point to adjacent properties historically exempted as pre-existing non-confirming uses. Remember Polai v Toronto ?

They don't want to hear NO, but they are ruled to have gotten that answer in a procedurally fair process.

Dangremond v. Village of Salisbury 2018

Zoning challengers – howsoever much sympathetic - made a series of shaky decisions. NO ain't what they want to hear.

Now they have lost both municipal & ( first round ) judicial appeals. Will the viral publicity overturn the local NOs they received ?

The New Brunswick judicial decision against their challenge, VERY prominently displays a neighbourhood compromise which ( to be fair ) eccentric horse social factors may not have worked out at all – It's unclear . . .

Why did these challengers buy the property if they wanted horses ? What sort of PRE-PURCHASE DILIGENCE was done ? Did they risk relying on the visibly pre-existing non-conforming presence of exempted horses on nearby properties owned by neighbours whose ownership has not changed by purchase ?

Why have they refused a supporting neighbour's offer to accommodate those zoning-defiant horses ?

( Despite the comments of the judge, horses can be hyper-sensitive to grouping factors . . . maybe even to the point of violent physical conflict. At least one of the challengers' horses is a "rescue", possibly with these problems in an acute state . . . ? )

xcrpted Dangremond v. Village of Salisbury, 2018

" . . [14] In Nanaimo (City) v. Rascal Trucking Ltd. 2000 SCC 13 (CanLII), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 342; [2000] S.C.J. No. 14, the Supreme Court of Canada had this to say at paragraphs 30-33:

. . . 32 Second, municipalities are political bodies.

Whereas tribunal members should be and are, generally, appointed because they possess an expertise within the scope of the agency’s authority, municipal councillors are elected to further a political platform.

Neither experience nor proficiency in municipal law and municipal planning, while desirable, is required to be elected a councillor.

Given the relatively broad range of issues that a municipality must address, it is unlikely that most councillors will develop such special expertise even over an extended time.

Finally, as opposed to administrative tribunals, council decisions are more often by-products of the local political milieu than a considered attempt to follow legal or institutional precedent.

To a large extent council decisions are necessarily motivated by political considerations and not by an entirely impartial application of expertise. . . ."

- Mr Justice George S. Rideout ( N.B Q.B. ) Dangremond v. Village of Salisbury, 2018 NBQB 229 issued Dec 10/18

Dec 17/18 National Post “N.B. family forced to give up pet horses after losing years-long fight with village council. Salisbury considers the family's property to be residential, even though multiple homes around them — abodes at which their neighbours keep horses — are zoned rural” long-fight-with-village-council
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
contact webmaster