Canadian Pacific Ltd. et al v. Town of Vulcan

Canadian Pacific Ltd. et al v. Town of Vulcan

The Supreme Court held that the Provincial Planning Board correctly interpreted the Planning Act: the 10% reserve under s.26(1) is to be computed on the land that was declared surplus and subdivided (17.94 acres), not on the entire original railway parcel (38.62 acres); accordingly the Court of Appeal's decision was set aside and the Board's order restored.

Citation
[1980] 2 SCR 177
Parties
Appellant/cross Respondent: Canadian Pacific Limited; Appellant/cross Respondent: Marathon Realty Company Limited; Respondent/cross Appellant: Town of Vulcan; Cross Respondent: Provincial Planning Board; Intervener: Attorney General of Canada; Intervener: Attorney General of Alberta; Intervener: Attorney General of British Columbia
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 October 1980
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal of Alberta
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal set aside; order of the Provincial Planning Board restored; cross-appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Subdivision Approval, Reserve Land Requirement (10% S.26), Statutory Interpretation, Railway Lands, Payment in Lieu
Source Language
English
Municipal Law Planning Law Administrative Law Property Law Subdivision Approval Reserve Land Requirement (10% S.26) Statutory Interpretation Railway Lands +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canadian Pacific Limited

Appellant/cross Respondent

Marathon Realty Company Limited

Appellant/cross Respondent

Town of Vulcan

Respondent/cross Appellant

Provincial Planning Board

Cross Respondent

Attorney General of Canada

Intervener

Attorney General of Alberta

Intervener

Attorney General of British Columbia

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal of Alberta

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 10% reserve requirement under s.26(1) of the Planning Act is to be calculated on the entire original railway parcel (38.62 acres) or only on the portion of land declared surplus and subdivided (17.94 acres)
  2. 2 Whether the Provincial Planning Board or the Alberta Court of Appeal applied the correct statutory interpretation of the Planning Act and the Subdivision and Transfer Regulation

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the Provincial Planning Board correctly interpreted the Planning Act: the 10% reserve under s.26(1) is to be computed on the land that was declared surplus and subdivided (17.94 acres), not on the entire original railway parcel (38.62 acres); accordingly the Court of Appeal's decision was set aside and the Board's order restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal set aside; order of the Provincial Planning Board restored; cross-appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal of Alberta set aside