Processing The Petition: Benchmarks For Rural Municipality Administrators In Reaching A Resolution

Published date05 June 2020
AuthorTeague Pushor and Milad Alishahi
Subject MatterLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Real Estate and Construction, Trials & Appeals & Compensation, Construction & Planning
Law FirmMLT Aikins LLP

The recent decision of Olive v. The Rural Municipality of Keys No. 303, 2020 SKQB 146, highlights important considerations for rural municipalities involving petitions for referendums. Justice H.D. Macmillan-Brown outlines a two-part test for administrators to conduct when determining the eligibility of petitions put forth by ratepayers, and emphasizes the importance of rural municipalities staying within their jurisdictional capabilities.

The Hutterian Brethren of Crystal Lake made an application to the Rural Municipality of Keys No. 303 (the "RM") to develop a new colony that would include communal dwellings, and to develop and operate an intensive livestock operation ("ILO") on the colony. In order to proceed with the application, the RM passed Bylaw 03-2018 to amend the definition of the term "farmstead" in the Zoning Bylaw (Bylaw 2004-03) to include collective dwellings. This allowed Council to approve the development of collective dwellings.

Ratepayers and other individuals residing in the area became concerned about the impact of the proposed ILO on their water supply. Therefore, action was taken through a petition sent to the RM. It sought a referendum on a resolution concerning the repeal of Bylaw 03-2018 and the enactment of a new bylaw which would only give effect to amendments surrounding collective dwellings after a period of consultation with voters. The petition was rejected by the RM administrator on the grounds that petitions for referendums under The Municipalities Act cannot relate to matters under The Planning and Development Act. The petition sought to repeal amendments to the Zoning Bylaw, which was enacted under The Planning and Development Act.

Wilson Olive, one of the petitioners, applied to the Court to seek two orders: first, to compel the RM administrator to report on the sufficiency of the petition and second, to require the RM Council to act upon the petition and put it to a referendum.

In her decision, Justice Macmillan-Brown outlines two threshold requirements, one procedural and one jurisdictional, that petitioners must cross in order to trigger a referendum. The procedural threshold deals with the concept of sufficiency. Under section 134 of The Municipalities Act, the administrator is responsible for determining whether or not the petition is sufficient. In order to ascertain sufficiency, the administrator must ensure that the formalities outlined in section 133 of The Municipalities Act are met, count the signatures...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT