Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme request

[photofly]

The Oshawa case is a beauty. The city got completely spanked by the magistrate judge.

Decision upheld at appeal, although the costs order against the City of Oshawa was set aside:


https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2 ... cj836.html

[jonas]

A similar "battle" happened in Oshawa with the local City taking a hangar owner to court over an addition he built. The court ruled the City had no jurisdiction over the property because it was under Federal rule, being part of an aerodrome.

The Oshawa case is a beauty. The city got completely spanked by the magistrate judge.

Decision upheld at appeal, although the costs order against the City of Oshawa was set aside:


https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2 ... cj836.html

Thanks for that, guys! In addition to your info, here's a great article that sums up the Oshawa airport case (before the appeal) from the Oshawa Express news outlet

http://oshawaexpress.ca/city-appealing- ... rt-hangar/


My case is nearly identical to the Oshawa case (maybe a little more malicious on behalf of the municipality).
It's surprising to me, when a ruling like what happened in Oshawa sets a very clear precedent, that the Woodlands County council and their lawyers from the firm Brownlee LLP would continue to pursue their legal crusade.

In addition to what happened in the Oshawa case, I ended up having to demolish my original hangar (that did not require a building permit at the time of construction) and build a new hangar in order to remedy the unplanned change in elevations surrounding my property that happened multiple times over a course of ten years (this is the reason for the settlement cheques being recently issued).

This original County Induced elevation problem seems to have (in my opinion) infuriated certain members of the council and set them on a path intent on "teaching a lesson". My opinion was reinforced the day the new bylaws and zoning came into effect where the entire Airport Airside Service district was dissolved, rezoned, and chopped into little parcels of Limited Commercial District "that incidentally happens to" border an airport, even though hangars still sit on these properties and are still being used for the operation and movement of aircraft.
This bylaw revision (in my opinion) was a direct result of my declaration that their bylaws were in error, and stating my intent to build a hangar without a valid building permit after patiently putting up with enough of their red tape. Multiple emergency council meetings took place in order to unanimously push the bylaw revision through before my hangar was completed, and the only major changes to the bylaws were the zoning of the airport showing a clear attempt to control current and future hangar development.

There are multiple instances where it is evident that the Woodlands county council (before the latest election) intended to regulate aeronautic activity at this airport.
In this publicly available municipal planning committee meeting transcript, using diagrams in my initial presentation, I had just finished pointing out that the taxiway in front of my hangar property was already three times wider than required by Transport Canada's TP312 5th edition Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices in relation to the traffic that uses the taxiway. I was referring to a prior complaint from a neighbouring aircraft operator who stated that his pilots/students needed my land to remain undeveloped for their safety. I asked the committee this question to try and relate it to their farming background,

OK guys, does Woodlands County randomly build their county roads 3 times wider than Transport Canada's requirements just because one specific farmer can't drive his tractor safely on the right side of the road?

It is now public record that R. Govenlock (MPC board member and County of Woodlands Councillor) replied to my question stating,

It is the MPC's prerogative to require higher standards than the minimum standards recommended by Transport Canada.

This alone should be evidence enough that the County of Woodlands is attempting to overrule the federal regulations.



There is another angle to this when it comes to seeking legal monetary damages.
I have had space available for rent in the hangar for nearly a year now. (the hangar would have been completed 3 years ago and been rented out had this not turned ugly.) Certain actions of certain organizations have caused problems with potential tenants and my ability to generate income from this property. I will leave it at that for now...

[RatherBeFlying]

I'd be claiming bad faith meriting punitive damages on the part of the council. The record demonstrates ample evidence. They sold you a hangar lot and then effectively buried it.

The transcript shows that the helicopter operator(s) feel the need for a large apron space and I wonder if there's an inclination to give preference to a big buck operation over an individual. Gold rules. If there's that much money involved, maybe the council should put up an equivalent hangar where it won't cause concern for the helicopter operator and trade the lot and hangar for your current hangar and lot.

Mind you I suspect the council is running up the legal expenses in the hope that you will run out of money to money to continue the action.

Several years ago I flew out of Holland Landing. The rotary and fixed wing hangars were at opposite ends of the airport. That worked pretty well, but hover practice within fifty yards of the runway could make landings interesting.

[jonas]

What happened in court? Update from Thursday April 19

A few more things were brought to light as I was attending Lakeland Sun N fun airshow before the hearing, so we asked for an adjournment until we can revise our court application. Some issues with how my application was worded was going to restrict or even prevent one aspect of my case from being properly argued.

Understandably, the county's lawyers weren't receptive to the idea of giving me a second chance on this.

However, the judge graciously decided to postpone the proceedings upon my (lawyer's) request, and had said something along the lines of the following;

There are some complex, possibly unsettled points of law here. This is a very serious consequence to the applicant and I am reluctant to foreclose arguments for the applicant such as they are, wether it's the constitutional argument or the standard judicial review types of arguments. The respondents are public authorities but the significant impact on the applicants application for development is this... The appropriate and just thing to do in this case is to grant the adjournment so the full range of the issues can be heard in a wholesome hearing.

He also encouraged us to get the province and feds involved in the proceedings.
And we were charged $1000 for court costs awarded to each of the county's 2 lawyers.

That's it for now... busy getting all my ducks in a row for the next court date, which has not yet been determined.

[JasonE]

The other thread about private airstrips brought this back to mind. Any updates Jonas?

[jonas]

Bit of an update. (I've been away from this site for a bit and meant to check in, time flies when you're having fun.)

Woodlands County along with 6 individuals working for the County has been charged in court for illegal poaching on airport property
https://www.whitecourtstar.com/news/loc ... pe0OTRhKYY

Woodlands County and Town of Whitecourt has been charged for ignoring environmental laws regarding waste disposal.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4475985/whit ... t-charges/

The Mayor of Woodlands County has just recently found himself pulled over by the cops for a driving offence related to impaired driving.
Mr. Rennie is charged under the
Criminal Code section 254 (5)
Failure or refusal to comply with demand
(Everyone commits an offence who, without reasonable excuse, fails or refuses to comply with a demand made under this section.)
First court appearance was January 15 2019, next court date set for February 12 2019.

The lawyer fees the County of Woodlands has paid to date regarding my property is approaching the half million dollar mark. $$$$!

Just the other day the County announced the permanent closure of a road due to budgetary shortfalls and the inability to replace a bridge.
https://www.whitecourtstar.com/news/loc ... ermanently

There are a number of other scandalous issues but those haven't reached the courts yet, not sure if they ever will, so I'll leave those out of this post.

Not that any of this has anything to do with my case, but you can start to see the pattern of how the law seems to be ignored in more than one instance in this municipality.

The good news is the CAO of the County of Woodlands has resigned along with a few other key personnel quit, got fired, or retired, and an immediate improvement of management over many different departments has been evident.

Regarding my case, things are chugging along slow and steady. I'll give a detailed update once something significant happens in court.
Ideally the mayor would resign, some new blood would step in, and this whole thing could just be dropped. (but I'm not holding my breath)

[Nephilim]

Any outcome of your court battles?

[jonas]

Update:
Been busy, haven't logged in to avcanada since I last posted in Jan 2019. Time sure flies when you're fighting an entire community!
Yes, a few things have happened, as "last call" for court documents was approaching, I decided to sue the past Mayor Jim Rennie, the CAO Luc Mercier, the development officer Tyler McNabb, and the County of Woodlands for damages for numerous reasons. The additional suit caused some delay in the original case court date as it has been lumped together with the existing court case since one relies on the outcome of the other. I believe all the defence documents have been filed and we are now waiting for a new court date which should happen fairly soon.

As for local political news,
Mayor of Woodlands County Jim Rennie stepped down from mayor position (but remaining on council) after the drunk driving thing citing "mental illness" and was then convicted, council elected a new mayor Ron Govenlock in a bizarre council meeting where in my opinion, municipal government act procedure was not followed at all. Within a few weeks of being mayor, Ron told the mayor of Whitecourt to "shove it where the sun don't shine" when referring to an inter municipal agreement that deals with emergency services, utilities, waste management etc... Ron found himself in the middle of a nasty turf war that erupted between the town of whitecourt and the County of Woodlands. (Ron also happens to be the chair of the municipal development committee that sparked my lawsuit.)
Things went from bad to worse for the county of Woodlands with Ron at the helm, as you can imagine if you read this local newspaper article, pretty much every meeting went this way.

https://www.townandcountrytoday.com/bar ... ew-1872445

The community started to revolt, the county council chambers began to fill with angry residents. Finally there was a mayoral review and now John Burrows is Mayor. The councillor Sylvia Bonnett cast the tie breaking vote between then mayor Ron Govenlock and the challenger John Burrows. Daggers eyes at that moment from the mayor chair, a sigh of relief from the residents and staff attending the meeting. I can only imagine the phone call she would have received that night. The next day Councillor Bonnett resigned. Later she was replaced with a resident turned councillor that stated "bad news travels fast" when referring to the issues at the airport.

John has gone from being the president of our local flying club and local mechanic, to councillor, to mayor of Woodlands County in 2 years. I'm certain the guy devours technical, procedure, and legal manuals as bedside reading. He has made drastic changes to the County in record time, including reducing council salary 15% and reducing the mayor annual salary from $120,000/year down to $70,000/year. Since he happens to be renting a spot in my hangar to do annuals on local planes (John's an AME) he can't act on any of these legal issues and must remove himself from council meetings to avoid conflict of interest issues any time my name comes up. Basically the score of council vs hangar has changed from 7-0 to 4-3. It doesn't really matter though, it's on course to continue to court unless 2 more councillors change their mind and drop the demolition injunction.

The mayor of Woodlands County has always supported and is renting the hangar that the Council of Woodlands has voted to demolish.
Yep, it's a real live soap opera around here! I can't make this stuff up.

[photofly]

Basically the score of council vs hangar has changed from 7-0 to 4-3. It doesn't really matter though, it's on course to continue to court unless 2 more councillors change their mind and drop the demolition injunction.

Er... wouldn't that be only one more councillor who needs to change their mind? 4-3 to 3-4?

[jonas]

Er... wouldn't that be only one more councillor who needs to change their mind? 4-3 to 3-4?

Normally, yes, But in this case Mayor Burrows can not cast a vote due to potential conflict of interest so his 1 of 3 on my side is essentially omitted from the argument, and a tie of 3-3 doesn't change anything.

[CrackerJ99]

Any update?

[Blaine Beaven]

Looks like this is the most recent thing to happen:

Boll v Woodlands County, 2021 ABQB 406 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/jg1sl>

From my read of it he can still pursue judicial review against the county, but the municipal planning committee and subdivision and development appeals board have been removed as parties.

[95] This list does not include the MPC or SDAB or analogous bodies. These bodies are not constitutional decision makers. The decision being sought by Boll and Pipistrel is a constitutional decision concerning the LUB passed by the County. It is legally impossible for the MPC or the SDAB to determine the constitutional validity of the LUB. These bodies had to assume the validity of the bylaw: Coffman v Ponoka (County No 3), 1998 ABCA 260 at para 10.

[96] I have considered the merits of the application and keeping the MPC and SDAB in the action as parties. I am satisfied, based on the material before me, that in all the circumstances they are not proper parties. The claim against them has no merit. The fair and just result is to grant the application for summary dismissal.

[97] The decision that is being challenged was made by the County when it enacted the by-law that Boll and Pipistrel claim is ultra vires. There is no subsisting MPC or SDAB decision that remains open to challenge in this judicial review.

Boll also had costs awarded against him for adding these two entities to his claim:

[110] In my view, the conduct of Boll and Pipistrel does not attract a solicitor-client costs award. However, for the reasons stated above, at paragraphs 104-106 of this Reasons for Decision, I find that both the MPC and SDAB are entitled to enhanced costs against Boll and Pipistrel. The Applicants’ conduct falls short of what is expected of a responsible litigant in the circumstances of the present case.

Blaine