White City granted leave to appeal annexation decision

Edenwold argues 4,000 acres in question represents about 40 per cent of tax base

White City will be allowed to appeal a decision denying its bid to annex lands within the Rural Municipality of Edenwold.

The ruling follows a January decision by the Saskatchewan Municipal Board's (SMB) municipal boundary committee barring White City's attempt to annex nearly 4,000 acres of developed and undeveloped land in the RM of Edenwold, which was said to account for about 40 per cent of the RM'S tax base.

While the May 23 ruling by Justice Jerome Tholl with the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal does not overturn that SMB decision, it offers White City the chance to advance legal arguments about why it should be.

The rural municipality had argued the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal does not have the jurisdiction to give White City that opportunity. Tholl decided the court does have jurisdiction, but noted the RM could argue otherwise when the appeal itself is eventually heard.

White City advanced “twenty plus” grounds of appeal in support of its application to be granted leave. Tholl “reformulated” the grounds, which he said “captures the questions of law raised by the twenty-plus proposed grounds of appeal but weeds out any direct challenges to findings of fact.”

The questions of law in the case, as written by the judge, ask whether the SMB committee made mistakes in failing to provide adequate reasons, by ignoring, failing to consider, or misapprehending relevant evidence, by failing to apply the proper principles and legal test and by failing to consider the required factors from a section of the Municipal Board Act, or by basing its decision on irrelevant or improper considerations.

“An answer to these questions, if decided in favour of White City, would have a material impact on the bottom line of the committee's decision,” Tholl wrote.

“While I would not describe the apparent merits of these grounds as strong, neither can I describe them as lacking sufficient merit.”

Tholl noted the SMB committee decision had “considerable consequences,” and the reformulated questions “raise new and unsettled points of law in relation to decisions of the committee and transcend the particular in their implication.”

The awarding of legal costs associated were reserved, to be decided upon by the judges who hear the appeal.