Court of Appeal

                                NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL

Citation: Williams Lake Conservation v. Chebucto Community Council, 2004 NSCA 79

                                                                                                    Date:  20040611

                                                                                               Docket: CA 213652

                                                                                                   Registry:  Halifax

Between:                        

Williams Lake Conservation Company, a body corporate pursuant to the Companies Act of Nova Scotia

                                                                                                               Appellant

                                                             v.

Chebucto Community Council of Halifax Regional Municipality, a municipal corporate body pursuant to the Municipal Government Act of the Province of Nova Scotia

and

                                                                                                            Respondent

Kimberly-Lloyd Developments Ltd., a corporate body pursuant to the laws of the Province of Nova Scotia

Interested Party

Judge:                            Oland, J.A.

Appeal Heard:                May 18, 2004                 

Subject:       Planning law.  Reasonable apprehension of bias.  Procedural fairness.      

Summary:        After the Community Council approved a re‑zoning application, the appellant applied for an order in the nature of certiorari to quash that decision.   The Chambers judge denied its application.  In its appeal, the appellant alleged reasonable apprehension of bias.  After the public information closed but before its vote on the re‑zoning application, the Community Council considered a supplementary report which it had asked planning staff to prepare.  The appellant also argued that the Chambers judge had erred in law in not determining that the public should have had an opportunity to respond to that supplementary report before Community Council voted on the re‑zoning.

Result:             Appeal dismissed with costs.  A reasonable and informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically, and having thought the matter through, would not conclude that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias.  When read in context, a factual error and comments in the decision do not give rise to such an apprehension.  An opportunity to respond to material prepared by staff and considered by the Community Council should be provided where that material contains new information relevant to the municipal planning strategy or was put forward by a proponent or opponent advocating for a particular result.  This was not the situation in this case.  No wrong principle of law had been applied, nor would a patent injustice result.