Blanket Rezoning Judicial Review Hearing Update

Thank you to everyone who attended online or at the courthouse on December 11, 2024, for the judicial review hearing concerning the blanket upzoning bylaw, 21P2024. The court room was filled and an overflow courtroom had to be made available.  The Webex link was also at capacity.   Accommodating online and in-person participants delayed the start of proceedings to 10:56 a.m., however, it was clear that Justice Lema, the presiding Justice, was cognizant of the significant level of public interest. This participation and interest underscores the depth of public concern over this bylaw.

The position of the Applicants opposing the bylaw was presented by Richard Harrison and Laura Warner.   They emphasized the legal arguments detailed in the Applicants’ brief filed on November 15, 2024, and rebutted the contentions made by the City in its filing.  Our counsel laid out and supported the case that the City of Calgary’s citywide zoning re-designation disregarded the procedural rights of individual lot owners, exceeded the authority granted under the Municipal Government Act (MGA), and significantly encroached on property rights in ways that undermine legislative intent and judicial principles. Counsel also highlighted procedural fairness concerns, asserting that Councillor Carra failed to maintain an open mind when considering his vote on the bylaw. This, they argued, breached the Applicants’ entitlement to a fair process by an independent tribunal. They provided specific examples of statements and behavior that demonstrated evidence of a lack of impartiality.  Our counsel concluded by indicating that, for the multiple reasons provided, the bylaw must be quashed.

The City of Calgary sought to defend the validity of Bylaw 21P2024, arguing it was passed within its legislative authority under the MGA. The City asserted that the Bylaw serves the public interest by expanding low-density housing options. The City argued that the MGA provides the City with almost unlimited planning and development authority and emphasized judicial deference to City council decisions in those matters.  The City maintained that the bylaw did not infringe on private property rights but rather they stated that it enhances development opportunities. Regarding the evidence concerning contentions related to whether Councillor Carra’s was biased, the City pointed to a statement made during the council debate where the councillor claimed to have an open mind. However, our counsel countered that this assertion was inconsistent with his broader behavior, including remarks excoriating those who opposed the bylaw, made immediately before his declaration of a having an open mind.

This is a complex and challenging case, and we cannot speculate on the outcome. However, we are confident that our legal team made and presented the best arguments in support of our position. They demonstrated a superior grasp of the law and answered all the court’s questions thoroughly and competently. They excelled in explaining the difficult legal issues at the heart of this case.

The hearing concluded at 4:17 p.m. Justice Lema thanked all counsel and participants for their contributions. He acknowledged the importance of the case and indicated that a decision is likely to be rendered by mid-January 2025.  

There is still a need for contributions to pay the legal bills.  We are at 75% of the goal. You can contribute directly to the legal action through the existing Go-Fund-Me page or avoid the transaction fee by contacting Mr. Robert Lehodey directly at robertlehodey@gmail.com.