Land is zoned to regulate development, ensure public health and safety, and promote the general welfare of the community. The Planning and Development Act (the “PDA”) gives local governing bodies the authority to oversee the planning process. Zoning bylaws dictate the allowable usage of land and often outline the permitted and discretionary uses of the land. These bylaws are essential in managing development and future growth within a community by coordinating local development including the separation of incompatible land uses.
Many zoning bylaws define “development” as the carrying out of any building, engineering, mining, or other operations in, on or over land or the making of any material change in the use or intensity of the use of any building or land. As such, to construct, erect, place, alter, repair, renovate, or reconstruct a building/structure, a Development Permit is required in almost all cases.
The Saskatchewan Municipal Board’s Planning Appeals Committee (the “Appeals Committee”) recently dealt with the question of what constitutes a “development” under the PDA in the case of Ryan Martin, Leanne Martin, Jason Brittner and Tamara Brittner v Mervin (Rural Municipality), 2020 SKMB 42 [“Mervin”].
In Mervin, two recreational vehicles (“RVs”) were placed on a property without obtaining a development permit, resulting in an “Order to Remedy Development” being issued against the landowners by the Municipality. The landowners appealed the decision, and the Appeals Committee had to determine whether the placement of the two RVs on the land constituted a development that would require a development permit.
The Appeals Committee found that placing two RVs on the property was a change of use and constituted a development that required a permit. At paragraph 14 of the Mervin ruling, the Appeals Committee found:
[14] Upon consideration, our decision turns on whether the Applicants’ establishment of the two RVs on the subject property constitutes a “development ” as defined under the Bylaw and the Act. We agree with the RMs assertion that placing two RVs on the subject property is a change in use and constitutes a “development’. We have confirmed with the Appellants that the RVs were brought onto the subject property after purchasing the land. This action resulted in a “change of use” of the subject property as defined in the Bylaw.
As part of their analysis, the Appeals Committee determined that had the landowners been allowed to retain the RVs on the land without a permit, it would have constituted a special privilege inconsistent with the restrictions placed on the neighbouring properties in the Zoning District.
If you start the development process without acquiring the necessary approvals, an Order of Compliance or other enforcement measures may be imposed against you. If you are planning to develop land or are uncertain about whether or not you may require a Development Permit, please don’t hesitate to reach out to one of our lawyers. We would be more than happy to assist you.
Contacting a Lawyer on this Subject
Sarah is an associate lawyer with Robertson Stromberg and was called to the bar in 2023. While at law school, Sarah worked for the Ministry of Justice as a traffic prosecutor. She went on to complete her articles with the Ministry and worked as a Crown Prosecutor before joining Roberston Stromberg.
Contact Sarah at 1-306-933-1388 or s.bree@rslaw.com. The above is for general information only, and not legal advice. Parties should always seek legal advice before taking action in specific situations.
Related News and Articles
Congratulations to Jennifer D. Pereira, K.C. for receiving the Justice W. Frank Gerein Memorial Award
Established in 2017 by the Saskatchewan Trial Lawyers Association (STLA), the Justice W. Frank Gerein Memorial Award honours members of the profession who have made outstanding contributions to the legal community through involvement in voluntary and cause-related...
Saskatchewan Estate Litigation Update: Hunt v Hunt, 2023 SKKB 190
The recent Saskatchewan King’s Bench decision in Hunt v Hunt, 2023 SKKB 190 confronted a rather unique circumstance. The question was whether an executor who has renounced her right to probate an estate, can later rescind that renunciation. In the situation in Hunt,...
Saskatchewan Estate Litigation Update: Gilchrist v Gilchrist, 2023 SKKB 187
The recent Saskatchewan King’s Bench decision in Gilchrist v Gilchrist, 2023 SKKB 187 offers a reminder of the importance of updating your will. If you do not update your will, and certain beneficiaries named in your will have died before you, the legal outcome may be...
Join Tiffany Paulsen, K.C. for Women in the Lead: Navigating the Political Labyrinth
Join Tiffany Paulsen, K.C., for Women in the Lead: Navigating the Political LabyrinthWednesday, October 4, 2023 4:00 - 6:00 pm Networking to followJoin Tiffany Paulen, K.C., on October 4 for Women in the Lead: Navigating the Political Labyrinth. Hosted by Business...
Saskatchewan Estate Litigation Update: Gibb Estate (Re), 2023 SKKB 34
The recent Saskatchewan King’s Bench decision in Gibb Estate (Re), is an example of the Court’s ability to render a document effective as a testamentary document, even if said document was executed without all the formal requirements of the Wills Act, 1996.Factual...
James Steele to present at Webinar – When Estates Go to Court: Recent Saskatchewan Decisions (CPD 368)
Several recent Saskatchewan decisions provide guidance on various estate law topics. These include issues related to estate administration, as well as more contentious issues such as will challenges. This webinar summarizes some of the recent Saskatchewan decisions...
Saskatchewan Estate Litigation Update: Klaptchuk v Johnson, 2023 SKCA 25
The recent Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision in Klaptchuk v Johnson is a reminder of the principle of devastavit, which forbids an executor from distributing estate assets in disregard of a creditor’s outstanding claim against the estate. That said, Klaptchuk...
Saskatchewan Estate Litigation Update: Kowalinski v Kowalinski (Estate), 2023 SKKB 131
The recent Saskatchewan King’s Bench decision in Kowalinski v Kowalinski (Estate) is an example of how some estates can devolve into bitter quarrelling between the children of a deceased.Factual background: This matter arose out of the Estate of Maria Kowalinski...
The Evolution of Contract Acceptance in the Digital Age
The recent Saskatchewan King’s Bench decision of South West Terminal Ltd. v Achter Land & Cattle Ltd., 2023 SKKB 116 has made national Canadian news, being the first of its kind regarding core contract interpretation principles – a thumbs-up emoji can signify...
Saskatchewan Estate Litigation Update: Riben Estate (Re), 2023 SKKB 72
The recent Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench decision in Riben Estate (Re), 2023 SKKB 72 offers a reminder that a will challenger who alleges coercion must offer direct evidence to actually prove that pressure resulted in the creation of the challenged will. If they...
Saskatchewan Estate Litigation Update: Armstrong v Lee Grant, 2023 SKKB 111
The recent Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench decision in Armstrong v Lee Grant, 2023 SKKB 111 involved the question of when a trust beneficiary can attempt to unilaterally collapse a trust, and demand property from the trust immediately.Factual background: The...
Case Summary: Workman Optometry Professional Corporation v. Certas Home and Auto Insurance Company, 2023 ONSC 3356
Recently, the Ontario Superior Court released its decision in Workman Optometry Professional Corporation v. Certas Home and Auto Insurance Company, 2023 ONSC 3356 (“Workman Optometry”). Workman Optometry is a national class action comprised of businesses alleged to...