Edmonton (City) v Peter, 2016 ABQB 62

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: Edmonton (City) v Peter, 2016 ABQB 62 Date: 20160127 Docket: 1503 13454 Registry: Edmonton Between: The City of Edmonton Applicant - and - Matthew Peter Respondent _______________________________________________________ Endorsement of the Honourable Madam Justice J.B. Veit _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Mr. Peter expressed concerns about some aspects of the City’s proposed form of order.

In particular, he suggests that the wording in para. 1 of the draft would prevent him, or his tenants, from having future yard sales which comply with municipal by-laws. One might have thought that the wording of para. 1 could not be interpreted as Mr. Peter suggests; however, the City argues that Mr. Peter has “abused” his yard sale privileges and that he should be prevented from having future yard sales. That is not an issue that was raised at the hearing or dealt with in my decision.

In the result, the proposed draft of para. 1 is approved, but for the replacement of the word “the yard sale” in the second line of the order with the word “that yard sale”. [ 2 ] With respect to para. 2 of the draft, the word “outside” is removed and replaced with the words “in the yard of”. [ 3 ] With respect to para. 3 of the draft, after the word “materials” the words “referred to in paragraph 2 above” will be inserted.

Although the expression “in an outdoor location” may be somewhat cumbersome, the expression adequately represents the intention of the decision that the excessive accumulation of materials stored outside the house on the Property cannot simply be moved to be stored outside on any other Edmonton property owned or occupied by Mr. Peter. [ 4 ] With respect to para. 4 of the draft order, Mr. Peter is worried that the wording will prevent him, or his tenants from normal use of the residential waste collection system.

That is not a legitimate concern given the language which restricts access to the residential waste collection system to the materials referred to in the order. [ 5 ] With respect to para. 8 of the order, Mr. Peter objects to the payment of costs on four grounds: he quickly complied with the court order, the situation was novel, the court’s decision was erroneous, and, that he is impecunious. As indicated to Mr.

Peter at the hearing, costs are intended to promote the reasonable and fair settlement of disputes; therefore, the usual rule is that the party who is unsuccessful in a court application pays costs to the successful party. There is no reason to depart from that rule in the circumstances here. Mr. Peter did, indeed, quickly comply with the court order; compliance is, in fact, what is both required and expected. The situation here was not novel; Mr. Peter did not discover a “loop-hole”; Mr. Peter breached a clear by-law. The situation should have been resolved without a court appearance.

A decision of a superior court is valid unless and until it is over-turned; the court must assess costs on the basis of the decision issued. Finally, even if Mr. Peter had provided proof of impecuniosity, that would not have relieved him of the obligation to pay costs; it would only have prevented the City from collecting costs. [ 6 ] The City’s bill of costs follows

Schedule C. The court therefore awards costs of the substantive application in the amount of $1,700.00. [ 7 ] Success on the settlement application is divided. Therefore, each party will bear their own costs of the December 8, 2015 hearing. Heard on the 8 th day of December, 2015. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 27 th day of January, 2016. J.B. Veit J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Megan Kyriacou, City of Edmonton Law Branch for the Applicant Mr. Peter on his own behalf