Altemeyer v Winnipeg (City) et al, 2018 MBCA 47

Citation: Altemeyer v Winnipeg (City) et al, 2018 MBCA 47 Date: 20180427 Docket: AI17-30-08918 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Madam Justice Diana M. Cameron Mr. Justice William J. Burnett Mr. Justice Christopher J. Mainella BETWEEN : JENNIFER ALTEMEYER ) J. Altemeyer ) on her own behalf (Applicant) Appellant ) ) A. J. Ladyka and - and - ) K. B.

Bomback ) for the Respondents CITY OF WINNIPEG AND WEST ) BROADWAY DEVELOPMENT ) CORPORATION ) Appeal heard and ) Decision pronounced: (Respondents) Respondents ) April 27, 2018 PER CURIAM [ 1 ] Following the hearing, the panel recessed to determine whether a decision could be provided today. The parties were subsequently advised that a decision would be given at 1:15 p.m. The applicant advised the deputy registrar that she would not be present and that the decision could be pronounced in her absence.

This is the decision. [ 2 ] The applicant appeals the dismissal of her motion for the following relief: 1. an order joining, as a respondent, the Province of Manitoba (Manitoba) and, more specifically, Neighbourhoods Alive! pursuant to Manitoba, Court of Queen’s Bench Rules , Man Reg 553/88, r 5.02(2); 2. clarification of the issues to be explored at the hearing of the application for judicial review pursuant to Queen’s Bench r 14.05(2); 3. an order for inspection of documents in the possession of a non-party architectural firm pursuant to Queen’s Bench r 30.10(1); 4. access to the records of a councillor of the City of Winnipeg; and 5. current information as to the status of a development partnership proposal. [ 3 ] The background to these proceedings is summarized in an earlier decision of this Court (the earlier decision).

See Altemeyer v Winnipeg (City) et al , 2016 MBCA 71 at paras 2-11 . [ 4 ] Simply put, this appeal is frivolous and without merit. [ 5 ] In particular: (

a) the motion judge did not misdirect herself or make an unjust decision when she determined that it is not necessary for Manitoba or Neighbourhoods Alive! to be added as a party in order for the court to effectively and completely adjudicate on the issues raised in the application for judicial review; (

b) the applicant failed to clarify the second item of relief, and it was properly dismissed by the motion judge; (

c) a decision to order inspection or disclosure of documents is a matter which falls within a judge’s discretion and is subject to a

deferential standard of review. Once again, we are not persuaded that the motion judge misdirected herself or that her decision to deny the applicant’s request for documentary disclosure was so clearly wrong as to amount to an injustice; and (

d) the applicant’s request for current information as to the status of the development partnership proposal was properly dismissed. [ 6 ] In the earlier decision, the Court observed (at para 14): [The applicant] t ook umbrage at certain inquiries and comments made by the judge in the course of the hearing. She was also critical of his judgment insofar as it did not deal with all of the arguments that she made, or the evidence that she advanced through the numerous affidavits which she filed .

As was the case in the earlier decision, we are of the view that the motion judge’s inquiries and comments were both legitimate and appropriate and that her reasons were sufficient. [ 7 ] The judicial review, which is at the heart of the applicant’s application, has been sitting undecided for more than three years. There have been two interlocutory proceedings in the Court of Queen’s Bench which have been appealed to this Court. In our view, the court process is being abused, and we must intervene to ensure the proper administration of justice. [ 8 ] The appeal is dismissed.

Costs in the sum of $1,000 (inclusive of disbursements) are payable forthwith to each of the respondents. Until such costs are paid, no further interlocutory proceedings shall be taken by the applicant in Court of Queen’s Bench File No. CI15-01-94222 without leave of a judge of that Court. JA JA JA