Leyton-High v Edmonton (City)

canada, canadian, case law, court opinion, canlii, abca, 2026abca273, 2026 abca 273 (canlii), 2026, abca, 273, (canlii), 2603-0130ac, 2026, administrative law, statutory appeal, subdivision and development appeal board, scope of review at permission stage, whether proposed grounds raise a question of law or jurisdiction, appellate standards of review, housen v nikolaisen, vavilov, no demonstrated relaxation, variation or misinterpretation, permission to appeal denied, procedure, permission to appeal, municipal government act, mga, s. 688(3), whether each proposed ground is sufficiently important, raises a question of law or jurisdiction, and has a reasonable prospect of success, public importance of zoning, infill and density considered, requirements not met, permission to appeal denied, municipalities, land use planning, municipal government act, mga, s. 685(3), whether an appeal lies from issuance of a development permit for a permitted use, board’s task limited to relaxation, variation or misinterpretation of the zoning bylaw, no variances evident on the face of the approval, permission to appeal denied, statutory interpretation, municipal bylaw, edmonton zoning bylaw 20001, interpretation of “may” discretion, whether discretion to seek additional information under ss. 7.140.1.1 and 7.140.5.1 can be treated as foreclosing misinterpretation review, separate drainage bylaw process noted, no question of law or jurisdiction, permission to appeal denied, municipalities, development permits, site, performance standards, edmonton zoning bylaw 20001, s. 5.120.4, whether board failed to analyse waste collection facilities requirements, “adequate” facilities to the satisfaction of the development planner in consultation with waste services, consultation completed and no concerns identified, permission to appeal denied