LAW AMENDMENTS COMMITTEE

Red Room, Province House

Tuesday, May 10, 2011 - 2:30 pm

Bill #23 - Public Procurement Act

2:30 pm MaryEllen Donovan, Legal Counse l Halifax Regional Municipality

John Hope, Associate Legal Counsel

Bill#55 - Medical Act

3 :00 3. Dr. Lisa Richard, Registrar College of Chiropractors

4. Dr. Cameron Little, Registrar Marjorie Hickey, Legal Counsel College ofPhysicians and Surgeons

Bill #36 - Energy Saving Roadway Lighting (2011) Act

3 :30 5. Derek Percival, Director of Operations Eco-Shift Power Corporation

Bill #40 - Liquor Control Act (amended)

3 :45 6. Superintendent Bill Moore Halifax Regional Municipality Police Service

7. Luke Erjavec, Vice President Canadian Restaurant and Food Services Association

Bill #41 - Dangerous and Unsightly Premises Amendment (2011) Ac t

4:15 8. Linda Mosher, Councillor Halifax Regional Municipality,

Halifax Regional Municipality Police Service

Bill#51 -Community Control of Non-controlled-access Highway Advertisin g Amendment (2011) Act

4:30 9. MaryEllen Donovan, Legal Counsel Halifax Regional Municipality

Bill#52 -Government Administration Amendment (2011)Act

4:45 10. Sally Campbell

Bill#53 -Labour Standards Code (amended)

5:00 11 . Claudette Legault, Director of Programs and Service s ISIS - Immigrant Settlement & Integration Service s

12. Luke Erjavec, Vice President Canadian Restaurant and Food Services Association

Bill#57 -Private Ways Act (amended)

5 :30 13 . John Keith, Partner Palmer Cox & Speaking on behalf of Dr. Charles and Marie Cron

14. Susan Sheehan

Bill#17 -Fair Drug Pricing Act (deferred from previous meeting)

Bill#35 -Body Armour Control Ac t (no representation)

Bill #54 - Cemeteries Protection Act (amended ) (no representation)

Bill#56 -Real Estate Trading Act (amended) (no representation) Legal Services 3rd Floor, 5251 Duke Street Tel : (902) 490-4226 P.O . Box 174 9 Fax (902) 490-4232 Halifax . Nova Scotia B3J 3M : Website a alifax.cwww.halifax.ca macdonka@h

Our File: 1170 1

Via Fax: 421-3130

May 9, 201 1

John A. Keith Cox Palmer 1100 — 1959 Upper Water Stree t P.O. Box 2380 Central Halifax, N.S. B3J 3E5

Dear Mr. Keith :

Re: Cron v. HRM and Sheehan

I write further to an article that appeared in the Saturday edition of the Chronicle Herald, with respect to Bill No. 57. There is a suggestion in the article that HRM requested the amendment s to the Private Ways Act. I want to make it clear that HRM did not approach the Province with a request to amend the PWA, specifically with respect to what will become section 36 of the Act. This is the section that states that an order, award or decision made or taken pursuant to the Act is not an expropriation and goes to the heart of the Crons' appeal.

The decision to make these amendments was a decision made by the Province, and was not don e at the request of HRM . However, once HRM was notified that amendments to the PWA may be forthcoming, HRM asked the Province to consider an amendment that would allow the Municipality to collect the compensation paid from the applicant in a manner similar to a loca l improvement charge. This will be section 29A of the PWA and was the only amendment initiated by HRM.

I trust this clarifies HRM's role in the amendments to the PWA that are contained in Bill No. 57.

COX &PALMER ~ coxandpalmerlaw .com

New Brunswick 1 Newfoundland and Labrador 1 Nova Scotia I Prince Edward Islan d

May 9, 2011

Via Email: [email protected] & Hand Delivery

The Honourable John MacDonel l Minister of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relation s Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations 14th Floor North, Maritime Centre 1505 Barrington Street P.O. Box 216 Halifax, NS B3J 2M4

Dear Minister:

RE: Cron v. Halifax Regional Municipality and Sheehan - C.A. No. 342421 Bill No. 57

I act for Charles and Marie Cron in respect of a longstanding dispute between the Crons an d their neighbour, Susan Sheehan . The dispute involves a petition by Ms. Sheehan under th e Private Ways Act for a private driveway over the Crons' property . The driveway would replace an existing public footpath .

Some months ago, the Crons brought an application before Justice Peter Rosinski arguing, among other things, that the proposed taking of property rights constituted a n "expropriation" under the Expropriation Act and that they were entitled to all of th e protections available under that more modern statute . Halifax Regional Municipality ("HRM") opposed this application.

On December 15, 2010, Justice Rosinski denied the Crons' application and declared tha t the granting of a right of way under the Private Ways Act does not constitute a n "expropriation".

John A. Keith I Partne r Direct 902 491 4217 Main 902 421 6262 Fax 902 421 3130 Email [email protected] m Purdy's Wharf Tower | 1100-1959 Upper Water Street Halifax N S Correspondence PO Box 2380 Central Halifax NS B31 3E5 May 9, 2011

The Crons appealed that decision . At very considerable expense, they filed all of thei r materials in connection with that appeal . The materials of Ms . Sheehan and HRM are due to be filed on May 20, 2011. The appeal will then be heard by the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal on September 20, 2011 .

At this point, it should be noted that the Crown was originally invited to participate in this proceeding but decided not to do so . The only parties who participated in this proceedin g were the Crons, Ms. Sheehan and HRM .

On May 5, 2011, I received a copy of Bill No . 57 introduced by the Provincial Government o n the same day. Neither the Crons nor I had any idea the province was considerin g amendments. By contrast, it appears that HRM was involved in this process since at least last fall. As a result, the government only had the benefit of HRM's input - which is to say one side of this dispute but not the other . I attach at Tab A an article published in last Saturday's Chronicle Herald confirming the ongoing discussions between HRM and th e government regarding these amendments .

Bill No. 57 proposes amendments to the Private Ways Act. These amendments (an d particularly the provisions purporting to make the legislation retroactive) are unmistakably intended to undermine my clients' appeal rights and legislatively end the dispute in favour of Ms. Sheehan .

We are ourselves aware of only one other instance in which a petition has been made unde r the Private Ways Act for a private right of way. In that case, the municipality in questio n declined to act because it felt it should not use its powers to mediate a private dispute.

To our knowledge, nobody will be adversely affected by this retroactive legislation excep t Charles and Marie Cron. The only people in Nova Scotia concerned with the retroactiv e provisions of Bill No. 57 are Charles and Marie Cron .

The Crons are understandably distraught that the Legislature would now move in the mids t of an appeal to undermine their appeal rights and tilt the balance of justice in favour of on e neighbour over another . They do not understand why their government would specificall y target their interests in the context of a private dispute over lands on Halifax's Northwes t Arm . Why has this private dispute attracted the Nova Scotia government's attention so as t o warrant such draconian legislative action? Why has the Legislature exercised its substantia l power to affect the Crons' access to justice and alter the assessment of an antiquate d statute which, by any account, has never before been the subject of litigation and is rarel y ever used?

Page 2 May 9, 2011

Needless to say, the Crons feel that they are not being afforded equal protection under the law, and they are understandably very upset that their rights are being specifically identified and prejudiced.

These actions have understandably shaken the Crons' confidence in the legislative proces s as the rules are being changed retroactively midway through an appeal in a way which solel y and exclusively prejudices their interests . They ask me: How did the Legislature become so interested given that nobody remembers this Act being used in the past and given th e Crown's initial decision not to participate? Why are they retroactively targeting us?

I have never experienced such legislative action in the middle of a judicial process and, unfortunately, I have no answer for the Crons.

My hope is that the government was not fully informed of all of the outstanding issues and , in that hope, I wanted to draw the following to your attention :

1. As indicated, there is no other dispute involving the Private Ways Act in the Province of Nova Scotia . Nobody can recall any other dispute involving the Private Ways Act within living memory . In short, the Private Ways Act has virtually never been used except in the context of this dispute . Thus, the legislation (and particularly the provisions purporting to give the statute retroactive effect) will discriminate agains t only the Crons and nobody else . Indeed, within two hours of your news release o n May 5, 2011, I received a letter from HRM counsel confirming the propose d amendments and suggesting that the ongoing appeal be abandoned as moot (Ta b B). You will appreciate that this causes my clients great upset.

2. During submissions before HRM Council, HRM's legal counsel confirmed that the y are not aware of any other similar issue or problem involving landlocked property i n HRM. This was a matter of particular concern for the councillors who did not wan t HRM to become entangled in an ongoing process of arbitrating disputes betwee n private individuals for rights of way. In short, this is not a widespread problem of provincial importance . I attach the relevant extracts from the transcript of the hearing before HRM Council at Tab C confirming representations of HRM's in-hous e counsel.

3. The responding facta of HRM and Ms. Sheehan to the appeal are due in about tw o weeks (on May 20, 2011) . The appeal is scheduled to be heard on September 20 , 2011. This legislation purports to target and undermine that litigation retroactively to one citizen's detriment . The timing of these amendments and why they could no t await the Court of Appeal hearing is unclear . Justice Rosinski declared that taking property rights under the Private Ways Act is not "expropriation". That decision is under appeal . Given Justice Rosinski's decision, why is this precipitous amendmen t

Page 3 May 9, 2011

necessary? Why not wait for the Court of Appeal? Why is it necessary for th e amendments to be issued retroactively - particularly when the only party affected by this retroactivity will be the Crons?

4. Everyone agrees that the Private Ways Act is an antiquated statute . The Act contains outdated language and a number of prejudicial sections . The proposed amendments do not address all of the problems contained in the Act. However, these prejudicia l components are properly and fairly addressed through the Expropriation Act. For the Minister's guidance, I attach at Tab D a portion of my submissions to the Court of Appeal comparing the Private Ways Act ("PWA") with the Expropriation Act ("EA") (se e paragraphs 69 and following). These sections of the factum demonstrate that ther e are procedural protections built into the modern Expropriation Act which protect the landowner whose property is being forcibly taken . In our view, that is precisely wh y the Legislature included section 4 of the Expropriation Act, which provides that its protections apply whenever property rights are forcibly taken from a private citize n through the exercise of public power . Why should a landowner affected by th e Private Ways Act be denied these protections when their land rights are clearly bein g diminished?

5. If a right of way is to be created under the Private Ways Act, the solution is not to force the effected landowners into an antiquated system. Rather, a fair and appropriate response would be to provide those landowners with the protection s afforded under the more modern Expropriation Act. Again, why would a landowner whose property is being taken be denied access to the fair processes afforded unde r the more modern Expropriation Act ?

6. HRM initially granted Ms . Sheehan's petition but strictly on the condition that Ms. Sheehan arrange financing for any and all costs associated with any eventual gran t of a right of way over neighbouring property . A copy of the Minutes passed by HRM Council are attached at Tab E . The statute seems to alter those existin g arrangements and replace them with financing which will initially be paid by the polling district (i.e. the private citizens living within that polling district) subject to a lien against the property to be benefitted by the right of way . This appears to be inconsistent with the terms under which HRM Council approved this petition but, i n any event, why should tax payers bear this burden ?

7. Related to these concerns, the old Private Ways Act does not recognize other realitie s of modern life including liability for the owners of land . Who will maintain the right of way being forced upon an unwilling landowner? Who will indemnify that landowne r for any problems which occur on the right of way? The Private Ways Act simply does not deal with the issues .

Page 4

May 9, 2011

I genuinely hope that government will take these issues into consideration when assessin g the merits of the proposed legislation .

John A. Keith JAK/amb Enclosure cc: Karen MacDonal d cc: Susan Sheehan Landlocked owner pins hopes on act

By CLARE MELLOR Staff Reporter Sat. May 7 - 4:54 AM

Susan Sheehan hopes changes to the provincial Private Ways Act will bolster the chance she will get vehicle access to her landlocked Halifax home .

On Thursday, the province introduced proposed amendments to modernize the act, which has not been significantly changed since the 1920s .

"For me, this is a really important piece of legislation," said Sheehan, who heard about the proposed changes Thursday.

"It is very pertinent to my current situation . I'm very relieved to see that (the act) is being strengthened and clarified . "

Sheehan, who lives on Milton Drive near the Northwest Arm, can only access her property by a footpath that runs across a neighbouring property . The neighbours have refused to allow widening of the path so vehicles could access Sheehan's home .

"It is hard for most people to get their heads around it . but what it means for me is things like I don't have access for oil delivery," Sheehan said .

"Without access to a street, then there is no (route) for a fire department or emergenc y vehicles . "

The proposed amendments will clarify that rights of way granted under the Private Way s Act are not an expropriation, according to the province .

The changes will also let municipalities put in place bylaws that set out how they ca n collect costs when a right of way is granted .

"Modern life requires access to a public street for important services we take for granted , like waste collection or power and phone repair," John MacDonnell, minister of municipa l relations, said in a news release.

"Not having road access can be a real headache . These amendments will clarify the legislation and help the right-of-way process run more smoothly."

Sheehan's neighbours, Charles and Marie Cron, are appealing a decision handed down by the Nova Scotia Supreme Court in December 2010 that ruled in Sheehan's favour. Tha t ruling said Halifax Regional Municipality has the authority to consider Sheehan's petition for an easement over land owned by the Crons to allow vehicular access .

The Crons had argued the municipality did not have the jurisdiction to consider Sheehan' s petition, which would involve expropriation of land, under the Expropriation Act .

The Crons could not be reached for comment Friday .

Shaune MacKinlay, a spokeswoman for the municipality, said Halifax did not request amendments to the Private Ways Act.

"The amendment originated with the province, not us. (It was) not a request from us related to the Sheehan case," she said Friday by email .

However, Brant Wishart, director of strategy and sector relations with the municipa l relations department, said the municipality approached the province last fall about changing the legislation .

"I guess it was as a result of (the Sheehan case) in general, the whole issue of the Privat e Ways Act was looked at, and it became clear to the municipality that no matter wha t happens here, they didn't have a clear mechanism of addressing the issue o f compensation," he said Thursday.

Wishart said the new act would allow a municipality to recover the money it spent providin g the landlocked property owner a right of way .

"This particular legislation would say that municipalities can create a bylaw which woul d basically put a lien on your property. It's a means of collecting the money that th e municipality must pay up front for giving you the right of way ."

With files fro m

David Jackson, provincial reporter

( [email protected]) Via Fax: 421-3130

May 5, 201 1

John A. Keith Cox Palmer 1100 – 1959 Upper Water Street P. O. Box 2380 Centra l Halifax, N.S. B3J 3E5

Dear Mr. Keith:

Re; Cron v. HRM and Sheehan

Earlier today the Provincial government introduced Bill No . 57, which proposes amendments to the Private Ways Act. I enclose a copy of Bill No . 57 and the accompanying news release. The proposed amendments address the issues that are at the heart of the Crons' appeal of Justic e Rosinski's decision. In my opinion, the amendments render the appeal moot . In light of the amendments to the PWA, please advise if it is still your clients' intention to proceed with the appeal. BILL NO.57 (as introduced)

3rd Session, 61st General Assembly Nova Scotia 60 Elizabeth 11, 201 1

Government Bill

Private Ways Act (amended)

The Honourable John MacDonell Minister of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relation s

First Reading; May 5, 201 1

(Explanatory Notes )

Second Reading:

Third Reading:

Explanatory Notes

Clause 1 authorizes a municipal council to make by-laws respecting the payment of compensation charged in respect of a grant of a right of way.

Clause 2 confirms that a grant of a right of way is not an expropriation for the purpose of the Expropriatio n Act.

Clause 3 provides that new Sections 29A and 36 of the Private Ways Act apply in respect of petitions made under that Act before or after the coming into force of this Act. An Act to Amend Chapter 358 of the Revised Statutes, 1989, the Private Ways Act

Be it enacted by the Governor and Assembly as follows:

1 Chapter 358 of the Revised Statutes, 1989, the Private Ways Act, is amended by adding immediately after Section 29 the following Section:

29A (1) The council may make by-laws respecting the payment of compensation charged against th e polling district in which a private way or mad is made, or in whole or in part against the applicant o r applicants therefor. .

(2) A by-law passed pursuant to subsection (1) may provide

(a) that the charges may be chargeable according to a plan or method set out in the by-law ;

(b)when the charges are payable;

(c) that the charges are first liens on the real property in the polling district or belonging to the applican t or applicants, and may be collected in the same manner as other taxes;

(d) that the charges be collectable in the same manner as taxes and, at the option of the Treasurer, be collectable at the same time, and by the same proceedings, as taxes ;

(e) a means of determining when the lien becomes effective or when the charges become due an d payable;

(f) that the amount payable may, at the option of the owner of the property, be paid in the number o f annual instalments set out in the by-law and, upon default of payment of any instalment, the balanc e becomes due and payable ; and

(g) that interest is payable annually on the entire amount outstanding and unpaid, regardless of whethe r the owner has elected to pay by instalments, at a rate and beginning on a date fixed by the by-law .

2 Chapter 358 is amended by adding immediately after Section 35 the following heading and Section :

PART III

GENERAL

36 For greater certainty ,

(a) an order, award or decision made or any other action taken pursuant to this Act is not a n expropriation for the purpose of the Expropriation Act or at common law or otherwise ; and

(b) the Expropriation Act does not apply to this Act or to any order, award, decision or any other action made or taken pursuant to this Act .

3 Sections 29A and 36 of the Private Ways Act apply with respect to an order, award or decision made or an y other action taken with respect to a petition made pursuant to the Private Ways Act, whether the order, award or decision is or was made or the action is or was taken or whether the petition is or was made before or after the coming into force of this Act. Government of Nova Scotia I gov.ns.ca

New Legislation to Clarify Rights-of-Way

Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relation s May 5, 2011 12:21 PM

Amendments introduced today, May 5, will modernize the Private Ways Act, and help it balance the rights and needs of the owners of land-locked properties and thei r neighbours .

The amendments will clarify that rights-of-way granted under the Private Ways Ac t are not an expropriation .

They will also allow municipalities to create by-laws that set out how costs wil l be collected when a right-of-way is granted .

Most of the Private Ways Act dates back to the 1920s, and has not bee n significantly changed since then .

"Modern life requires access to a public street for important services we tak e for granted, like waste collection or power and phone repair," said Minister o f Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations John MacDonell .

"Not having road access can be a real headache . These amendments will clarify the . legislation and help the right-of-way process run more smoothly . "

FOR BROADCAST US E

Amendments introduced today (May 5th) will modernize the

Private Ways Act, which has not had significant changes sinc e the 1920s .

They clarify that rights of way granted under the act ar e not an expropriation .

They will also allow municipalities to recover the cost s associated with a right-of-way .

Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations Minister Joh n

MacDonell says these amendments will clarify the right - of-way process .

-30 -

Media Contact : Rachel Boome r Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations 902-424-2733 Cell : 902-719-743 0 E-mail : boomerra@gov .ns .ca

Crown copyright © 2011, Province of Nova Scotia, all rights reserved . Page last updated 2011-05-05 . Come to life- Discover Nova Scotia

9 MINUTES (11 .1 .1) MARCH 1, 201 1

1 of April 2010 . And when that lease expired, the drivewa y

2 was removed by the Crons . And I'll get into a little bi t 3 more about that background in a bit .

4 I should also point out that there is a publi c

5 footpath that currently goes from the parking lot of Si r 6 Sanford Fleming Park all along the Northwest Arm, and Ms .

7 Sheehan does have access to that footpath to access he r

8 property . 9 So I guess by way of background, I wanted to clarif y 10 for Council sort of how we came across a property on the

11 HRM peninsula that doesn't have a driveway . And to ou r

12 knowledge, it's the only property in HRM that is in thi s 13 situation . 14 Ms . Sheehan's father purchased the property in 1963 .

15 And when Mr . Sutherland purchased this property, it di d

16 not have a driveway at the time . The deed to Mr . 17 Sutherland contained a right to construct a carriagewa y

18 which existed since 1981 . 19 Mr . Sutherland attempted to enforce what h e

20 understood to be a right-of-way to cross this land tha t 21 the carriageway was to be constructed on . And I should

22 point out that the right to construct the carriageway di d 23 not go over the Crons' property, but rather went over th e

24 property on the other side which I understand is now

25 owned by Marterra .

VERBATIM INC . - Dartmouth, Nova Scotia - (902)469-573 4 Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1976

37 HALIFAX REGIONAL COUNCIL MINUTES ( 11 .1 .1) MARCH 1, 201 1

1 COUNCILLOR LUND : Okay . I've got a couple o f

2 other questions here . The liability issue with respec t 3 to the footpath . So this footpath goes through th e

4 Crons' property and continues on . So this is a footpat h

5 that provides legal access to the general public to b e 6 able to use ? 7 MS .MACDONALD : Yes, it does . It goes all the wa y

8 around the Northwest Arm is my understanding . 9 COUNCILLOR LUND : Right . So if a member of th e

10 general public hurts themselves on that footpath, are th e 11 Crons liable ?

12 MS .MACDONALD : No, the Crons don't own the footpath . 13 COUNCILLOR LUND : Oh, I see .

14 MS .MACDONALD : The footpath goes around the . . . it' s

15 a public footpath . . . (inaudible) for years and years an d 16 years .

17 COUNCILLOR LUND : Oh, so they don't legally own

18 it . 19 MS .MACDONALD : They don't legally own the footpath .

20 COUNCILLOR LUND : Oh, okay, I'm sorry, I though t

21 it was an easement . 22 MS .MACDONALD : No .

23 COUNCILLOR LUND : And you had mentioned earlier ,

24 as well, that as far as you're aware that this is the 25 only landlocked property within peninsular Halifax . And

VERBATIM INC . - Dartmouth, Nova Scotia - (902)469-573 4 Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1976

3 8 HALIFAX REGIONAL COUNCIL MINUTES ( 11 .1 .1) MARCH 1, 201 1

1 my final question, Your Worship, is that I know in rura l 2 areas there tends to be landlocked cottage lots .

3 So my question is : When this comes forward unde r

4 the private way by-law or this petition that comes

5 forward, is this setting a precedent for other petition s 6 to come forward where people buy cottage lots in rura l 7 areas and then convert them into homes ?

8 Or when you say they have the right to petition ,

9 it's always a one-off each and every time is what I' m 10 getting at .

11 MS . MACDONALD : The Private Ways Act has been i n 12 place since 1926 . And the only other petition that HRM

13 has ever received other than this one is the one by Ms . 14 Sheehan's father in 1997 .

15 Anyone who considers themselves to be landlocke d

16 without access has a right to bring a petition under th e 17 Act . So certainly other parties could bring such a

18 petition, but we have never received any other ones .

19 COUNCILLOR LUND : Okay . I guess that's it fo r 20 now, Your Worship .

21 MAYOR KELLY : Thank you . Councillor Adams, please .

22 COUNCILLOR ADAMS : Thank you, Your Worship . So

23 we're not in debate yet . We're just at clarification, i s 24 that right ?

25 MAYOR KELLY : And this is in full debate . There i s

VERBATIM INC . - Dartmouth, Nova Scotia - (902)469-573 4 Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1976

31

an exclusively public purpose without the consent of the owner by an expropriatin g

authority in the exercise of its statutory powers ..." (underlining reflects words added

and are not otherwise found in the statute) .

67. The lower Court virtually confirmed this narrower interpretation when Justice Rosinsk i

expressly defined "expropriation" as meaning:

. ..an act of the State by which it takes for itself, a private person's property interest and converts it to a public use for which the State pays reasonable compensation ."

[Emphasis added]

SC Decision, supra, para. 72.

68. Respectfully, the established principles of statutory interpretation summarized abov e

neither support nor permit altering the statutory language in this manner .

Comparison of the PWA and the EA

69. At this point, two final questions may legitimately be asked : Why does any of this

matter? What harm is created under the PWA that might somehow be mitigated

under the EA?

70. The PWA's apparent simplicity belies levels of potential prejudice which are

effectively addressed under the EA.

71. The first major difference is the process by which a dispute on compensation is

resolved. Under the PWA, where agreement on compensation is not forthcoming, a n

arbitration panel is struck pursuant to section 20. This panel is comprised of three

arbitrators. The affected landowner and the municipality each appoint one arbitrator.

32

The commissioner appoints the third . However, the commissioner is himself/herself

appointed by the municipality. Thus, the municipality effectively has two arbitrators

on the panel to the affected landowner's one. The municipality thereby maintains a n

effective majority on the arbitration panel.

72. Section 23 of the PWA provides that the award of the majority of the arbitrators is

valid and binding. Since two of the three arbitrators are essentially representatives

of the municipality, the affected landowner's interests could ultimately be completely

ignored .

73. The EA provides for a fairer and more robust dispute resolution process . Pursuant to

section 16(2), if no agreement can be reached, the statutory authority mus t

immediately pay the affected landowner 75% of the statutory authority's last offer o n

a without-prejudice basis . Then, pursuant to section 36, either the statutory authority

or the affected landowner may serve notice of negotiation upon the other . If the

negotiations do not resolve the dispute (or if the parties waive the negotiation stag e

altogether), either the statutory authority or the affected landowner may serve notic e

upon the other and upon the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (the "Board") . The

Board is then mandated with determining appropriate compensation . Unlike unde r

the PWA, the Board is a neutral body with no ties to either the municipality or th e

affected landowner .

74. The EA thereby provides for an objective and unbiased determination of th e

compensation to be paid by the statutory authority to the affected landowner for th e

lands taken. Conversely, the process envisaged under the PWA neither has the 33

appearance of fairness and objectivity nor guarantees a fair outcome to the perso n

whose lands have been taken .

75. The second major difference between the PWA and the EA is the guidance given o n

determining appropriate compensation . Section 28 of the PWA simply states that

compensation is to "include the value of the use of the land so taken" . The term

"value" is not defined in the PWA. It could mean market value, value to the

landowner, value to the municipality, value to the petitioner, or some other valu e

altogether. Moreover, the use of the word "include" suggests that a landowner may

be entitled to compensation in addition to the "value" of the taken land . The PWA

provides no further guidance on valuing the land .

76. In contrast, the EA provides a detailed and comprehensive description of how to

determine compensation . Sections 26 and 27 of the EA provide, in part:

26 The due compensation payable to the owner for land s expropriated shall be the aggregate of

(a) the market value of the land or a family home for a family hom e determined as hereinafter set forth ;

(b) the reasonable costs, expenses and losses arising out of o r incidental to the owner's disturbance determined as hereinafter set forth;

(c)damages for injurious affection as hereinafter set forth ; and

(d) the value to the owner of any special economic advantage to him arising out of or incidental to his actual occupation of the land, to the extent that no other provision is made therefore in du e compensation.

[•]

27 (5) Where only part of the land of an owner is taken and such part is of a size, shape or nature for which there is no general demand or market, the market value and the injurious affection caused by th e taking may be determined by determining the market value of the 34

whole of the owner's land and deducting therefrom the market valu e of the owner's land after the taking .

77. The EA also defines the terms "market value" and "injurious affection", thereby

simplifying the process of determining fair and reasonable compensation an d

providing further and necessary guidance to the parties involved .

78. In summary, both the process of resolving a dispute on compensation and th e

determination of reasonable compensation are more clearly provided for in the EA.

Undoubtedly, a landowner whose land is taken by a statutory authority has fa r

greater protection under the EA than the PWA.

SUMMARY

79. The decision appealed from defines "expropriation" as "an act of the State by whic h

it takes for itself, a private person's property interest and converts it to a public use

for which the State pays reasonable compensation" (emphasis added). The

Appellants submit this definition offers a narrow (not broad and liberal) definitio n

outside the clear language of the statute and in a manner inconsistent with the

governing interpretive principles . The Courts have made clear that those whos e

lands are confiscated by a public body are entitled to the utmost protections ; Justice

Rosinski's decision unreasonably denies the Appellants these rights . The Appellants

respectfully submit that, in doing so, Justice Rosinski committed a reviewable error o f

law.

SC Decision, supra, para . 72.

HALIFAX REGIONAL MUNICIPALIT Y

HALIFAX REGIONAL COUNCI L

MINUTES

March 1, 201 1

PRESENT: Mayor Peter Kelly Deputy Mayor Jim Smith Councillors : Steve Streatch Barry Dalrymple David Hendsbee Lorelei Nicoll Bill Karsten Jackie Barkhous e Mary Wile Jerry Blumenthal Dawn Sloane Sue Uteck Jennifer Watts Russell Walker Debbie Hum Stephen Adams Brad Johns Robert Harve y Tim Outhit Reg Rankin Peter Lund

REGRETS: Councillors: Gloria McCluskey Linda Mosher

STAFF: Mr. Wayne Anstey, Acting Chief Administrative Officer Ms. Mary Ellen Donovan, Municipal Solicito r Ms. Cathy Mellett, Municipal Clerk Ms. Sheilagh Edmonds, Legislative Assistan t Ms. Shawnee Gregory, Legislative Assistant

HALIFAX REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY 2 REGIONAL COUNCIL MINUTES March 1, 201 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INVOCATION 4

2. SPECIAL COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 5

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – January 25, February 1 & 8, 2010 4

4. APPROVAL OF THE ORDER OF BUSINESS AN D APPROVAL OF ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS 4

5. BUSINESS ARISING OUT OF THE MINUTES 5 6. MOTIONS OF RECONSIDERATION 5 7. MOTIONS OF RESCISSION 5 8. CONSIDERATION OF DEFERRED BUSINESS 5

9. PUBLIC HEARING: 9.1 By-Law N-200, Respecting Noise — Exemption Application , Canadian Cancer Society's Relay for Life 1 1

10. CORRESPONDENCE, PETITIONS & DELEGATIONS 10.1 Correspondence 6 10.2 Petitions 6

11. REPORTS 11 .1 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE R 11 .1 .1 Petition for Private Right-of-Way 1 2 11 .1 .2 Green Municipal Fund Financial Support for th e Four Pad Arena 6 11 .1 .3 Youth Advocate Program Sustainability 6

11 .2 AUDIT & FINANCE STANDING COMMITTE E 11 .2.1 Audit and Finance Standing Committee Terms of Reference 7 11 .2.2 2011 / 2012 Budget and Business Planning Process 7 11 .2.3 Interim Award Policy - Proposed Amendments t o Administrative Order 35, Respecting th e Procurement Policy 8

11 .3 SPECIAL EVENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE 11 .3.1 Non-Annual and Festival & Event Grant Fundin g Requests – Second Intake Process 8

12. MOTIONS 12 .1 Councillor Sloane 9

13. ADDED ITEMS 13.1 CAO Search Update 1 0 13.2 Citizen & Councillor Appointments to Boards, Committees &

HALIFAX REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY 3 REGIONAL COUNCIL MINUTES March 1, 201 1

Commissions 1 0

14. NOTICES OF MOTIO N 14.1 Councillor Watts 1 0 14.2 Councillor Walker 1 0

15 . ADJOURNMENT 15

HALIFAX REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY 4 REGIONAL COUNCIL MINUTES March 1, 201 1

1. INVOCATION

Mayor Kelly called the meeting to order at 2 :34 p .m.

2. SPECIAL COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS & ACKNOWLEDGEMENT S

This item was dealt with later in the meeting . See page 5

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — January 25, February 1 & 8, 201 1

MOVED by Councillor Sloane , seconded by Councillor Karsten that the minutes of January 25, February 1 & 8, 2011 be approved . MOTION PUT AN D PASSED.

4. APPROVAL OF THE ORDER OF BUSINESS AND APPROVAL O F ADDITIONS AND DELETION S

Additions: 13.1 CAO Search Updat e 13.2 Citizen & Councillor Appointments to Boards, Committees & Commission s

Deletion : 11 .1 .2 Green Municipal Fund Financial Support for the Four Pad Aren a

Council agreed to deal with item 13 .1 as the first order of business .

MOVED by Councillor Sloane, seconded by Councillor Hum that the agenda, a s amended, be approved. MOTION PUT AND PASSE D

13.1 CAO Search Update

This matter was dealt with at an In Camera session held earlier on this date and wa s before Council for ratification .

MOVED by Councillor Streatch, seconded by Councillor Karsten that Regiona l Council supports the unanimous recommendation of the CAO review Committee :

1. That Regional Council approve the selection of Mr . Richard Butts as Chief Administrative Officer of the Halifax Regional Municipalit y

2. That Regional Council approve release of the February 28, 2011 report fro m the CAO Review Committee

MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

Mayor Kelly retired from the meeting and Councillor Hendsbee assumed the Chair .

HALIFAX REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY 5 REGIONAL COUNCIL MINUTES March 1, 201 1

2. SPECIAL COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS & ACKNOWLEDGEMENT S

Councillor Sloane announced the Bid for Life fundraiser for the Aids Coalition of Nov a Scotia on March 3, 2011 .

Councillor Harvey noted that the Official Opening of the Sackville Outdoor Skatin g Rectangle would take place on March 5, 2011 .

Councillor Nicoll announced that a skating party would take place on Bissett Lake , Colby Village March 6, 2011 .

Councillor Dalrymple noted that last week the Federal and Provincial Governments announced a $14 million investment in the Stanfield Airport, and this is in conjunctio n with matching dollars from the Airport Authority and will be used toward extending the main runway .

Councillor Watts advised of the following : • A meeting regarding the Urban Farm Project on March 3, 2011 by Capita l Health would be held at the Bethune Building . • March 3 and 4, 2011 a new musical entitled Out of Lunenburg , put on by the Gilbert and Sullivan Society would take place at the Spatz Theatre, , and proceeds are in support of the construction cost s of the new theatre. • March 8, 2011 is the 100th anniversary of International Womens' Day . • The Skating Oval was re-opened to the public and it is hoped it will b e able to remain open until March 13 .

Councillor Karsten expressed appreciation, on behalf of Regional Council, to th e Canada Games Host Society for a job well done on the 2011 Canada Winter Games .

Further to this Councillor Hendsbee thanked the numerous volunteers and the athlete s from HRM and across the Province who participated in the Games.

Councillor Hendsbee noted that today is St. David's Day, a special day to those o f Welsh decent.

Councillor Hendsbee referred to the recent earthquake tragedy in Christchurch, Ne w Zealand and suggested that on behalf of Regional Council, the Mayor forward a letter o f condolence to the Mayor of Christchurch .

5. BUSINESS ARISING OUT OF THE MINUTE S 6. MOTIONS OF RECONSIDERATION — NON E 7. MOTIONS OF RESCISSION — NONE 8. CONSIDERATION OF DEFERRED BUSINESS — NON E

9. PUBLIC HEARINGS

HALIFAX REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY 6 REGIONAL COUNCIL MINUTES March 1, 201 1

9.1 By-Law N-200, Respecting Noise — Exemption Application, Canadia n Cancer Society's Relay for Life

This item was dealt with later in the meeting. See page 11 .

10. CORRESPONDENCE, PETITIONS & DELEGATION S 10.1 Correspondence – Non e 10.2 Petitions - Non e

11. REPORTS

11 .1 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE R

11 .1 .1 Petition for Private Right-of-Wa y

This matter was dealt with later in the meeting . See page 11 .

11 .1 .2 Green Municipal Fund Financial Support for the Four Pad Aren a

This item was deleted from the agenda during the approval of the order of business .

11 .1 .3 Youth Advocate Program Sustainability

A letter dated November 10, 2010 from the Board of Police Commissioners, was before Council.

A report dated February 23, 2011 was before Council .

Mr. Paul Dunphy, Director, Community Planning addressed Council and provide d background information on the program . He advised that the program was a four-yea r pilot project with funding from the Federal Government and, if at the end of the project i t proved to be worthwhile, the Municipality agreed to find ways to continue the program . He explained that the purpose of the program was to address youth at risk of becomin g involved in criminal activity and/or gangs . Mr. Dunphy indicated that the program ha s been successful and, therefore, staff were recommending continuance of the program .

Ms. Sharon Martin, Program Manager, provided a presentation on the youth advocat e program.

At 2:56 p.m . Councillor Barkhouse entered the meeting .

At 3:08 p.m. Mayor Kelly returned to the meeting and assumed the Chair .

MOVED by Councillor Walker seconded by Councillor Sloane that Halifax Regional Council maintain the Youth Advocate Program as a Municipal Servic e by:

1 . Allocating an additional $550,000 to Community Development's operatin g budget to sustain staffing and program costs ;

HALIFAX REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY 7 REGIONAL COUNCIL MINUTES March 1, 201 1

2. Expanding the service to include priority communities beyond the 6 pilots ; and

3. Pursuing funding partnership opportunities including federal an d provincial governments and others .

Ms. Martin, Mr. Dunphy, Mr. Andrew Whittemore, Manager, Community Relations & Cultural Affairs, Ms. Cathie O'Toole, Director of Finance, and Chief Frank Beasley , responded to questions .

Ms. O'Toole and Mr. Dunphy responded to questions in regard to the staff recommendation to increase the tax rate in order to support the program as an adde d service. It was noted that in order to fulfill the requirement to submit a balanced budge t staff will bring a report on funding options for the program to Council prior to tabling h e budget.

Deputy Mayor Smith entered the meeting at 3 :15 p.m .

A number of Councillors expressed the view that the Municipality should be pursuin g funding from Federal and Provincial governments . Mayor Kelly noted that the motio n indicates this would be a matter of course .

Councillor Nicoll suggested that, in addition, the Mayor should send a letter to th e Minister of Community Services and the Premier of Nova Scotia highlighting the yout h advisory program and ask to have them partner in delivering these services .

Mayor Kelly agreed with Councillor Nicoll's suggestion and advised that if it is the wis h of Council to do this, it should also include the Provincial Minister of Justice, to which Council agreed.

MOTION PUT AND PASSED.

11 .2 AUDIT AND FINANCE STANDING COMMITTE E

11 .2.1 Audit and Finance Standing Committee Terms of Referenc e

A report dated February 10, 2011 was submitted from the Chair of the Audit an d Finance Standing Committee.

MOVED by Councillor Walker, seconded by Councillor Karsten that Halifa x Regional Council approve the Terms of Reference for the Audit and Financ e Standing Committee as outlined in Attachment 1 of the February 10, 2011 report . MOTION PUT AND PASSED.

11 .2.2 2011/12 Budget and Business Planning Process

A report dated February 17, 2011 was before Council .

HALIFAX REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY 8 REGIONAL COUNCIL MINUTES March 1, 201 1

MOVED by Councillor Walker, seconded by Councillor Karsten that Halifax Regional Council direct staff to work toward a hybrid model for the 2011/1 2 Budget and Business Planning process that would include informal Business Unit presentations for the Operating Budget and an Open House format for th e Project (Capital) Budget .

On a point of information Mayor Kelly noted that, with the new Chief Administrativ e Officer starting soon, Council had agreed to allow him enough time to review the budget documents and, therefore, the tabling of the budget would occur at the end of April and not April 5.

Ms. Cathie O'Toole, Director of Finance and Mr . Phil Townsend, Director of Infrastructure and Asset Management responded to questions .

MOTION PUT AND PASSED.

11 .2.3 Interim Award Policy — Proposed Amendments to Administrative Orde r 35 Respecting the Procurement Policy

A report dated February 10, 2011 from the Audit and Finance Standing Committee wa s before Council .

A staff report dated February 10, 2011 was before Council .

MOVED by Councillor Walker, seconded by Councillor Karsten that Halifa x Regional Council approve in principle amendments to Administrative Order 35, the purpose of which is to amend Section 9, Award of Contracts as follows:

1 . a) That the Interim Award Policy only be in effect during the Regiona l Council Summer and December Holiday breaks by eliminating th e following wording from Subsection 5 : " . ..and for occasions when a regular Regional Council meeting has been cancelled or the regula r schedule creates more than eight (8) business days between Counci l meetings," to read as follows:

(5) During the summer (July-September) and the December Holida y break periods, the CAO or his designate, may approve the award o f contracts under the following conditions . . .."

b) Modify the budget program / conditions to ensure purchases are withi n scope by adding "and within scope" to subsection 5(a) to read a s follows: (5) (a) "Where the funds and program have been approved b y the Halifax Regional Council as part of the annual business plannin g and budget process and the expenditure will not result in an ove r expenditure of the entire budget and is within scope ."

2. Further, it is recommended that Halifax Regional Council consider Interi m Award Authority for projects on a case by case basis .

HALIFAX REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY 9 REGIONAL COUNCIL MINUTES March 1, 201 1

MOTION PUT AND PASSED.

11 .3 SPECIAL EVENTS ADVISORY COMMITTE E

11 .3.1 Non Annual Festival & Event Grant Funding Requests — Second intak e Process

A report dated February 14, 2011 was submitted from the Chair of the Special Events Advisory Committee .

MOVED by Councillor Uteck, seconded by Councillor Sloane that Halifax Regional Council approve :

1. An increase to the 2010/11 Non-Annual grant award for M Fest in th e amount of $31,000 funded from the Marketing Levy Special Events Reserve (Q315), as identified in Table 1, page 5, of the November 30, 2010 staff report attached as Attachment 2 .

2. An increase to the 2010/11 grants for a retroactive grant to the Ailee n Meagher International Track Classic in the amount of $3,000 from th e Marketing Levy Special Event Reserve (Q315) based on the amende d Scoring Sheet total of 54.5/100 .

3. The 2010/11 Festival & Events grant award of $2,950 funded from th e Community/Civic Events Operating Budget (C760-6933) as identified i n Table 2, page 6, of the November 30, 2010 staff report attached a s Attachment 2.

Councillor Hendsbee advised that the Titanic 100 application had been deferred and wil l be further evaluated by the Committee at its March 9, 2011 meeting . He suggested that those Councillors who had concerns with the application attend the meeting . He added that he had a concern with the scoring factor in regard to 'geographic distribution' an d noted that it scored low because it is considered 'urban' . Councillor Hendsbee indicated that he felt this was too restrictive and hoped that it could be re-evaluated .

MOTION PUT AND PASSED .

12. MOTIONS

12.1 Councillor Sloane

A motion from the March 1, 2011 meeting of the Transportation Standing Committe e was submitted

Councillor Sloane advised that she spoke with her colleagues on the Transportatio n Standing Committee and was informed that the Committee has a report coming forwar d in regard to the parking ban and alternatives . Councillor Sloane requested that, rathe r than put forward her motion, Council refer her proposed amendments to th e Transportation Standing Committee to be addressed in the staff report that the

HALIFAX REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY 1 0 REGIONAL COUNCIL MINUTES March 1, 201 1

Committee has requested on the winter parking ban, and that it come back to Council by April 5, 2011 .

MOVED by Councillor Sloane, seconded by Councillor Ranking that the followin g proposed amendments to the parking ban be forwarded to the Transportatio n Standing Committee to be addressed in the staff report that the Committee ha s requested in regard to the parking ban :

1. An amendment to the ban regarding this issuance of tickets if no snow ha s fallen or there are no snow removal operations being performed .

2. An amendment to the ban regarding the adoption of alternative side of th e street parking for the older areas of the Municipality where parking is at a premium and off street parking is not a viable option .

3. An amendment to the ban regarding different regulations for the urban , suburban and rural areas of the municipality as each of these areas ar e unique and cannot be serviced with the same regulations.

MOTION PUT AND PASSED .

13. ADDED ITEMS

13.1 CAO Search Update

This item was dealt with earlier in the meeting. See page 4.

13.2 Citizen & Councillor Appointments to Boards, Committees & Commissions

The following motion was dealt with at an In Camera session held earlier on this date and was now before Council for ratification.

MOVED by Councillor Fisher, seconded by Councillor Blumenthal that Halifax Regional Council approve:

1. Recommendations 1-4 of the Administrative Standing Committee regardin g appointments to the HRM Stadium Steering Committee as outlined in the Private and Confidential staff report dated February 28, 2011 .

2. Recommendation 5 of the Administrative Standing Committee, regardin g appointments to the Police Commission, as outlined in the Private an d Confidential staff report dated February 28, 2011 .

MOTION PUT AND PASSED.

14. NOTICES OF MOTION :

HALIFAX REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY 1 1 REGIONAL COUNCIL MINUTES March 1, 201 1

14.1 Councillor Watts

"Take notice that at the next Regional Council meeting on March 8, 2011, I propose to move a request for a staff report which outlines the process of rules an d regulations concerning meetings between Councillors and proponents of projects , community and interest groups and HRM staff. "

14.2 Councillor Walker

"Take notice that, at the next regular Regional Council meeting, to be held on Tuesday, the 8th. Day of March, 2011, I propose to move approval of a motion adopte d by the Audit and Finance Standing Committee, to amend Administrative Order 35 , Respecting he Procurement Policy, the purpose of which is to amend Section 9 Awar d of Contracts. "

The meeting recessed at 4:30 p.m .

The meeting reconvened at 6 :02 p.m.

9.1 By-Law N-200, Respecting Noise – Exemption Application, Canadia n Cancer Society's Relay for Life

Superintendent Colleen Kelly, Halifax Regional Police, provided the presentation on By - Law N-200, Respecting Noise – Exemption Application, Canadian Cancer Society' s Relay for Life.

Mayor Kelly reviewed the Rules of Procedure for Public Hearings . He called for thos e wishing to speak for or against the proposed Exemption Application for the Canadia n Cancer Society's Relay for Life .

Ms. Helle Haven Petersen, Halifax, stated that she was speaking on behalf of th e Canadian Cancer Society. She indicated that the Relay for Life was the largest fundraising event in the world ; noting that 25 events would be taking place in Nov a Scotia this year, including six in HRM . Ms. Haven Petersen stated that these event s were supported by volunteers, staff and those who wanted to fight back against cancer, remember those who have lost their battle and support those who have survived . She advised that having the support of Council was key to the success of these events an d she thanked them for their time and support over the past 10 years .

MOVED by Councillor Blumenthal, seconded by Councillor Nicoll, that the Publi c Hearing be closed . MOTION PUT AND PASSED.

MOVED by Deputy Mayor Smith, seconded by Councillor Lund that Halifa x Regional Council approve the Canadian Cancer Society's Relay for Lif e application for an exemption from the provisions of the Noise By-law pursuant t o the contents of the report dated February 7, 2011 and any matters raised at th e hearing. MOTION PUT AND PASSED.

HALIFAX REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY 1 2 REGIONAL COUNCIL MINUTES March 1, 201 1

11 .1 .1 Petition for Private Right-of-Way

A report dated February 17, 2011 was before Council .

Ms. Mary Ellen Donovan, Municipal Solicitor, provided background on the Petition for a Right-of-Way process . She advised that this was the first petition to be filed under th e Private Ways Act in 13 years; noting that the petitioner's father had filed at that time i n regard to the same property. She indicated that the petitioner was entitled to file unde r the Act and was also permitted the right to speak . She proposed Ms . Karen MacDonald, HRM Solicitor, be permitted to provide Council with background information first an d then that the petitioner be permitted to speak for five minutes in keeping with the rules of procedural fairness. Ms. Donovan advised that, as this matter affects the propert y abutter as well, they too would be given the opportunity to speak ; noting that their lega l council would be speaking on their behalf as they were not present .

Ms. MacDonald provided the background presentation on the Petition for a Privat e Right-of-Way as outlined in the staff report dated February 17, 2011 . She advised that , to staff's knowledge, 9 Milton Drive, Halifax, was the only property in HRM that did no t have a driveway and was in this unique situation . Ms. MacDonald advised that th e private way, if granted, would become part of 9 Milton Drive even if sold . She indicated that it should be taken into consideration that the appeal hearing in HRM's jurisdiction under the Private Ways Act would be heard in September 2011 ; however, it was unknown when a decision on the matter would be made .

Ms. Susan Sheehan, Applicant and owner of 9 Milton Drive, stated that almost 5 0 years ago, her parents bought a house in Jollymore under the impression that they ha d a right-of-way deed. She advised that when they moved in, the neighbors challenge d this idea and her family lost their right of way during court proceedings with th e exception of a footpath. She indicated that her parents were not wealthy and legal cost s were expensive so they had to accept the court's decision . Ms. Sheehan outlined th e issues related to not having right-of-way access to her home, such has not having th e ability for utilities such as oil to be delivered, the fact that the fire marshal told her that a fire truck could not access her home, having to carry her groceries to her home in a wheelbarrow, having to shovel the adjacent parking lot as no plow would do so, loss o f insurance and being unable to sell her home . She stated that she had lost both of he r parents to illness and that when her father learned he had a brain tumor and requeste d to be cared for at home; her neighbors denied the family's request for an ambulanc e which prompted their first petition in 1997. Ms. Sheehan advised that her family had no easement or access to their home which caused mental and physical anguish . She stated that while she recognized that Council would have financial issues with thi s request, it was not reasonable for her to have to ask neighbors for access to safety an d utilities . She provided photographs to convey the difficulty of not having access to he r home including the fact that she must transport oil in jerry cans two to three times pe r week in order to heat her home; noting that her friends recently held an oil relay to hel p her with this issue. In closing, Ms. Sheehan stated that she was not asking to take lan d from neighbors; she simply wanted reasonable access to her home .

HALIFAX REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY 1 3 REGIONAL COUNCIL MINUTES March 1, 201 1

Mr. John Keith, Solicitor for Dr. and Mrs. Charles Cron, apologized for his clients not being present as they find this situation difficult and are elderly, private people . Mr. Keith advised that there were two reasons for Council to support the recommendation before them; in order for Ms. Sheehan to access emergency and heating services . He indicated that his clients were prepared to help Ms . Sheehan have the necessary access to obtain electric heating and that they also had no difficulty with allowin g emergency services to access her home . He advised that the original right-of-way wa s located on the side of Ms . Sheehan's property which bordered the Marterra Inc . lands; therefore, this would be the most reasonable place for a driveway . Mr. Keith stated that his clients had concerns regarding liability issues as the right-of-way would not b e HRM's responsibility and that replacing the slip way with new infill would mean oil truck s would be going along the Northwest Arm ; noting that his clients would have to assum e occupiers liability insurance. He indicated that his clients have suffered from anxiet y over this issue as they have received threatening calls and have been demonized in th e press and community; noting that their enjoyment of their property has been diminished . Mr. Keith stated that his clients did not intend to deny Ms . Sheehan access for an y reasonable measures . He advised that the previous right-of-way was put in by th e Crown without his client's authority or consent ; indicating that Dr . Cron, who was also a botanist, had his plants and driveway damaged in this process . In closing, Mr. Keith stated that his clients were prepared to cooperate on every level with the exception that they did not want a permanent driveway of convenience over their property .

MOVED by Councillor Hendsbee, seconded by Councillor Adams that Halifax Regional Council :

1. Appoint a Commissioner pursuant to Section 17 of the Private Ways Act, to consider the petition of Susan Sheehan ; and

2. Before the Commissioner is engaged, Council enter into an agreement wit h Susan Sheehan for reimbursement to HRM of any and all expense s incurred by HRM as the result of Ms. Sheehan's petition and which are recoverable by HRM under the Private Ways Act. Specifically, all expenses associated with the Arbitrators, and any compensation payable to Dr . and Mrs. Charles Cron .

Discussion on the motion ensued with staff responding to questions .

Councillor Hendsbee stated that there may be the opportunity for secondary access t o Ms. Sheehan's property via a new road access that Marterra Inc . was proposing on th e adjacent property ; however, this would not occur until it was built by Marterra some tim e in the future.

In response to a question posed by Councillor Fisher, Ms . MacDonald stated that if Council denies the petition, the court appeal would still go forward as it was a matter o f law.

Regarding why Council could not wait to make a decision after the appeal goes to court in September, Ms. MacDonald reiterated that while the appeal would be heard in September, it was unknown as to when a decision on the matter would be made . She

HALIFAX REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY 1 4 REGIONAL COUNCIL MINUTES March 1, 201 1

stated that, given the safety concerns related to this matter, staff felt it was prudent to bring the recommendation to Council now and she also noted that it would provide tim e for the Commissioner, if appointed, to conduct their work .

Ms. Donovan also clarified that no stay had been issued with respect to this matter , therefore, Council could legally decide to allow the driveway to be put in ; noting that there was a potential for the appeal to be granted and the driveway taken out as a result.

Ms. MacDonald clarified that approval of the motion would mean that Council agrees Ms. Sheehan should have a right-of-way . She indicated that the only way there woul d not be a right-of-way over the Cron's property would be if the appointed Commissione r deems it to not be the most reasonable means of access .

Councillor Adams submitted a petition containing 27 signatures in support of Ms. Sheehan's petition for a private right-of-way.

Ms. MacDonald noted that Ms . Sheehan would be liable to maintain the right-of-way, i f granted.

In response to a question posed by Councillor Uteck, Ms . MacDonald advised that HRM did not have the authority to grant Ms. Sheehan a temporary easement as th e Municipality was only involved because of the Private Ways Act since, at this time, there was no other means for Ms. Sheehan to obtain a right-of-way to her property .

Ms. MacDonald indicated that there was a process of appeal in the Private Ways Act .

Regarding how this matter and the Private Ways Act relate to the Municipal Charter , Ms. Donovan advised that they were two separate pieces of legislation that did not have any linkage as the Act was completely independent of the Charter .

Councillor Karsten moved an amendment to the motion to state that the process no t proceed until the decision before the court is rendered .

As there was no seconder for the motion, the motion was lost .

Councillor Sloane noted that quality of life and health and safety issues were municipal responsibilities under By-law M-100 and stated that accessing your property was a necessity of life.

In response to Councillor Rankin's comments, Ms . MacDonald advised that Counci l would have the final vote on whether the land assessment provided by th e Commissioner for the right-of-way was appropriate .

Councillor Watts expressed concern with the small potential that the Commissioner' s decision would impact another property owner who was not being represented that evening.

HALIFAX REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY 1 5 REGIONAL COUNCIL MINUTES March 1, 201 1

Ms. MacDonald advised that the Commissioner could not award a driveway over the Marterra property as they could not award anything other than what Ms . Sheehan has requested in her petition. Ms. MacDonald stated that if the Commissioner determine s that the Marterra property is the best site for a right-of-way, Ms . Sheehan may have to petition Council again.

A vote was taken on the motion .

MOTION PUT AND PASSED.

15. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 7:37 p.m.

Cathy J. Mellett Municipal Clerk

HALIFAX REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY 1 6 REGIONAL COUNCIL MINUTES March 1, 201 1

INFORMATION ITEM S March 1, 201 1

1. Proclamation — Liver Health Awareness Month — March 201 1

2. Memorandum from General Manager, dated February 16, 201 1 re: Halifax Regional Water Commission 2008 / 2009 Annual Repor t

3 . Memorandum from General Manager, Halifax Water dated February 21, 201 1 re: Solutions Project Activity Report — August 1, 2010 to December 31, 201 0

4. Memorandum from Director, Legal Services & Risk Managemen t dated February 17, 2011 re : Status of By-Law Prosecutions, October 1 – 31 , 201 0

5. Memorandum from Chair, Audit & Finance Standing Committe e dated February 10, 2011 re : Councillor Appointments to the Special Event s Advisory Committee

6. Memorandum from Chair, Audit & Finance Standing Committe e dated February 18, 2011 re : Advanced Capital Funding Policy – Review of Report Process

7. Memorandum from the Municipal Clerk dated February 25, 201 1 re: Requests for Presentation to Council - None Distinguished Committee Members of the Law Amendments Committee of the Nova Scotia Legislature ,

My name is Susan Sheehan, I am a resident of the Halifax Regional Municipality and I am here tonight t o speak in favour of the proposed amendments to the Private Ways Act in Bill 57 .

For most of us it is easy to take such rights as easements and right of ways for granted . Most of us res t assured that all of the necessities required to maintain our homes and support our lives are available t o us. Services and utilities are provided and paid for by taxes that are collected by our provincial an d municipal governments. However, during the past 4 decades, 3 generations of my family have bee n denied the right to access these services . We live in a home that is not attached to any street .

In the mid 1960s my parents bought their home in Jollimore which had what they believed to be a vali d deeded right of way . Shortly after, their neighbors successfully challenged their right of way in the Nov a Scotia Supreme Court . The court's decision rendered the home land-locked with the exception of a narrow public footpath that runs along the water's edge of the North West Arm . The existence of that footpath ruled out the possibility of any other legal remedy through the courts as this footpath wa s deemed adequate for necessity . In the judge's decision it was noted that my parents would possibl y have rights under the Private Ways Act . My parents were not wealthy and the costs associated with th e legal defense that had already been lost were significant . Instead of pursuing the matter and endurin g more financial costs, they accepted the court's decision and like all human beings they learned to adapt to their environment .

For thirty years, they used the public footpath to walk along the water's edge of the North West Arm t o get to their home . They used a wheelbarrow to carry groceries the distance and when necessary, a toboggan in the winter . Oil delivery was received only with permission from their neighbors and onl y one oil company was willing to accommodate the situation .

Regardless of these difficulties, my parents refused to abandon that home, and they truly believed tha t if there was ever an emergency or insurmountable problem that they could count on the compassion o f neighbors if necessary . Unfortunately, this was not to be the case . As my parents aged the challenges associated with this situation grew, in 1987 my mother chose to forgo medical treatment for stomac h cancer because it was simply too painful to walk or be carried to the nearest road . She died without necessary medical treatment . She was 60 years old .

Shortly after my mother's death my father's health too began to decline . The distance became to o difficult and often times too treacherous in winter months, so for several years his life was confined t o his home . In 1997 at the age of 75 my father suffered a seizure and was taken to hospital . While in hospital he was diagnosed with brain cancer . Within a week he had lost the use of his arms and legs, hi s prognosis was grim and he asked to be returned to his home to die . In his condition, this was simply no t possible without ambulance transportation, so we were forced to ask our neighbours for permission t o remove a fence post and allow for an ambulance to cross their property to bring him home . To ou r shock, this one time request to accommodate a dying man was denied . It was this situation that finally prompted a Private Ways Act application by my father to municipa l council in 1997 but legal arguments made by his neighbors delayed bringing the petition before counci l and he died before his request could be heard .

After his death, I carried on with the Private Ways Act application and its process . HRM Council voted i n favour of the petition and a commissioner was appointed as laid out in the Act . The commissioner to o agreed that a right of way was necessary but subsequently determined that the neighboring land s belonged to the Federal Government and therefore the Municipality had no authority to grant a right o f way over Crown land . Shortly after, the Halifax Port Authority accepted ownership of the land an d offered my family a license to construct a roadway which would allow us to access our home . This generous offer was gratefully accepted and for 10 years my family had a legal means of access to ou r home. Oil delivery and other utilities were accessible, and we lived with peace of mind knowing that i f there was an emergency we could get the help of emergency services.

During that time however, my neighbors continued to contest. They filed a suit against the Attorney General of Canada, the Halifax Port Authority and while I was also named in that suit, the matter wa s settled between my neighbors and the Federal Government . I was not provided with any documents o r given an opportunity to make submissions nor even notified that the matter was ongoing . As a result of this settlement, public lands were given by way of title grant to my neighbors and no consideration wa s made to the fact that my family would be left without a reasonable means of access to our home onc e again.

Subsequently my neighbors removed the roadway and have since placed barriers to prevent th e possibility of vehicle access even for emergency and utility purposes .

Further to this action my neighbors preemptively challenged the HRM's authority in the courts with regards to the existing Private Ways ALL . The provincial court judge found In my favour recognizing that the HRM does have the right to consider my petition. Although that decision has since been appealed, I have once again submitted a Private Ways Act petition to HRM Council some 14 years after the first one . Once again Council has voted in favour of my petition and has recognized my right to access my hom e and my family's right to necessary utilities and services .

While this situation has always been difficult, many things have changed in the last 10 years that hav e made matters even worse for us . The fire marshal's office has confirmed that they can no longer acces s our home with necessary vehicles and equipment in the event of a fire . My insurance company has also noted that this is a serious situation and they have informed me that if I cannot resolve the matter m y property may be deemed an unprotected risk .

Safety and environmental rules have also changed . The oil companies now consider the situation unsaf e and will not deliver heating oil. Now, in order to heat our home I must carry heating oil in jerry cans . To give you some perspective on how difficult this task is, each jerry can filled with heating oil weigh s approximately 40 pounds, I can only fit 9 in my car, during the coldest weeks this winter I had to do thi s 3 times per week in order to maintain one quarter of a tank of oil . There was a moment when I realize d that my children and I might have to abandon our home . This situation did not go unnoticed . Friends and community members organized an oil relay and on a January weekend, 20 concerned citizen s carried oil until our tank was filled, when it was gone they came back and did it again . Petitions hav e been circulated in favour of this Private Ways Act application and have been submitted to HRM' s Council . I can assure you that Nova Scotians care about this Act .

As a committee you are the lawmakers that take stock of what laws and values are worth keeping, a s your constituents, we rely on your wisdom to consider and balance the rights of both the public an d individuals . I recognize that property rights are considered to be essential to many of the persona l rights and freedoms that we hold in high regard . But shouldn't the individual right to safety an d necessity be considered also? The Private Ways Act recognizes that not everyone will answer yes whe n asked that question . And so somewhere in our not so recent history a lawmaker in Nova Scotia mad e sure that there was a mechanism in place so that both property owner's rights could be considered i n the event that someone found themselves in this land-locked situation .

My situation is fortunately unique, but it still requires a solution . A ministerial authority can only appl y . an act of expropriation for the purposes of a public road or highway . Instead the Private Ways Ac t provides a solution and does not diminish the ministerial authority's role of responsibility to insure tha t all individual members of the public have equal right to access the services that taxes are paid for , including fire, ambulance, emergency and utility services . Bill 57 solidifies my family's rights and restate s that the Province has assigned the HRM as the ministerial authority with the power to once and for al l enforce a solution in this case because even one more year after 4 decades is too long for a family to live without access to utility and emergency services .

My neighbors have stated that the Private Ways Act is an antiquated statute . From my perspective, the fact that my family needs this law demonstrates just how valid it is . My neighbors have also claimed tha t since there aren't any other known cases where the Private Ways Act has been used in the HRM, the ac t is no longer needed . But I would ask you to consider that lack of use of this legislation is nothing mor e than a testament to a reasonable population that behaves in a compassionate and neighborly way wit h mutual respect and a willingness to recognize the needs of others . Further, I am likely to be the onl y home owner in the province and possibly the Country who has had the access to their home taken awa y from them with legal action by a neighbour, not just once but twice .

I hope you will agree that it is not reasonable to expect me to seek the permission of my neighbours t o obtain emergency and utility services . I can assure you that the people of Nova Scotia care about th e welfare of its citizens, and so they care about this Act .

Thank you for your time and consideration .

Property Online Map Date : May 9, 2011 4 : 34:36 P M

PID : 00280271 Owner : SUSAN DAWN SHEEHAN AAN : 0189763 2 County : HALIFAX COUNTY Address : 9 MILTON DRIV E Value : $175,400 (2011 RESIDENTIA L HALIFA X TAXABLE ) LR Status : LAND REGISTRATION

The Provincial mapping is a graphical representation of property boundaries which approximat e the size, configuration and location of parcels. Care has been taken to ensure the best possibl e quality, however, this map is not a land survey and is not intended to be used for lega l descriptions or to calculate exact dimensions or area . The Provincial mapping is not conclusive a s to the location, boundaries or extent of a parcel [Land Registration Act subsection 21(2)] . THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL RECORD .

Property Online version 2 .0 This page and all cOntents are copyright © 1999-2003,Government of Nova Scotia, all rights reserved .

Pro perty Online Map Date : May 9, 2011 4 :3 2:50 P M

PID : 00280271 Owner : SUSAN DAWN SHEEHAN AAN : 0189763 2 COunty : HALIFAX COUNTY Address : 9 MILTON DRIVE Value : $175,400 (2011 RESIDENTIA L LR Status : LAND REGISTRATION HALIFAX TAXABLE )

The Provincial mapping is a graphical representation of property boundaries which approximat e the size, configuration and location of parcels. Care has been taken to ensure the best possibl e quality, however, this map is not a land survey and is not intended to be used for lega l descriptions or to calculate exact dimensions or area . The Provincial mapping is not conclusive a s to the location, boundaries or extent of a parcel [Land Registration Act subsection 21(2)] . THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL RECORD.

Property Online version 2 .0 This page and all contents are cOpyright © 1999-2003,Government ofNovaScotia, all rights reserved .

Land Registration View * Indicates interests inherited on subdivision or re-configuration of parce l

PID 00280271 Parcel Type STANDARD PARCEL Status ACTIVE Area 8500 .0 SQUARE FEET Parcel Access PRIVATE (BY GRANT) Manag. Unit MU0842 :15 :00AM Lot Updated Ian 19, 2011 02 :13 :04PM Created May 22, 2008 09 PDCA Status APPRoVED Municipal Unit HALIFAX REGIoNAL MUNICIPALITY Manner of Tenure NOT APPLICABLE LR Status LAND REGISTRATION LR Date Aug 25, 2009 05:13 :02P M

Locatio n County Primary Location Sourc e 9 MILTON DRIVE HALIFAX COUNTY Yes Assigned by Municipality HALIFAX

Comments LOC : [V ] MAP:05N1193NW

Assessment Account Value Tax District Tax Ward Tax Sub 01897632 $175,400 (2011 RESIDENTIAL TAXABLE) 170 000

Registered Interest s Interest Holde r Interest Holder Type Mailing Address Type Year Doc # Book/Page/Plan Registration Date NS Non-Res ? (Qualifier) 90505232 9 MILTON DR Ii View For m No SUSAN DAWN SHEEHAN FEE SIMPLE HALIFAX NS CA DEED 2008 Apr 25, 2008 B3P 1A1 View Doc

Farm Loan Board - Occupants & Mailing Addresse s Name Interest Holder Type Mailing Address

No Records Found

Benefits to the Registered Interests Benefit Details Interest Holder Type Type Year Doc # Book/Page/Plan Registration Date

No Records Found

Burdens on the Registered Interest s interest Holder Interest Holder Type Mailing Address Type Year Doc # Book/Page/Plan Registration Date (Qualifier)

No Records Foun d

Textual Qualifications on Titl e Qualifications Text PROPERTY OWNER HAS A LICENSE TO USE RIGHT OF WAY AGREEMENT. THE LICENSE WILL EXPIRE MAY 30, 2010

Tenants in Common not registered pursuant to the Land Registration Act Interest Holder Interest Holder Type Mailing Address Type Year Doc # Book/Page/Plan Registration Date (Qualifier)

No Records Foun d

Recorded Interest s Interest Holde r Interest Holder Type Mailing Address Type Year Doc # Book/Page/Plan Registration Date (Qualifier) 9688509 1 7105 CHEBUCTO RD SUITE 35 0 View Form CREDIT UNION ATLANTIC LIMITED MORTGAGE E HALIFAX NS CA MORTGAGE 2010 Sep 28, 201 0 83L 4W8 View Do c

93756881 1215 MARGINAL RD POST OFFICE BOX 336 View Form HALIFAX PORT AUTHORITY PARTY TO AGREEMENT LICENSE 2009 Jul 08, 2009 HALIFAX NS CA View Doc B3J 2P6

9759971 7 7105 CHEBUCTO RD SUITE 350 0 View Form CREDIT UNION ATLANTIC LIMITED MORTGAGEE HALIFAX NS CA MORTGAGE 2011 Jan 18, 201 1 B3L 4W8 0 View Doc

94144723 7105 CHEBUCTO RD SUITE 350 View Form CREDIT UNION ATLANTIC LIMITED MORTGAGEE HALIFAX NS CA MORTGAGE 2009 Aug 28, 200 9 B3L 4W8 View Doc

Parcel Description ALL that certain lot, piece or parcel of land in Halifax, County of Halifax, Province of Nova Scotia, more particularly bounded and described as follows :

BEGINNING at a point on the southeastern boundary of lands now or formerly of Charles and Rita Cron and the northeastern boundary of lands now o r formerly of Gordon and Robert Finley ;

THENCE northeasterly along the southeastern boundary of lands now or formerly of Charles and Rita Cron for a distance of 161 feet more or less to a poin t on the southwestern boundary of the Infil l

THENCE southeasterly along the Infill a distance of 64 feet more or less to a point on the northwestern boundary of lands now or formerly of Gordon an d Robert Finley;

THENCE southwesterly along the northwestern boundary of lands now or formerly of Gordon and Robert Finley for a distance of 147 feet more or less t o point;

THENCE northwesterly along the northeastern boundary of lands now or formerly of Gordon and Robert Finley for a distance of 44 feet more or less to a point on the southeastern boundary of lands now or formerly of Charles and Rita Cron, being the point of beginning .

The parcel is exempt from the subdivision provisions of Part IX of the municipal Government Act because of Defacto Consolidation.

Non-Enabling Documents Inst Type Inst No Year Type Book/Page Registration System Registration Date 94017499

Documertt View Form 2009 DEFACTO CONSOLIDATION REGISTRY OF DEEDS Aug 12, 200 9 View Doc

Non-Enabling Plans Inst Type Inst No Year Type Plan Name Drawer Number Registration Date

No Non Enab/ing P/ans Found

AFR Bundle s Inst Type Inst No Year Type Filing Reference Instrument Dat e

No AFR Bund/es Foun d

Parcel Relationships Related PID Type of Relationshi p

No Re/ated PIDs Found

This parcel IS REGISTERED PURSUANT TO THE Land Registration Act. The registered owner of the registered interest owns the interest defined in thi s register in respect of the parcel described in the register, subject to any discrepancy in the location, boundaries or extent of the parcel and subject to th e overriding interests [Land Registration Act subsection 20(1)] .

No representations whatsoever are made as to the validity or effect of recorded documents listed in this parcel register . The description of the parcel is not conclusive as to the location, boundaries or extent of the parcel [Land Registration Act subsection 21(1)] .

Property online version 2.0 This page artd all contents are copyright (c) 1999-2003,Government of Nova Scotia, all rights reserved . to:propertyonline@govIf you have comments.ns regarding.ca our site please direct them Please feel free to Submit Problems you find with the Property Online web site. Compression : Off Mortgage No. 72507-S0- 1 Reference No. 09159000874 MORTGAG E

This mortgage is made on , 2009.

BETWEEN:

SUSAN DAWN SHEEHAN Province of Nova Scotia, as the "Mortgagor(s)''

"BORROWER(S)"

AND:

SHAUN SHEEHAN "SPOUSE OF THE BORROWER" (If spouse not a borrower )

AND:

SHAUN SHEEHAN "GUARANTOR"

AND :

CREDIT UNION ATLANTIC LIMITED, a body corporate, incorporated under and subject to th e Credit Union Act (Nova Scotia), with Its Head Office at 350, 7105 Chebucto Road, Halifax, Nova Scotia, as the "Mortgagee".

"CREDIT UNION"

In this mortgage you and your mean each person who has signed this mortgage as borrower . We, our and us mean CREDIT UNION ATLANTIC LIMITED . Borrower includes one or more borrowers . Spouse includes the spouses of the borrowers. Guarantor includes one or more guarantors . Your property means the property described below . Loa n amount means the principal amount loaned to you that is outstanding from time to time . Where the context requires , words in the singular include the plural.

In return for our making a loan to you in the amount of: ($116,000 .00) One Hundred Sixteen Thousand and 001100 Canadian dollars (called the principal amount), which you acknowledge having received from us, you hereby give us this mortgage .

1 . LEGAL DESCRIPTIO N The legal description of your property covered by this mortgage is described In Schedule "A", see attached. Any buildings on your property and anything now or later attached or fixed to the buildings on your property, including additions, alterations, improvements, furnaces, boners and ventilation equipment, installed or placed on your property are covered by this mortgage. However, no additions, alterations or improvements may be made by yo u without our prior writ en consent Use of Your Property - you may of course continue to remain in possession of your property . However, if you default in any of your obligations to us under this mortgage, we have the right to take immediate possession . You will not use your property for any purpose other than that disclosed to us in the application for this mortgage without our prior written consent

2 . WHAT THIS MORTGAGE DOE S As owner of your property, you grant and mortgage your property to us and our successors and assigns (calle d our legal representatives) as security for repayment of your loan. This means you give your entire interest in you r property to us and to anyone to whom this mortgage is transferred in any way. You release to us all of your claim s on your property until you have complied with all of your obligations under this mortgage . Termination of this Mortgage - Our interest in your property terminates when you have: a. Repaid the loan amount and all Interest you may owe us as provided below; and b. Complied with all of your other obligations under this mortgage.

3. INTEREST a. Interest Rate - The interest rate payable by you on the loan amount is 3 .90% per year. Interest is payable monthly and calculated half-yearly, not in advance . The first half-yearly calculation of interest after the interest adjustment date (which Is the date on which your mortgage term begins) shall be for the six month perio d commencing on that date. That calculation shall be made six months after the interest adjustment date and half - yearly calculations of interest shall continue to be made every six months thereafter. This interest rate is payabl e on the loan amount both before and after the final payment date as well as both before and after default, until th e loan amount has been paid In full . b. Compound Interest - If on any monthly loan payment date you do not make the payment due on that day, we will charge you interest on any overdue portion of the loan amount and interest until paid to us. This is called compound interest We will also charge interest on the compound interest that is overdue until paid to us. Th e interest rate for compound interest and for interest on compound interest is the same as the interest rate payabl e on the loan as set out herein both before and after the final payment date as well as both before and after default . It shall be paid periodically at intervals that are the same as your monthly loan payment dates . c. All interest and compound interest is a charge on your property .

d. At no time under this mortgage shall interest exceed any amount prohibited by any applicable federal and/or. provincial law

4. HOW YOU WILL REPAY YOUR LOA N a. Loan Payments - You shall repay the loan amount and all interest payable on it to us In Canadian dollars. Your regular loan payment and all other payments will be made at our office nearest to your property, or at any other place we may designate, and are payable as follows: Before your regular loan payments begin, you will pay us Interest at the above rate calculated daily, not in advance, on all money we have advanced to you up to the interest adjustment date. Interest will be computed from the date of each advance up to but not Including the interest adjustment date and shall become due and be paid on that date . In this mortgage, the interest adjustment date Is July 10, 2009. The principal amount together with interest calculated from the interest adjustment date shall become due and be paid by you in regula r loan payments. You will make the regular loan payments to us in equal installments of. ($ 504.53) Five Hundred Four and 531100 dollars each, beginning on August 2009 and continuing on a monthly basis thereafter and ending on July 10*', 2010 . Each payment consists of a portion of the principa l amount together with the interest due and payable on the loan payment date. You will pay the balance of the principal amount together with all the interest due and payable, on the date last mentioned, which is called the final payment date. b. Application of Loan Payments - Each loan payment will be used first to pay interest due and payable, and next, to reduce the principal amoun t c. Prepayment Privileges - You will have no right or privilege to prepay your principal amount early except in accordance with the provisions of Schedule "B", see attached.

CUC868 – Rev 09/08 2 Mortgage No. 7250781 1 Reference No . 10235001462 MORTGAGE

This mortgage is made on _ 2010 .

BETWEEN :

SUSAN DAWN SHEEHA N

Province of Nova Scotia, as the "Mortgagor(s) "

"BORROWER(S)"

AND:

SHAUN SHEEHAN

"SPOUSE OF THE BORROWER" (If spouse not a borrower )

AND:

SHAUN SHEEHAN

"GUARANTOR"

AND :

CREDIT UNION ATLANTIC LIMITED, a body corporate, incorporated under and subject to th e Credit Union Act (Nova Scotia), with its Head Office at 350, 7105 Chebucto Road, Halifax, Nov a Scotia, as the "Mortgagee" .

"CREDIT UNION"

In this mortgage you and your mean each person who has signed this mortgage as borrower . We, our and us mea n CREDIT UNION ATLANTIC LIMITED. Borrower includes one or more borrowers . Spouse includes the spouses of the borrowers . Guarantor includes one or more guarantors . Your property means the property described below . Loa n amount means the principal amount loaned to you that is outstanding from time to time . Where the context requires , words in the singular include the plural .

In return for our making a loan to you in the amount of : ($120,100.00) One Hundred Twenty Thousand One Hundred and 001100 Canadian dollars (called the principa l amount), which you acknowledge having received from us, you hereby give us this mortgage .

1 . LEGAL DESCRIPTIO N The legal description of your property covered by this mortgage is described in Schedule "A", see attached . Any buildings on your property and anything now or later attached or fixed to the buildings on your property, includin g additions, alterations, improvements, furnaces, boilers and ventilation equipment, installed or placed on you r property are covered by this mortgage . However, no additions, alterations or improvements may be made by yo u without our prior written consent. Use of Your Property – you may of course continue to remain in possession of your property . However, if you default in any of your obligations to us under this mortgage, we have the right to take immediate possession . You will not use your property for any purpose other than that disclosed to us in the application for this mortgag e without our prior written consent.

2. WHAT THIS MORTGAGE DOE S As owner of your property, you grant and mortgage your property to us and our successors and assigns (calle d our legal representatives) as security for repayment of your loan . This means you give your entire interest in you r property to us and to anyone to whom this mortgage is transferred in any way . You release to us all of your claims on your property until you have complied with all of your obligations under this mortgage . Termination of this Mortgage – Our interest in your property terminates when you have : a. Repaid the loan amount and all interest you may owe us as provided below ; an d b. Complied with all of your other obligations under this mortgage .

3 . INTEREST a. Interest Rate - The interest rate payable by you on the loan amount is 4 .65000 % per year. Interest i s payable monthly and calculated half-yearly, not in advance . The first half-yearly calculation of interest after th e interest adjustment date (which is the date on which your mortgage term begins) shall be for the six month perio d commencing on that date . That calculation shall be made six months after the interest adjustment date and half- yearly calculations of interest shall continue to be made every six months thereafter . This interest rate is payable on the loan amount both before and after the final payment date as well as both before and after default, until th e loan amount has been paid in full . b. Compound Interest - If on any monthly loan payment date you do not make the payment due on that day, we wilt charge you interest on any overdue portion of the loan amount and interest until paid to us . This is calle d compound interest. We will also charge interest on the compound interest that is overdue until paid to us . Th e interest rate for compound interest and for interest on compound interest is the same as the interest rate payabl e on the loan as set out herein both before and after the final payment date as well as both before and after default . It shall be paid periodically at intervals that are the same as your monthly loan payment dates . c. All interest and compound interest is a charge on your property.

d. At no time under this mortgage shall interest exceed any amount prohibited by any applicable federal and/or provincial law .

4. HOW YOU WILL REPAY YOUR LOAN a. Loan Payments – You shall repay the loan amount and all interest payable on it to us in Canadian dollars . Your regular loan payment and all other payments will be made at our office nearest to your property, or at an y other place we may designate, and are payable as follows : Before your regular loan payments begin, you will pay us Interest at the above rate calculated daily, not i n advance, on all money we have advanced to you up to the interest adjustment date . Interest will be computed from the date of each advance up to but not including the interest adjustment date and shall become due and b e paid on that date . In this mortgage, the interest adjustment date is August 25th , 2010. The principal amount together with interest calculated from the interest adjustment date shall become due and be paid by you in regula r loan payments . You will make the regular loan payments to us in equal installments of : ($ 576 .26) Five Hundred Seventy Six and 26/100 dollars each, beginning on September 25 *, 2010 an d continuing on a monthly basis thereafter and ending on February 2 5*, 2011 . Each payment consists of a portio n of the principal amount together with the interest due and payable on the loan payment date. You will pay the balance of the principal amount together with all the interest due and payable, on the date las t mentioned, which is called the final payment date . b. Application of Loan Payments – Each loan payment will be used first to pay interest due and payable , and next, to reduce the principal amount . c. Prepayment Privileges – You will have no right or privilege to prepay your principal amount early excep t in accordance with the provisions of Schedule "B", see attached .

CUC868 — Rev 09/08 2 Mortgage No . 7250782 1 Reference No. 10345000156 MORTGAGE

This mortgage is made on , 2011 .

BETWEEN :

SUSAN DAWN SHEEHAN

Province of Nova Scotia, as the "Mortgagor(s) "

"BORROWER(S)"

AND:

CREDIT UNION ATLANTIC LIMITED, a body corporate, incorporated under and subject to th e Credit Union Act (Nova Scotia), with its Head Office at 350, 7105 Chebucto Road, Halifax, Nov a Scotia, as the "Mortgagee".

"CREDIT UNION"

In this mortgage you and your mean each person who has signed this mortgage as borrower. We, our and us mean CREDIT UNION ATLANTIC LIMITED. Borrower includes one or more borrowers . Spouse includes the spouses of the borrowers. Guarantor includes one or more guarantors . Your property means the property described below . Loan amount means the principal amount loaned to you that is outstanding from time to time . Where the context requires , words in the singular include the plural .

In return for our making a loan to you in the amount of. ($150,000 .00) One Hundred Fifty Thousand and 001100 Canadian dollars (called the principal amount), which yo u acknowledge having received from us, you hereby give us this mortgage .

1 . LEGAL DESCRIPTIO N The legal description of your property covered by this mortgage is described in Schedule 'A', see attached. Any buildings on your property and anything now or later attached or fixed to the buildings on your property, includin g additions, alterations, improvements, furnaces, boilers and ventilation equipment, installed or placed on your property are covered by this mortgage . However, no additions, alterations or improvements may be made by yo u without our prior written consent. Use of Your Property - you may of course continue to remain in possession of your property . However, if yo u default in any of your obligations to us under this mortgage, we have the right to take immediate possession . You will not use your property for any purpose other than that disclosed to us in the application for this mortgag e without our prior written consent

2 . WHAT THIS MORTGAGE DOES As owner of your property, you grant and mortgage your property to us and our successors and assigns (called our legal representatives) as security for repayment of your loan . This means you give your entire interest in you r property to us and to anyone to whom this mortgage is transferred in any way . You release to us all of your claims on your property until you have complied with all of your obligations under this mortgage. Termination of this Mortgage - Our interest in your property terminates when you have : a. Repaid the loan amount and all interest you may owe us as provided below; an d b. Complied with all of your other obligations under this mortgage .

3 . INTEREST a. Interest Rate - The interest rate payable by you on the loan amount is 4.65000 % per year. Interest i s payable monthly and calculated half-yearly, not in advance . The first half-yearly calculation of interest after the interest adjustment date (which is the date on which your mortgage term begins) shall be for the six month perio d commencing on that date. That calculation shall be made six months after the interest adjustment date and half - yearly calculations of interest shall continue to be made every six months thereafter . This interest rate is payable on the loan amount both before and after the final payment date as well as both before and after default, until th e loan amount has been paid in full. b. Compound Interest - If on any monthly loan payment date you do not make the payment due on that day , we will charge you interest on any overdue portion of the loan amount and interest until paid to us . This is calle d compound interest . We will also charge interest on the compound interest that is overdue until paid to us . Th e interest rate for compound interest and for interest on compound interest is the same as the interest rate payabl e on the loan as set out herein both before and after the final payment date as well as both before and after default . It shall be paid periodically at intervals that are the same as your monthly loan payment dates . c. All interest and compound interest is a charge on your property .

d. At no time under this mortgage shall interest exceed any amount prohibited by any applicable federa l and/or provincial law.

4. HOW YOU WILL REPAY YOUR LOA N a. Loan Payments - You shall repay the loan amount and all interest payable on it to us in Canadian dollars . Your regular loan payment and all other payments will be made at our office nearest to your property, or at an y other place we may designate, and are payable as follows : Before your regular loan payments begin, you will pay us interest at the above rate calculated daily, not i n advance, on all money we have advanced to you up to the interest adjustment date . Interest will be compute d from the date of each advance up to but not including the interest adjustment date and shall become due and b e paid on that date. In this mortgage, the interest adjustment date is January 13th, 2011 . The principal amount together with interest calculated from the interest adjustment date shall become due and be paid by you in regular loan payments. You will make the regular loan payments to us in equal installments of. ($ 719.73) Seven Hundred Nineteen and 73/100 dollars each, beginning on February 15th , 2011 and continuing on a monthly basis thereafter and ending on July 13 th , 2011 . Each payment consists of a portion of the principal amount together with the interest due and payable on the loan payment date. You will pay the balance of the principal amount together with all the interest due and payable, on the date last mentioned, which is called the final payment date . b. Application of Loan Payments - Each loan payment will be used first to pay interest due and payable , and next, to reduce the principal amount. c. Prepayment Privileges - You will have no right or privilege to prepay your principal amount early excep t in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 'B°, see attached.

CUC868 - Rev 09/08 2

COX & PA L M E R I coxandpalmerlaw.co m New Brunswick I Newfoundland and Labrador 1 Nova Scotia 1 Prince Edward Islan d

May 11, 201 1

Via Email : legc.hebbgd@gov .ns.ca & Hand Delivery

Gordon Hebb, Q.C. Office of Legislative Counse l 9th Floor, 1690 Hollis Stree t PO Box 1116 Halifax, NS B3J 2X1

Dear Mr. Hebb:

RE: Bill No. 57 - Private Ways Act

The issue surrounding these amendments is focussed on a particular problem : Should Susan Sheehan have a permanent driveway over her neighbour's lands? There are no othe r known cases or situations where these proposed amendments would apply . Ms. Sheeha n and HRM both acknowledge this fact .

Ms. Sheehan may have compelling reasons to justify her request for a driveway, but thos e reasons are clearly both private and personal . The Crons may also be able to describe thei r own need to preserve the integrity of their property . Those reasons would be equally privat e and personal . The purpose of this letter is not to advocate for one perspective or disparag e the other.

The fact of the matter is that these amendments seek to resolve a single and unique privat e dispute in favour of one citizen over another. Regardless of what one might think about th e circumstances of this case, this prospect raises troubling philosophical issues for th e legislative process . The legislature should not be seen as a vehicle whereby one citizen ma y seek customized statutory relief which promotes and protects their private claims ove r another citizen . The legislative process is designed for broader public service and ought no t be transformed into a place where private citizens can legislate solutions to their ow n personal problems.

John A. Keith I Partne r Direct 902 491 4217 Main 902 421 6262 Fax 902 421 3130 Email [email protected] m Purdy's Wharf Tower 11100-1959 Upper Water Street Halifax N S Correspondence PO Box 2380 Central Halifax NS B313E5 May 11, 201 1

Having said that, if the legislature seeks to proceed with these amendments, I agree that th e Private Ways Act is deficient and offer the following concrete proposals for consideration a s part of the amendments :

1. Remove section 3 of the proposed amendments providing that the amendments b e imposed retroactively . Again, this change is intended entirely to alter the course of a single private dispute which is scheduled to be heard by the Nova Scotia Court o f Appeal in September 2011. During yesterday's Law Amendments Committe e meeting, Mr. Epstein suggested that, in his view, this appeal is unlikely to succeed . If Mr. Epstein is correct, there is no need for the retroactive provisions .

2. The proposed amendments will, in a very blunt and rough manner, abrogate a privat e landowner's common law right to negotiate the terms under which a right of way i s placed over his or her own land - including the size of the right of way, appropriat e building standards, obligation to repair and maintain the right of way, compensation for the right of way, etc . Many of these issues are appropriately addressed in th e Expropriation Act . However, if this statute is to be separated from (and independen t of) the Expropriation Act, the owner of the lands upon which a right of way is bein g imposed (i.e. the servient tenement) should equally be entitled to statutory protectio n for the loss and exposure created by that imposition . Put another way, the owner o f the dominant tenement lands must accept the burden as well as the benefit associated with taking a right of way over neighbouring lands . To that end, I propose:

(a) Incorporating the compensation process and model provided under th e Expropriation Act . The Expropriation Act allows for an impartial process whic h also ensures fair value for the land being taken (see, for example, sections 1 6 and 26 to 27 of the Expropriation Act). The concepts of "fair market value" and "injurious affection" are particularly important .

(b) Adding a provision confirming that the right of way being granted shall be n o greater than the width or size required to accommodate such reasonabl e access required by the dominant tenement .

(c) Confirming that the granting of any right of way shall be conditional on :

(i) the right of way being constructed in accordance with such reasonabl e standards as determined by an independent engineer licensed t o practice in the Province of Nova and appointed by the municipa l council and who shall ensure that all applicable statutes an d regulations are met including, for example, any requirements of environmental legislation. All associated construction costs shall b e borne by the owner of the dominant tenement benefit;

Page 2

May 11, 2011

(ii) the owner of the dominant tenement who is benefitting by the right o f way maintaining and repairing the road so as to permit the saf e passage of vehicle and pedestrians travelling across the right of way . All associated costs shall be borne by the owner of the dominan t tenement; and

(iii) the owner of the dominant tenement benefitted by the right of wa y maintaining liability insurance sufficient to cover any reasonable risk s associated with the new right of way and indemnifying the owner of th e servient tenement over whose lands are being burdened with the right of way in respect of all liability.

I do not have experience in drafting legislation but will attempt to provide any assistanc e required if you think it is necessary .

I am also prepared to discuss the proposed amendments if required .

Thank you for your consideration .

Yours very truly,

7' John A. Keith JAK/am b cc: Members of the Law Amendments Committee cc: Karen MacDonal d cc: Susan Sheehan

Page 3