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 Dalhousie University Bill#55 - Medical Act 3 :00 3. Dr. Lisa Richard, Registrar Nova Scotia 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.