Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme request
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque
Jonas - I hope you win.
Last edited by JasonE on Mon Jul 17, 2017 8:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Carelessness and overconfidence are more dangerous than deliberately accepted risk." -Wilbur Wright
Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque
Yep, you can't fight city hall. Well, you can - but you can never really win. Sort of like fighting "the regulator". We all know how that turns out.photofly wrote: That's what the courts are for. It's difficult when the municipality is the airport operator as well though; even if you win a court case you're now on the wrong side of the very people you need be friendly with. You can win the battle, but lose the war, so to speak.
Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque
In the case of Transport Canada I would agree. Jonas and myself have manged to outlast 5 airport managers in 8 years (hmmmm I wonder why so many?). Unlike Transport Canada the group pulling the strings at the airport is elected, and this is an election year!7ECA wrote:Yep, you can't fight city hall. Well, you can - but you can never really win. Sort of like fighting "the regulator". We all know how that turns out.photofly wrote: That's what the courts are for. It's difficult when the municipality is the airport operator as well though; even if you win a court case you're now on the wrong side of the very people you need be friendly with. You can win the battle, but lose the war, so to speak.
People should not have to fear both the government and the criminal. It should be that the criminal fears both the people and the government.
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 671
- Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 7:52 pm
- Location: Ontario
Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque
Simpleton,,, you have nothing to offer here, you come across as an asshole and i support jonas 100 % based upon the provided information so far !
Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque
Here's some of my favorite quotes...amongst so many others
...and I'm not going to give away the reference sources for these federally sourced quotes.....cause I like making people work for them (and I enjoy that Jonas has to pay a lawyer to, maybe, figure these things out)
"The exclusive jurisdiction over the location of aeronautical facilities has been repeatedly affirmed by Canadian courts. The federal aeronautics jurisdiction encompasses not only the regulation of the operation of aircraft and aerodromes, but also the power to determine the location of aerodromes."
"In the Lacombe and COPA decisions, the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that a degree of jurisdictional overlap is inevitable. In cases of multiple jurisdictions' laws, compliance with these laws might be enforced by those jurisdictions."
"The Aeronautics Act may not grant immunity from compliance with other applicable federal, provincial, territorial or municipal legislation. As mentioned in the COPA Supreme Court decision, the test is whether the provincial law impairs the federal exercise of the core competence."
"Determination of whether or not provincial, territorial, or municipal legislation impairs the federal core competencies is a matter to be determined by courts on a case-by-case basis. Transport Canada does not provide advice regarding the applicability of provincial, territorial, or municipal legislation"
"In cases of valid and applicable jurisdictional overlap of laws compliance with provincial, territorial and municipal non-aeronautics legislation might be enforced by those jurisdictions"
"Some community/aerodrome situations have reached the point where the effect of land use planning guidelines may be minimal. However, there are still instances where the use of these guidelines will result in more compatible aerodrome and community development. Implementation of this guidance may result in provincial/municipal legislation or bylaws for compatible land uses, easements or land zoning."
"Where the facility is a non-certified aerodrome, the standards in TP312 Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices can be used but are not enforceable; however, the operational integrity of the non-certified aerodrome is enhanced if the designation of the use of land adjacent to the facility is done in line with technical portions of the standards."
...and I'm not going to give away the reference sources for these federally sourced quotes.....cause I like making people work for them (and I enjoy that Jonas has to pay a lawyer to, maybe, figure these things out)
"The exclusive jurisdiction over the location of aeronautical facilities has been repeatedly affirmed by Canadian courts. The federal aeronautics jurisdiction encompasses not only the regulation of the operation of aircraft and aerodromes, but also the power to determine the location of aerodromes."
"In the Lacombe and COPA decisions, the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that a degree of jurisdictional overlap is inevitable. In cases of multiple jurisdictions' laws, compliance with these laws might be enforced by those jurisdictions."
"The Aeronautics Act may not grant immunity from compliance with other applicable federal, provincial, territorial or municipal legislation. As mentioned in the COPA Supreme Court decision, the test is whether the provincial law impairs the federal exercise of the core competence."
"Determination of whether or not provincial, territorial, or municipal legislation impairs the federal core competencies is a matter to be determined by courts on a case-by-case basis. Transport Canada does not provide advice regarding the applicability of provincial, territorial, or municipal legislation"
"In cases of valid and applicable jurisdictional overlap of laws compliance with provincial, territorial and municipal non-aeronautics legislation might be enforced by those jurisdictions"
"Some community/aerodrome situations have reached the point where the effect of land use planning guidelines may be minimal. However, there are still instances where the use of these guidelines will result in more compatible aerodrome and community development. Implementation of this guidance may result in provincial/municipal legislation or bylaws for compatible land uses, easements or land zoning."
"Where the facility is a non-certified aerodrome, the standards in TP312 Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices can be used but are not enforceable; however, the operational integrity of the non-certified aerodrome is enhanced if the designation of the use of land adjacent to the facility is done in line with technical portions of the standards."
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 693
- Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2016 8:57 am
Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque
That's a lot of bold letters and underlines. Good work Simpleton.
Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque
Wow the sweat was pouring off my brow trying to find these Actually I've got them saved on my computer. I find that with most Transport Canada documents they must be read a couple of times to be fully appreciated.Simpleton wrote:Here's some of my favorite quotes...amongst so many others
...and I'm not going to give away the reference sources for these federally sourced quotes.....cause I like making people work for them (and I enjoy that Jonas has to pay a lawyer to, maybe, figure these things out)
The top part is Advisory Circular (AC) No. 300-009
The bottom part is TP 1247 - Aviation - Land Use in the Vicinity of Aerodromes part 1.1
There you go Jonas No charge
Simpleton wrote:"Where the facility is a non-certified aerodrome, the standards in TP312 Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices can be used but are not enforceable; however, the operational integrity of the non-certified aerodrome is enhanced if the designation of the use of land adjacent to the facility is done in line with technical portions of the standards."
An aviator would underline this portion."however, the operational integrity of the non-certified aerodrome is enhanced if the designation of the use of land adjacent to the facility is done in line with technical portions of the standards."
Here is the thing. As an aviator you can come at this issue from one of three perspectives. Is it good for me? Is it good for my neighbor? Is it good for the airport? The perspective that you seem to be coming at this from is none of these. Instead you're only perspective on this is. Is it bad for Jonas? Kinda sad really.
People should not have to fear both the government and the criminal. It should be that the criminal fears both the people and the government.
Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque
Glad I was able to help you out with those, since the whole "the feds have sole control over everything on aerodromes" shtick was getting tiresome. "Well, you know...I knew about those all along"....yeah, sure you did Johnny.
It's going to be fun when the judgement comes down.
It's going to be fun when the judgement comes down.
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 639
- Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:17 pm
- Location: The Okanagan
Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque
Simpleton:
Do you have a dog in this fight?
J
Do you have a dog in this fight?
J
Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque
It was only a magistrate judge, and in a different province, so no precedent but:Simpleton wrote:Glad I was able to help you out with those, since the whole "the feds have sole control over everything on aerodromes" shtick was getting tiresome. "Well, you know...I knew about those all along"....yeah, sure you did Johnny.
It's going to be fun when the judgement comes down.
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF OSHAWA
— AND —
536813 ONTARIO LIMITED
My emphasis.[110] For the reasons stated above, I am satisfied that (1.) the Ontario Building Code Act, 1992 trenches on the protected core of federal competency as it applies to the defendant’s hangar, and (2.) Section 8 of the Ontario Building Code Act, 1992 unacceptably interferes with and, in fact, has a considerable and serious impact on the federal competency as it applies to the defendant’s hangar. I find, therefore, that the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity applies such that the City of Oshawa cannot rely on provincial building code provisions to require the defendant to obtain a building permit for construction to its hangar located at the Oshawa Airport complex. Consequently, the charge against the defendant under clause 36(1) of the Ontario Building Code Act, 1992, for failing to obtain a building permit as required under subsection 8(1), is ultra vires the City of Oshawa and, hence, I am quashing the Information that brought the impugned charge against the defendant.
The judgement is worth reading. I don't see that an appeal has been filed.
(You're welcome.)
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque
photofly wrote:It was only a magistrate judge, and in a different province, so no precedent but:Simpleton wrote:Glad I was able to help you out with those, since the whole "the feds have sole control over everything on aerodromes" shtick was getting tiresome. "Well, you know...I knew about those all along"....yeah, sure you did Johnny.
It's going to be fun when the judgement comes down.
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF OSHAWA
— AND —
536813 ONTARIO LIMITED
My emphasis.[110] For the reasons stated above, I am satisfied that (1.) the Ontario Building Code Act, 1992 trenches on the protected core of federal competency as it applies to the defendant’s hangar, and (2.) Section 8 of the Ontario Building Code Act, 1992 unacceptably interferes with and, in fact, has a considerable and serious impact on the federal competency as it applies to the defendant’s hangar. I find, therefore, that the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity applies such that the City of Oshawa cannot rely on provincial building code provisions to require the defendant to obtain a building permit for construction to its hangar located at the Oshawa Airport complex. Consequently, the charge against the defendant under clause 36(1) of the Ontario Building Code Act, 1992, for failing to obtain a building permit as required under subsection 8(1), is ultra vires the City of Oshawa and, hence, I am quashing the Information that brought the impugned charge against the defendant.
The judgement is worth reading. I don't see that an appeal has been filed.
(You're welcome.)
An appeal has been filed
http://oshawaexpress.ca/city-appealing- ... rt-hangar/
http://oshawaexpress.ca/city-judge-wron ... port-case/
(You're welcome)
Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque
Great! let's see what the outcome is!
(It's not clear that then city's appeal turns on the jurisdiction issue though. Can you find any appal documents?)
(It's not clear that then city's appeal turns on the jurisdiction issue though. Can you find any appal documents?)
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque
If you guys really wanted to get these things clarified, you'd be getting your MP's to request the reigning government draft up legislation to define who has what jurisdiction over what on airport development. At least 3 times in the last 20 years Bills were drafted up trying to clarify this, but each one died on the table on election years. Leaving all this to case-by-case legal judgements, and thousands spent on legal costs is pure crap. It's going to happen again and again and again.
Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque
Nope, not at all. But I know all the players involved in this case. The outcome of this case has ramifications for planned airport development everywhere. Last count was around $2.2-2.6 million in hangar development is now sitting in limbo with at least 3 companies that were planning to pick up land at Whitecourt...all on hold over this pissing match over jurisdiction.Schooner69A wrote:Simpleton:
Do you have a dog in this fight?
J
And because of Jonas' shenanigans, land that was going to be sold to pay for development costs, may not be sold....they only want to do leases now (to exercise some control). Those lots available need a huge amount of earth work to bring them up to suitable grade. The cost to the county to do that work, would mean land lease costs that nobody would pay. If you could buy the lot, you'd pay....but at least it would be a titled lot. Try getting financing on a leased lot....it's dicey.
So, until the "Jonas" issue is sorted out....pretty much everybody who was gearing up to purchase and build in Whitecourt has shelved their plans for now.
Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque
You know, it takes two sides to have a long-running dispute; you can't lay it all at Jonas Boll's door, and he's not the only party who can put an end to it.
And it's not like he's making hay while everyone else who wants to develop has to wait; the guy paid up in 2006 and eleven years later things aren't sorted. Eleven years is a big chunk of someone's lifespan, and a long time to wait to use a hangar. Is the taxiway to the hangar even usable right now? What does the City of Whitecourt want to be built on the site? If they didn't want him to build and use a hangar for airplanes there, then why on earth did they sell him the freehold in the first place?
And it's not like he's making hay while everyone else who wants to develop has to wait; the guy paid up in 2006 and eleven years later things aren't sorted. Eleven years is a big chunk of someone's lifespan, and a long time to wait to use a hangar. Is the taxiway to the hangar even usable right now? What does the City of Whitecourt want to be built on the site? If they didn't want him to build and use a hangar for airplanes there, then why on earth did they sell him the freehold in the first place?
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque
Here's another concurring judgement, with a bit more bite, since it comes from the Ontario Court of Appeal. Still the wrong province, but more senior judges anyway.
City of Mississauga v. Greater Toronto Airports Authority et al.
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2 ... 16948.html
City of Mississauga v. Greater Toronto Airports Authority et al.
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2 ... 16948.html
(My emphasis.)The City of Mississauga contends that the Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 23 and regulations passed under it, apply to all new buildings constructed at Pearson Airport. It also claims that the GTAA and Nav Canada must pay development charges levied by Mississauga under the Development Charges Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. D.9. The question is whether Parliament's exclusive legislative authority in relation to aeronautics, federal undertakings or public property under the Constitution Act, 1867 requires that the Ontario building code regime, including the development charges, be read down not to apply to the construction of new buildings at Pearson Airport. ...
Mississauga appealed a decision by MacPherson J., which decided all issues against the City.
Held, The appeal should be dismissed.
...
Federal jurisdiction over aeronautics includes much more than aerial navigation in the strict sense, and includes the construction of airport buildings and the operation of airports. The entire redevelopment project, therefore, comes under the aeronautics power. Because federal legislative power is exclusive, provincial laws cannot affect that essential core. A provincial law, valid in most of its applications, must be read down not to apply to the core of exclusive federal power. Under the test of interjurisdictional immunity, a provincial law that affects a vital or essential or integral part of a federally regulated enterprise cannot apply to that enterprise. Provincial or municipal laws that seek to regulate the physical structure of airports and airport buildings will affect a vital or integral part of an aeronautics undertaking. The Building Code Act and Development Charges Act stand on the same constitutional footing as provincial planning and zoning legislation, none of which applies to the construction of airports. The entire redevelopment was essential for the operation of the airport and a building-by-building analysis was unnecessary.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque
A classic case of the county wanting both to have its cake and to eat it as well. It wants people to pay freehold prices, but it also wants to maintain control. There are other legal ways to achieve what it wants, such as restrictive covenants. But nothing that it can retroactively apply to Jonas Boll.Simpleton wrote: And because of Jonas' shenanigans, land that was going to be sold to pay for development costs, may not be sold....they only want to do leases now (to exercise some control). Those lots available need a huge amount of earth work to bring them up to suitable grade. The cost to the county to do that work, would mean land lease costs that nobody would pay.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque
They've got no grounds, instead what they're probably looking to do is bankrupt the defendant. Pretty simple really, the City has "unlimited" resources, so they can afford to drag out the appeal process for years.photofly wrote:Great! let's see what the outcome is!
(It's not clear that then city's appeal turns on the jurisdiction issue though. Can you find any appal documents?)
Sort of like the BC Provincial Government fighting the teachers union, started in BC, went through every level of court possible - up to the Supreme Court of Canada - where the government lost the case in near record time.
Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque
I should clarify that the airport is in the County of Woodlands (not run by the City of Whitecourt).photofly wrote:You know, it takes two sides to have a long-running dispute; you can't lay it all at Jonas Boll's door, and he's not the only party who can put an end to it.
And it's not like he's making hay while everyone else who wants to develop has to wait; the guy paid up in 2006 and eleven years later things aren't sorted. Eleven years is a big chunk of someone's lifespan, and a long time to wait to use a hangar. Is the taxiway to the hangar even usable right now? What does the City of Whitecourt want to be built on the site? If they didn't want him to build and use a hangar for airplanes there, then why on earth did they sell him the freehold in the first place?
It is refreshing to hear unbiased assessments of the situation. Thank you.
This issue is not exclusive to me only at CYZU, there are many other individuals that have simply given up in frustration and silently moved on over the past ten years. (Simpelton must be fairly new in town.) I have many reasons that have kept me and my family from abandoning this otherwise great community, so I choose not to give up so easily.
I realized after years of being overly cooperative and more than patient with the County of Woodlands I have been led down the primrose path.
In not taking a stand, I would more likely die of old age before seeing this airport benefit from any new development.
The real issue is how this airport has been run since the municipality has taken it over. I speculate that even a person like Simpleton would agree with me. I would go so far as to say that we are actually fighting for the same thing, a functional, safe, thriving airport.
Contrary to Simpelton's allegations, I have no control over the spiteful actions of the Council. If someone has an issue with them not selling land, or the elevations being 6 feet too low on the land that was supposed to be available 5 years ago, he would logically take it up with Woodlands County Council. The problem is they will tell you it's "your neighbors" fault, instead of taking responsibility for their own blunders.
The majority of the Woodlands County Council really needs to be replaced this fall election before this airport will ever see its full potential. A steady flow of misinformation and the inability to accept legal facts has made the council ineffective in this matter.
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 693
- Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2016 8:57 am
Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque
I hear the sound of a tiny violin playing in the distance.Simpleton wrote:Nope, not at all. But I know all the players involved in this case. The outcome of this case has ramifications for planned airport development everywhere. Last count was around $2.2-2.6 million in hangar development is now sitting in limbo with at least 3 companies that were planning to pick up land at Whitecourt...all on hold over this pissing match over jurisdiction.Schooner69A wrote:Simpleton:
Do you have a dog in this fight?
J
And because of Jonas' shenanigans, land that was going to be sold to pay for development costs, may not be sold....they only want to do leases now (to exercise some control). Those lots available need a huge amount of earth work to bring them up to suitable grade. The cost to the county to do that work, would mean land lease costs that nobody would pay. If you could buy the lot, you'd pay....but at least it would be a titled lot. Try getting financing on a leased lot....it's dicey.
So, until the "Jonas" issue is sorted out....pretty much everybody who was gearing up to purchase and build in Whitecourt has shelved their plans for now.