Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme request

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

Message
Author
Simpleton
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:10 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#76 Post by Simpleton » Tue Jul 18, 2017 9:26 pm

:smt040
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
hoptwoit
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 251
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 1:43 am

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#77 Post by hoptwoit » Tue Jul 18, 2017 10:13 pm

Now you see what we are up against...... Airport = Sandbox
---------- ADS -----------
  
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.

Prodriver
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 9:42 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#78 Post by Prodriver » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:44 pm

Simpleton wrote:
Schooner69A wrote:Simpleton:

Do you have a dog in this fight?


J
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.

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.
Good buy a lot in Parkland and move to Spruce Grove I guess.
---------- ADS -----------
  
"I need a time machine"

RatherBeFlying
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 567
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 9:27 am
Location: Toronto

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#79 Post by RatherBeFlying » Thu Jul 20, 2017 3:00 pm

Questions for Discovery and Interrogatories:

What communications took place between the helicopter operator, council and various airport managers?

Previous airport managers might be loquacious.

Kindly produce copies of correspondence and council minutes on all airport matters, including in camera proceedings.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
AirFrame
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1729
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Sidney, BC
Contact:

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#80 Post by AirFrame » Fri Jul 21, 2017 7:10 am

Simpleton wrote:
Black_Tusk wrote:
Simpleton wrote:Likely echoing in that empty skull pan of yours.
Because I disagree with you? Resorting to personal attacks, nice.
Oh buttercup..you'll be ok big guy.

Image
Christ, what an asshole.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Nephilim
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:02 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#81 Post by Nephilim » Fri Jul 21, 2017 10:28 am

So I have a question concerning this issue of federal jurisdiction versus provincial or municipal government laws, regulations, etc., at an aerodrome. If someone has a hanger on an aerodrome, because the aerodrome is regulated federally does that mean no taxes are paid on the hanger. Or does the fed tax the hangers or the provincial government, and who assesses the value.
---------- ADS -----------
  

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6360
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Part of the "me, me, me" crowd, and loving every second of it.

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#82 Post by photofly » Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:06 am

That's a really good question. I can only guess at an answer: because taxing a property doesn't attempt to regulate where it's located, how it's built, or what use is made of it, and because the federal government doesn't have any rules about taxing aircraft hangars, it would be hard to argue that a municipal law taxing all properties infringes on the federal jurisdiction to regulate aeronautics. Municipal property taxes therefore apply.
---------- ADS -----------
  
“This isn’t flying, it’s falling. With style.”

ScottS
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 9:48 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#83 Post by ScottS » Fri Jul 21, 2017 1:10 pm

It frequently shocks me to no end how often Municipalities are ignorant (willful or not) to the numerous court cases that have strongly established where the jurisdiction line is. In meeting with our municipality they just gave me a totally blank stare and a look of shock when I reminded them that they weren't legally obligated to follow their own building permit by-laws and only chose to do so by policy as the airport landlord. What was more alarming was the look of surprise on the high paid "airport management consultants" face.

It seems to me that Woodlands is aware of bylaw limitations and is attempting to test the jurisdiction of defining where the aerodrome boundaries actually are through zoning rather than zoning airport lands. A tough road given that the lands were previously recognized as "airport", so to try and use municipal level laws to say something is not an "aerodrome" is, in my view, clearly trying to limit a federal jurisdiction.

Yes, overlapping jurisdiction occurs, but it is all up to the courts to define where a lower law impedes too much on a higher jurisdiction. I would have thought we have had enough rulings to make that line pretty clear for municipalities to stop trying to cross that line all the time.
---------- ADS -----------
  

ScottS
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 9:48 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#84 Post by ScottS » Fri Jul 21, 2017 1:14 pm

photofly wrote:That's a really good question. I can only guess at an answer: because taxing a property doesn't attempt to regulate where it's located, how it's built, or what use is made of it, and because the federal government doesn't have any rules about taxing aircraft hangars, it would be hard to argue that a municipal law taxing all properties infringes on the federal jurisdiction to regulate aeronautics. Municipal property taxes therefore apply.
Agreed. A taxation bylaw does not impede the exclusive jurisdiction. If the taxation bylaw tried to say that property that house aircraft that fly more than "x" times per year are taxed at a higher rate, that would likely be impeding on the jurisdiction by attempting to discourage aircraft movements.
---------- ADS -----------
  

jonas
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 11:34 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#85 Post by jonas » Tue Aug 29, 2017 1:12 pm

The Disgruntled County of Woodlands councillors have spent $177,042.76 of over taxed taxpayer money on their lawyers alone trying to prevent my hangar from existing on my privately owned airside property at the Whitecourt Airport.
(This does not include other taxpayer money wasted on county employee man hours trying to figure out how to deal with the County Councillors decisions in trying to have the hangar originally prevented from being built, and now removed after it was finished)

It's the County of Woodlands election on October 16 2017. Hopefully the airport problems will be "Voted" away by the overtaxed public.

See the "Freedom of Information and protection of privacy" information provided by the County of Woodlands below.

Image
Image
Image
---------- ADS -----------
  

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6360
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Part of the "me, me, me" crowd, and loving every second of it.

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#86 Post by photofly » Tue Aug 29, 2017 2:32 pm

According to Google, the population of Woodlands County is only 4,754, so that's $37.20 per head.
---------- ADS -----------
  
“This isn’t flying, it’s falling. With style.”

Prodriver
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 9:42 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#87 Post by Prodriver » Tue Aug 29, 2017 9:03 pm

Great info, thanks for posting that!

Bureaucrats don't like it when there plan's don't go the way they like and they will gladly spend OPM to sort out and protect there little kingdoms that they have created. We are getting more like Red China every day. Sad really.......
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by Prodriver on Wed Aug 30, 2017 10:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"I need a time machine"

User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 758
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#88 Post by rookiepilot » Wed Aug 30, 2017 5:00 am

Prodriver wrote:Great info, thanks for posting that!

Bureaucrats don't like it when there plan's don't go the way they like and they will gladly spend OPM to sort out and protect there kittle kingdoms that they have created. We are getting more like Red China every day. Sad really.......
Goes exactly to my comment on the other thread.
---------- ADS -----------
  

jonas
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 11:34 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#89 Post by jonas » Tue Oct 10, 2017 2:16 pm

I imagine the next step the County of Woodlands will take would be to call in the bulldozers to demolish my hangar, now that they are claiming rights to my property...


Image



Typed out for ease of google searching;

CAVEAT

TO: THE REGISTRAR, Alberta land registration district

Take notice that Woodlands County (the “Caveator”), a municipal corporation in the Province of Alberta, hereby claim statutory right pursuant to section 646(2) of the municipal government act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-26, as amended, in respect of a stop order issued by the Caveator against the lands dated May 12, 2017 and served on the registered owner June 19, 2017, legally described as:

Lot 1
Block 5
Plan 0825617

Being the lands described and the certificate of title standing in the register in the name of JONAS BOLL, and the CAVEATOR forbids the registration of any person as transferee or owner of, or of any instrument affecting the saId state of interest, unless the instrument or certificate of title, as the case maybe, is expressed to be subject to the CAVEATOR’S claim.

WOODLANDS COUNTY APPOINTS, Box 60, #1 Woodlands Land, Whitecourt, Alberta T7S1N3 as the place at which notices and proceedings relating hereto may be served.

DATED this 15th day of September, 2017

WOODLANDS COUNTY
By its Agent,

Per
Luc Mercier, Chief Administrative Officer

Notice of registration of caveat NO. 172257188
Partial copy only
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Beefitarian
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6203
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:53 am
Location: Bicycle distance from CYYC.

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#90 Post by Beefitarian » Wed Oct 11, 2017 12:17 pm

Have you gone to see your MP and MLA? You should.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Pardon me, may I fly your light single?

MrWings
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 955
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 10:35 am

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#91 Post by MrWings » Sun Feb 25, 2018 12:25 pm

Any update? You got me hooked. I need the next chapter!
---------- ADS -----------
  

jonas
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 11:34 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#92 Post by jonas » Mon Feb 26, 2018 10:28 am

County of Woodlands (Mayor Jim Rennie's) wrecking ball is on standby!

My judicial review is still scheduled for a court date of April 19 2018. (filed for over a year ago)

My wife and I were recently invited to a private meeting with the Mayor Jim Rennie and CAO Luc Mercier, the theme of the meeting was for them to gain an understanding of what the issues were, and to try and come up with a solution before we go to court.

At this meeting, I stated the reasons why many of the county imposed conditions were simply impossible to comply with, and why others were not legally required to be complied with.
In the end, the discussion boiled down to the following options available to us;

1. I win and the County of Woodlands looks bad.
2. The County of Woodlands wins and demolishes my hangar, the County Looks bad AND I look bad
3. This option was suggested as I was getting up to walk out the door, Quote from Jim Rennie "We don't want that, lets find a third solution."

I left the meeting somewhat optimistic, after the County has spent well over $200,000.00 tyrannically fighting for control of a few feet of my land, they were finally willing to sit down and talk face to face.

Two weeks after this meeting... The County has filed for an Injunction seeking the ability to enforce their stop work order.
The injunction is scheduled for the same day as my judicial review.


My interpretation of the below document is that the Woodlands County mayor Jim Rennie is applying for the ability to have the RCMP point their guns at me while Jim Rennie steals my aircraft and tears down my hangar.

There are a few issues with this application for an injunction,

1. The County could have brought this application at any time after they received notice that I was proceeding with the construction, yet they did nothing. This suggests that there is no urgency to have the matter dealt with and certainly no reason to have the application scheduled for the same date as the Judicial Review.

2. If the Judicial Review is successful, the injunction is completely unnecessary as there will be no enforceable legislation to impose. The fees collected by the County's law firm Brownlee LLP in preparing for this injunction will have been a complete wast of taxpayer money. (along with all the other money spent on this)

3. If this is merely an attempt to force me to spend more money, the application is advanced with bad faith.

4. If the application is necessary, there is plenty of time to schedule a hearing at a more reasonable date further in the future, steps should not be taken for that until we know the result of the Judicial Review.





Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

Next is the Affidavit of one of the County administration workers.
(Showing photos of my "pole shed" according to one of the posters earlier on in this forum.)

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Jonas
---------- ADS -----------
  

jonas
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 11:34 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#93 Post by jonas » Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:16 am

Court file number 1803-03497
Court court of Queen's bench Alberta
Judicial Center Edmonton
Applicant woodlands County
Respondent Jonas Boll and XXXXXX
Document originating application
Address for service brownlee LLP
And contact barristers and solicitors
Information of party Suite 2200, Commerce Place
Filing this document 10155 - 102 Street
Edmonton, AB T5J4G8

Attention: Jeneane S. Grundberg
Telephone: 780-497-4812
Facsimile: 780-424-3254
File No.: 71576-0332

Notice to the respondent

This application is made against you. You are a respondent.
You have the right to state your side of this matter before the court.
To do so you must be in courts when the application is heard as shown below:

Date: April 19, 2018
Time: 10:00 AM
Where: court of Queen's bench, Edmonton Alberta
Before: the presiding judge in chambers

Go to the end of this document to see what you can do and when you must do it.


1. The Respondent, Jonas Boll ("Respondent Boll”),is the registered owner of the privately
owned lot located within the jurisdictional boundaries of Woodlands County (the “Municipality”) and legally described as:


PLAN 082 5617
BLOCK 5
LOT 1
EXCEPTING THEREOUT ALL MINES AND MINERALS
(the “Lot”).

2. XXXXXXXX is an Alberta Corporation. Boll is a director the corporation and owns 50% the Voting Shares the corporation.

3. On February 29, 2016, the Respondent XXXXXXXX, applied for development permit to construct building on the Lot which, according the application the building would be used for “Hangar, Aircraft sales, Aircraft repair, Flying club headquarters, Copa for Kids Event Staging area, Disaster shelter during Airshow and Meet Conference Hall (the “Building”). The Building was be rectangular shape, with dimensions approximately 27.4 28.0 (90 ft by 92 ft).


4. April 25, 2016, the Development Authority for the Municipality, being the Municipal Planning Commission (“MPC”), approved the application for the construction of the Building on the Lot. The MPC approved the construction rectangular Building with dimensions 27.4 by 28 m (90ft by 92 ft). The siting of the Building on the Lot that was approved was different from that requested by the Respondents. The MPC changed the depths the required yards from those requested the development permit application. The MPC specified that the Front Yard or east facing yard must be 5.0 m; the Rear Yard or west facing yard must 6.0 m, the North Side Yard was be 10.0 m and the South Side Yard was be 1.2m

5. The Respondents appealed the decision the MPC the Woodlands County Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (“SDAB”) and on June 30, 2016 the SDAB upheld the MPC approval Development Permit 15-009-2016 (the “Development Permit”) and confirmed that the yards were to be the sizes established by the MPC.

6. Condition 8 of the Development Permit states “No permanent structure shall be without prior approval from NAV CANADA. A copy of written approval from CANADA must be provided to Woodlands County 48 hours prior to construction"
Condition 9 of the Development Permit states “No permanent structure shall be placed without prior approval from Transport Canada. A copy of written approval from Transport Canada must be provided to Woodlands County 48 hours prior to construction.” The NAV CANADA and Transport Canada approvals are collectively referred to the "Federal Approvals”.

7.The Respondents commenced construction a structure on the Lot during the month of May, 2017 although some work had been done on the Lot in December, 2016 and in January, 2017.


8. In May, the Municipality became aware that structure under construction was larger than
the Building approved under the Development Permit, was not rectangular shape (as approved by the SDAB) and was not sited on the Lot in compliance with the setbacks approved by the MPC and confirmed by the SDAB.

9. Pursuant to Section 7 of the Municipality’s Land Use Bylaw, Bylaw 490/17 (the " 2017 Land Use Bylaw”) “No person shall commence any development unless the development is in accordance with the terms and conditions of a Development Permit issued, pursuant to this Bylaw, where such Development Permit is required.”


10. On June 2017 the Municipality issued a Stop Order pursuant to section 645 of the Municipal Government Act, RSA 2000, c M-26, as amended (the “MGA”), requiring the Respondents to, amongst other things, move and modify the building to comply with all requirements (including setbacks) established in Development Permit 15-009-2016 (Option “A”) or to apply for and receive a new development permit to allow the expansion and the revised use and comply with all development permit conditions within that permit (Option "b") or to remove the building and reclaim the Lot into the condition which existed immediately prior to commencing construction of the building (Option "C"). Under Option A and Option B the Respondents were required to provide the Municipality with copies of the Federal Approvals.

11. The Respondents did not exercise the statutory right to appeal the Stop Order provided under Section 685(1)(C) of the MGA.

12. The Respondents have failed to undertake any of the Options set out in the Stop Order and have therefore failed to comply with the Stop Order.

13. The Respondents have failed to provide copies of the Federal Approvals

14. The Respondents have failed to confirm the intended use of the Building.

15. The Respondents have failed to relocate the Building in accordance with the setbacks established in the development permit or, in the alternative, apply for a new development permit to allow for the expansion of the building and approve setbacks that would be consistent with this siting of the building on the lot.

16. The contravention of the 2017 land use bylaw is continuing in nature.

Remedy sought:

17. A declaration that the respondents are in contravention of that LUB and stock order issued on June 19, 2017 pursuant to section 645 of the MGA, for failing to remedy the contravention of the land use bylaw by implementing one of the options for action set out in the stop order.

18. A permanent injunction pursuant to section 554 of the MGA requiring that the lot be remedied in compliance with one of the options set out in the stock order issued on June 19, 2017, within a time limit to be imposed by this honorable court.

19. An order confirming that the municipality is authorized, through its designated officers, employees, agents are contractors, without further notice or further leaves of the honorable court, permission to take such actions as are reasonably necessary, as determined in the sole discretion of the municipality, to enforce the court order, the land-use bylaw, and the MGA with respect to the lot, including the rights to enter onto the lots to affect removal of the structure constructed on the lot by the respondents and any contents within the structure in the event that the respondent fails to comply with the court order within the time limit imposed by the honorable court.

20. An order prohibiting the respondents, or any other person that may be present on the lot, from obscuring or interfering with the municipality's access to the lot for the purpose of carrying out the terms of any court order hereby granted by this honorable court's including for the purpose of inspecting the lot to determine compliance with the court order.

21. And order authorizing of the Royal Canadian mounted police to assist in the enforcement of the terms of the court order, if so requested by the municipality or an agent of the municipality.

22. An order directing the registered court order may be discharged from the certificate of title of the lot upon the request of municipality, its agents, or upon further order of this honorable court.

23. An order directing that the registered court order maybe discharged from the certificate of title of the lot upon the request of the municipality, its agent, or upon further order of this honorable court.

24. An order confirming the municipality, if required to exercise rights under the court order, is not responsible for any incidental damage that may occur as a reasonable consequence of the exercise of those rights.

25. And order confirming that should the municipality be required to enter on the lot, it shall not be required to return possession of the items removed from the lots to the respondent until such a time as the respondents have compensated the municipality for its costs and expenses, including any legal costs incurred in seeking the court order, in entering the lot, and any costs incurred for removing the structure and any contents from the lot.

26. An order confirming that should the items be removed from the lot to remain unclaimed for a period of 30 days after coming into possession of the municipality, the municipality shall be entitled to treat the items removed as abandoned property pursuant to section 610 of the MGA.

27. An Order confirming that the Municipality shall entitled recover its costs and disbursements incurred this application on solicitor/client basis, and that such costs form part of the costs and expenses reasonably incurred enter onto the Lot and enforce the terms of the Stop Order which are recoverable directly from the Respondent, and failing the recovery of any costs award from the Respondent, that the Municipality may add those costs the Tax Roll for the Lot part of the overall costs of enforcement pursuant section 553(1)(h.1) of the MGA.

28. Such further and other relief as this honorable court deems appropriate.


You are named respondent because you have made or are expected to make an adverse claim in respect of this originating application. If you do not come to Court either in person or by your lawyer, Court may make order declaring you and persons claiming under you barred from taking further proceedings against the applicant(s) and against persons claiming under the applicant(s). You will be bound by any order the Court makes, or another order might be given or other proceedings taken which the applicant(s) is/are entitled make without any further notice to you. If you want to take part in the application, you or your lawyer must attend in Court on the date and at the time shown at the beginning of this form. If you intend rely on an affidavit or other evidence when the originating application is heard or considered, you must reply by giving reasonable notice of that material to the applicant(s).

(converted to text for ease of google searching this case)
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
hoptwoit
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 251
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 1:43 am

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#94 Post by hoptwoit » Thu Mar 01, 2018 11:37 am

Wow..... Just Wow.....
---------- ADS -----------
  
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.

jonas
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 11:34 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU")

#95 Post by jonas » Thu Mar 22, 2018 11:35 pm

Update: Lawsuit #2

I received my lawsuit #2 settlement from the County of Woodlands today.
(This payment is for a completely separate issue to the jurisdictional argument that this thread is based on, but has to do with the same piece of property at the airport.)
It's to pay for damages to my hangar property when the County of Woodlands proceeded with multiple rounds of construction surrounding my property, drastically changing the elevations making my property mostly useless and dangerous to taxi aircraft onto for the past 10 years.

The funny thing is they didn't have me to sign a Gag order, or sign a release when they paid out the settlement. (and the payment was late by 5 days according to the settlement agreement.)
I suppose, technically, I could sue them again for the rest of the money I was originally seeking when I filed this lawsuit nearly a year ago. (I was seeking a little over $80,000 in damages, but their lawyers negotiated it down to a little under $40,000, Likely knowing it would cost me approximately $30,000 in lawyer fees to fight for it in the courts)

In cashing this payment, I have currently recovered nearly half of my costs for fixing their elevations mistake...

What do you guys think I should do?
Simpleton? You still out there? I think this conversation requires your input. I always enjoy a bit of comedy.

Jonas

Image
Image
Image
---------- ADS -----------
  

Loner
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 80
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2017 1:14 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#96 Post by Loner » Fri Mar 23, 2018 7:33 am

Good for you but...choose wisely your battles
Time, money, quality of life.
Some are worth fighting for though ...
---------- ADS -----------
  

Edmonchuck
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:25 am

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#97 Post by Edmonchuck » Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:33 am

Wow!

There is a lot to digest here. I can see why some airport operators act the way they do.
---------- ADS -----------
  

jonas
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 11:34 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#98 Post by jonas » Tue Mar 27, 2018 4:22 pm

It's less than a month to go until the Judicial review at the Court of Queens bench in Edmonton AB.

The County of Woodlands states in their application for an Injunction the following on line 16;
"The contravention of the 2017 land use bylaw is continuing in nature."

Below is an excerpt of the new bylaw that they have enacted after I built my hangar.
I'm wondering if others are seeing it differently than I am. When the 2017 land use bylaw (Pictured below) states, "Any aspects of these developments that are vital or essential to the operations of the Whitecourt Airport shall not be regulated by this District." wouldn't this mean that a hangar is simply not regulated by this district? Are they contradicting their own bylaws when placing a lean on my property and trying to tear down the building?

One would think that a hangar is easily defined as an essential part of an airport when referring to the Transport Canada definition of an Aerodrome: Any area of land, water (including the frozen surface thereof) or other supporting surface used or designed, prepared, equipped or set apart for use either in whole or in part for the arrival, departure, movement or servicing of aircraft and includes any buildings, installations and equipment situated thereon or associated therewith.)

Any comments before the official verdict is in?
Will the hangar stay/get demolished?
Image

Image
---------- ADS -----------
  

Oldguystrtn2fly
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 9:30 am

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#99 Post by Oldguystrtn2fly » Tue Mar 27, 2018 5:24 pm

I have been following your thread and I think you are going to win at some point. Hopefully the next court (queens bench) rules in your favour and you can put an end to this. What would be the next court to appeal to? I believe the county to be overstepping with the setbacks and permits etc in private owned aviation purposed property. Most of these municipal airports lease land or lots, and then they can dictate what you can build, it is still their land. When they pass title, i believe they lose control and don’t know it. I base at Olds Didsbury currently and mountain view county has some verbage here and there that oversteps their authority ,although no one has put them to the test yet. As a county tax payer, I hope they realize this and strike these “regulations” from our documents so the county doesn’t get forced to defend a position that is not defendable. I anxiously await the results and good luck to you.
---------- ADS -----------
  

RexKrammer
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:24 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#100 Post by RexKrammer » Wed Mar 28, 2018 6:55 am

A similar "battle" happened in Oshawa with the local City taking a hangar owner to court over an addition he built. The court ruled the City had no jurisdiction over the property because it was under Federal rule, being part of an aerodrome.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”