Bedford Service Comm’n. v. A.G. (N.S.) et al., 1977 CanLII 213 (SCC)

This case was heard in the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Bedford Service Commission and an individual, Ms. Cunningham, acting on behalf of all real property owners within the Bedford district, initiated legal proceedings against the Attorney-General of Nova Scotia, the Halifax-Dartmouth Regional Authority, and the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission after the latter parties contracted to construct and operate a landfill at Jack Lake, near Bedford. In turn, the defendants brought motions to have the Bedford Service Commission and Ms. Cunningham struck as parties to the action.

After the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia dismissed the motions, the defendants appealed to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal. There, the Court allowed the motion to strike the Bedford Service Commission as a party to the action. The Court held that the issues raised by the plaintiffs were not justiciable, as they concerned political conduct with which the Court should not interfere.

The Bedford Service Commission appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, which held that the decision of the Court of Appeal should be set aside and the decision of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia restored. The Court found that the Court of Appeal had erred in considering whether the plaintiffs had presented a justiciable issue, as that was not the legal issue that the Court of Appeal had been asked to resolve, and not all of the interested parties had been present at the time. Rather, the Court of Appeal had been asked to determine the Bedford Service Commission’s standing. The Court held that the Bedford Service Commission did have standing, and it allowed the appeal accordingly.

To read about this case in the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, go to Attorney-General of Nova Scotia et al. v. Bedford Service Commission, 1976 CanLII 1233 (NS CA).

View the Decision on CanLII: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1977/1977canlii213/1977canlii213.html

Disclaimer:
Case briefs in our Resource Library are drafted by law students who work or volunteer with East Coast Environmental Law, and East Coast Environmental Law does not guarantee their fullness or accuracy. Library users should not rely on case briefs as comprehensive accounts of the issues, facts, reasoning, or outcomes at stake in any given case. 

If you require more detailed information about a court decision or legal issue, please consider using our Environmental Law Inquiry Service to request information from our staff.