Factum
Background
In early 2024, Calgary City Council passed Bylaw 21P2024, a sweeping land use amendment that rezoned over 311,000 residential parcels across the city from R-C1 and R-C2 to higher-density designations such as R-CG or H-GO. This “blanket upzoning” allowed multi-unit dwellings—like rowhouses and fourplexes—to be built as-of-right on parcels previously zoned for single and semi-detached housing. The City held a single public hearing to approve this bylaw, despite its citywide scope and the deeply local impact on communities. At that hearing, residents raised concerns that the process was confusing, rushed, and failed to consider neighbourhood-specific context. Even though the majority of participants at the public hearing opposed the bylaw, it was passed by City Council. In a subsequent court hearing, the Court of King’s Bench upheld the bylaw. The homeowners are now appealing that decision, asking the appellate court to invalidate the bylaw.
Robert Lehodey, K.C., one of the Applicants, stated:
“What’s at stake here is the right to be heard — not symbolically, but meaningfully. City Council and the administration bundled 311,570 property redesignations into a single hearing, making it impossible to consider parcel-specific concerns. That isn’t just bad planning. It’s a breach of the legal duty to conduct a fair and responsive hearing. This appeal asks the courts to reaffirm that municipalities must respect the legal rights of citizens when making sweeping planning decisions. The decision by City Council and the administration to rezone these 311,570 properties in one omnibus hearing sets a dangerous precedent for procedural shortcuts in the name of expedience.”
The filed factum of appeal (copy attached) argues that:
The hearing process combined 311,570 rezonings into one process, limiting each resident’s ability to speak about how changes would affect their specific home or neighbourhood. This single mass hearing does not meet the legal standard for public participation and fairness.
Councilor Carra had already made up his mind by coaching supporters of the bylaw on how to promote it and, during the hearing itself, by dismissing and diminishing the testimony of those in opposition — often despite not hearing all the evidence. The appeal maintains that conduct of that nature blurs the line between an impartial decision-maker and a determined advocate and raises a reasonable concern of bias and calls into question the legitimacy of the entire hearing.”
The hearing process and decision ignored community distinctions and differences. The bylaw applied the same rules to all areas, without considering each neighbourhood’s unique character, infrastructure, or needs.
The Appellants are asking the Court of Appeal to:
Overturn the trial judge’s decision
Declare that the City’s hearing process was unfair
Invalidate or suspend the blanket rezoning bylaw.
