CANMORE – The Town of Canmore is denying all allegations in the ongoing civil lawsuit by Three Sisters Mountain Village Property Limited asking for $161 million.
In the defence statement filed with the Court of Queen’s Bench in Calgary on Feb. 18, the Town is asking that Three Sisters Mountain Village Property Limited (TSMVPL) claims and financial relief being sought to be dismissed.
“The defendants deny each and every allegation contained in the state of claim,” according to the statement of defence.
Spokespeople for the Town and TSMVPL declined comment due to the ongoing legal nature of the case.
The representation for the Town – Calgary-based Field LLP – stated in the defence statement that the reason the Smith Creek and Three Sisters Village area structure plans (ASPs) was defeated were issues on wildlife fencing, concerns about undermined lands, the phasing of development and the development being too large.
The Town and council denied any misfeasance, malice, dishonesty, ill-intent, bad faith or recklessness.
“Canmore states that at all material times, it was acting in accordance with its statutory and legal authority” and that at all times councillors “acted in good faith in the performance or intended performance of their functions, duties or powers under the MGA,” according to the defence statement.
TSMVPL filed a civil lawsuit Dec. 10 in the Court of Queen’s Bench in Calgary. It was seeking $150 million due to the build-out of TSMVPL-owned lands being prevented. An additional $11 million to cover the cost of putting together the defeated Smith Creek and Three Sisters Village area structure plans was also asked for.
In the 22-page court filing, TSMVPL alleged the Town council acted in misfeasance of public office – which essentially means the wrongful exercise of lawful authority – as well as negligent misrepresentation.
It also asserted the decision by the previous council is a de facto expropriation of the lands.
“We have worked collaboratively with the Town of Canmore’s planning and administrative personnel over the past seven years to design a holistic vision for development of our lands,” said David Taylor, the president of TSMVPL in a December statement. “Our area structure plans for Smith Creek and The Village not only demonstrate commitments to climate change, affordable housing, employee housing and economic diversification, but also far exceed similar applications in any other Alberta municipality.”
Among the claims by TSMVPL were that the Town has resisted development since the 1992 Natural Resources Conservation Board’s (NRCB) decision, TSMVPL made every reasonable attempt to develop the ASPs within the Town’s guiding documents and Town council acted beyond its legal power.
“At every step over the past 30 years, TSMV has adhered to the conditions set out by the NRCB," Taylor said in the statement. "Canmore’s town council, on the other hand, has not, repeatedly and frequently pushing back against the board’s decision and now preventing fair access to all Albertans to one of the most beautiful areas of this province, not to mention a priority area identified by the provincial government as a critical tourism area featured prominently in its economic recovery plans.”
The defence statement claims the Three Sisters Village and Smith Creek ASPs were not compliant with Part 17 of the Municipal Government Act (MGA), the 1992 NRCB order, the Town’s Municipal Development Plan and its land use bylaw.
“If TSMV has suffered losses or damages as alleged, or at all, which is denied, it has failed to take any reasonable steps to mitigate those losses or damages,” according to the statement of defence.
The defence statement also claims the lawsuit from TSMVPL is an act to “intimidate Canmore and its elected municipal councillors to approve TSMV’s proposed developments”.
It also states that by specifically naming all seven members of the last council, it is “an effort to coerce elected individuals to accede to TSMV’s wishes at all costs, and regardless of any other relevant considerations.”
The eight-page statement obtained by the Outlook outlined the history of the lands dating back to 1989 when Three Sisters Golf Resorts bought the lands, the 1992 NRCB decision, the 1998 settlement, the 2004 Resort Centre and Stewart Creek ASPs approvals and TSMVPL purchasing the lands in 2013.
The claim argues that while the NRCB decision permitted development on the lands, detailed planning had to go through the Town and council.
“As a result, Canmore and its elected municipal councillors, including the individual defendants, retained the ability to influence the scale and scope of development on the Three Sisters Land through the applicable municipal review processes.”
While the civil lawsuit has proceeded with statements of claim and defence, the Land and Property Rights Tribunal officially began Feb. 22, with the tribunal quickly acknowledging it had the authority to hear the matter. The start of the discussion on the Smith Creek ASP began on Feb. 23 and will continue until March 10.
The hearing for the Three Sisters Village ASP will run from March 21-31.
TSMVPL has also filed for judicial review – that was granted by the Court of Queen’s Bench – but was adjourned sine die, meaning there’s no timeline for it to be heard.
The development of the lands has been highly contentious for several years in the community.
The lengthy six-day hearing was held in March 2021, and had nearly 2,200 written and oral submissions, with more than 90 per cent being opposed to the ASPs.
The Smith Creek ASP proposed an estimated population of 2,200 to 4,500 people and would have between 1,000 and 2,150 residential units.
The ASP had upwards of 75,000-square-feet of light industrial and business space and about 125,000-square-feet of retail and commercial space for local services.
Three Sisters Village ASP could lead to between 3,000-5,000 residential units – depending on the bonus density – and between 5,500 and 10,000 visitors and permanent population. There would be up to 602,000-square-feet of retail and business space and about 188,000-square-feet of indoor recreation and entertainment, with 75 hectares of open space and 10 per cent of the housing affordable.
The legal claims have yet to be tested in court.
