City of Winnipeg appeals court decision that awarded Parker lands developer $5M

The City of Winnipeg is appealing a court decision that found two planning officials deliberately slowed the progress of a residential development in Fort Garry.

In July, Court of King's Bench Justice Shauna McCarthy ruled that former chief Winnipeg planner Braden Smith and senior city planner Michael Robinson were "liable for misfeasance in public office."

They took actions that stymied efforts by developer Andrew Marquess to build approximately 1,900 homes, condos and apartments in an area known as the Parker lands, McCarthy's decision said.

The judge also found the city liable for the planners' actions and awarded Marquess $5 million.

In a document filed Thursday, city solicitor Doug Brown asked Manitoba's Court of Appeal to set aside the judgment, arguing McCarthy erred in finding the city liable, misunderstood how the city's development process works and awarded damages that are "inordinately and unjustifiably high."

Brown also argues McCarthy did not take into account other reasons for a delay in the Parker development, including the city's expropriation of land for the second phase of the Southwest Transitway corridor and what he described as the developer's failure to hold public engagement sessions about his plans to build housing.

Michael Jack, Winnipeg's chief administrative officer, said those are errors that cannot go unchallenged.

"If you don't appeal a decision where you see some clear errors, that decision then stands as a precedent for any number of principles," he said Thursday at city hall. "We need the Court of Appeal to weigh in."

Jack also said McCarthy's decision could create a grey area that would make it difficult for city planners to do their jobs.

The decision said Smith and Robinson acted at the behest of River Heights-Fort Garry Coun. John Orlikow, who was not a defendant in the suit.

Jack said the judge did not provide any clarity about what form of communication between the planners and the councillor was inappropriate.

"We will be asserting that the King's Bench decision creates a whole area of new uncertainty for the city and its public service and its planners in how, when and to what level they are permitted to interact with elected officials," Jack said.

David Hill, Marquess's lawyer, said he was disappointed by the appeal.

"I hope it's not just a delay tactic," he said.

Hill also said he found it interesting the city claimed the damages are too high.

"We were asking in court for $17 million. Five million dollars is a lot of money, but's it's less than a third of what we wanted," he said.