Mountain View County being sued for $32 million over Netook

Mountain View County is being sued for $32,315,000 over the controversial Netook Crossing Project business and residential development east of Olds.

On July 28 a statement of claim was filed with the Court of Queen's Bench on behalf of Neuroese Properties against the municipality, as well as against current Mountain View County councillors Paddy Munro and Kevin Good.

In the statement, the claimant contends that “acting in bad faith, the defendants used all power at their disposal, including procedural delay, the amendment and repeal of the municipal development plan, the amendment of the 2/27 area structure plan and the repeal of the concept approval bylaw to effect the dismantling of the Netook Crossing Project and to deliberately sabotage Neuroese's business, causing Neuroese extensive economic harm.”

None of the allegations set out in the 25-page statement of claim have been proven in court.

John Rusling, planning director with MVC, said a statement of defence is being prepared. Munro said he will not be commenting on the case until the statement of defence is filed, while Good did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

Neuroese Properties is made up of numbered companies 1273927 Alberta Ltd., 404048 Alberta Ltd., Style Realty Inc. and Abe Neufeld.

Neuroese is seeking $1,200,000 for compensatory damages, $28,750,000 for damages for loss of economic opportunity, and $2,365,000 for damages for delay.

A copy of the statement of claim was obtained by the Gazette on July 30.

Neuroese Properties is the owner of 615 acres of land, made up of five quarter sections, located just east of the Town of Olds near the intersection of highways 2 and 27.

In the statement of claim Neuroese contends that “Mountain View's employees, leadership and agents, operating in bad faith, without frankness and without openness or impartiality, manipulated the timelines inherent in the normal application process and undertook, among other action, the repeal of an approved concept plan and bylaw, replacement of a municipal development plan and amended an area structure plan so as to prevent Neuroese from completing the Netook Crossing Project.”

Neuroese claims that the damages sought are “directly attributable to the Defendants' misfeasance in public office, negligent or intentional misrepresentations and the infliction of economic harm.”

Specifically regarding Munro and Good, the claimant contends that the councillors “used all of their extensive powers to undermine and ultimately obstruct the Netook Crossing Project. The campaign of obstruction and delay was undertaken in accordance with the new council's (the council elected in 2010) negative bias to the Netook Crossing Project.

“Munro and Good knew and were aware that their interference in the development approval process . . . would cause direct and extensive loss and damage to Neuroese in its trade and business and, in particular, to the Netook Crossing Project and, consequently, that Neuroese would suffer economic harm thereby.

“Munro and Good have acted in abuse of their public office and have engaged in a breach of their public duty. Munro and Good asserted in council meetings and in the media that the Netook Crossing Project would be a financial burden to the county, despite having no foundation, support of evidence for such a statement.”

Neuroese Properties' Herb Styles told the Gazette, the legal action has been in the works for some time.

“Legal action was an absolute last resort,” said Styles. “We made it very clear that it could come to this in an effort to avoid the steps we now feel we are forced to take.”

Neuroese has “made every effort to work in good faith with this county council to address any concerns it may have with the previous council's unanimously approved Netook Crossing concept plan,” he said.

“However, after more than a year of attempting to work with this county council it is our opinion that they are not interested in solutions, compromise or collaboration.”