Assessing inequity in zoning bylaw: a case of Edmonton, Canada

ABSTRACT

Equity is a key concern for municipalities, yet current planning scholarship lacks clear, pragmatic guidance on how to identify inequity in municipal zoning bylaws. Although controversial, zoning is the primary legal tool to regulate land and its use. This study examines aspects of the current City of Edmonton zoning bylaw that are most inequitable by closely following the city’s ongoing Zoning Bylaw Renewal Initiative. Applying but also expanding the theoretical framework of equity and legal tests, the study provides a lens and a methodology to identify inequities in Edmonton’s zoning bylaw, which other Canadian municipalities can also adopt.

KEYWORDS:

• Equity
• Edmonton
• municipality
• zoning bylaw
• Canada

Introduction

Equity has long been a central concern in urban planning and governance. Certainly, equitable access to housing, employment, and services is critical in today’s cities. However, municipalities face challenges in how to identify inequities in land use regulations, particularly zoning bylaws. Existing research is deficient on clear guidance on how to achieve this, even though several studies emphasize the significance and implication of equity in municipal policies and plans (Krumholz & Forester, 1990; Krumholz, 2018 Fainstein, 2010; Reece, 2018; Goetz et al., 2020; Sandercock, 2000). Through a primary case study, we thus take a closer look at how equitable zoning can be rewritten to make cities more inclusive and welcoming. Specifically, we follow the ongoing Zoning Bylaw Renewal Initiative (ZBRI) of the City of Edmonton (CoE), a Canadian city, as the city team drafts a new zoning bylaw. The city acknowledges that its zoning bylaw often results in inequitable outcomes and is committed to using an equity lens for ZBRI (City of Edmonton, 2019), arguably the first Canadian municipality to do so.

Zoning is a key regulatory tool in urban planning, one that prescribes land uses and buildings’ locations, types, and sizes within a municipality (Legates, 2005; Knaap et al., 2010; Lai & Davies, 2022). Zoning has also been employed to address conflicts between various land uses, such as residential and industrial, since the early 20^th century (Feiss, 1961; Legates, 2005; Whittemore, 2012; Baics & Meisterlin, 2016). Concomitantly, zoning has been applied to control and segregate specific communities based on their income and racial background by separating land uses in Canada as well (Finkler and Grant, 2011; Hodge and Gordon, 2008; Skelton, 2012). Zoning thus has a dual legacy: promoting the public good and enabling discrimination and exclusion in cities.

Recognizing that zoning too often places unfair burdens on specific population groups, planners are increasingly becoming concerned about how to incorporate equity into zoning bylaws. Notably, planners are expected to facilitate ‘just and fair inclusion into a society in which all can participate, prosper and reach their full potential’ through all aspects of planning practice (APA, 2019, p. 3). Moreover, professional planning organizations remind planners of their professional obligation to protect and provide for economically and socially disadvantaged communities.

Many intersectional factors affect equity such as race, socio-economic status, gender, religion, and ability. Equity in planning is criticized for not advocating for the legal protection of poor communities within the formal administrative and regulatory system of planning based on the right of these deprived groups for equal opportunities (Dadashpoor & Alvandipour, 2020). Braveman and Gruskin (2003) suggest that taking ‘a human rights perspective can provide a universal frame of reference for identifying inequitable conditions’ in a regulatory environment (p. 540). Canadian jurisprudence on human rights encapsulates the idea of equity in ‘substantive equality’ (explained later); thus, a human rights perspective can address equity issues grounded in the legal aspect of land use regulation (Agrawal, 2014, 2021b).

Our conceptual framework for analyzing the city’s Zoning Bylaw 12,800 is based on three dimensions of equity, derived from the current intellectual debates on equity and cities: distributional, recognitional, and procedural equities (see Krumholz & Forester, 1990; Krumholz, 2018 Schlosberg, 2004, 2007; Bulkeley et al., 2014; Meerow et al., 2019). To this, we added a fourth dimension – regulatory equity, which attempts to address the legal rights concerns raised in the equity literature. As mentioned, we employed Edmonton’s ZBRI to examine equity considerations in zoning. Our study addresses the following question:

What aspects of the current City of Edmonton zoning bylaw are inequitable, under what circumstances, and under which dimensions of equity?

In answering this question, the study both draws on and expands the theoretical framework of equity, providing a lens and a set of methods to identify inequities in a municipal zoning bylaw. It does so by examining a variety of city’s datasets such as development permits, zoning amendments and appeals, and interviews with key informants. This paper is based on Agrawal (2021a) report, commissioned by the CoE as part of the preparatory work for the ZBRI.

The paper contains seven sections. Following this introduction, section two reviews the relevant literature, which constitutes our theoretical framework of equity. We then apply an analytical framework, analyzing case law related to equity, human rights, and associated legal tests. Section three presents an overview of Edmonton’s zoning bylaw and the ongoing ZBRI, providing a backdrop for the rest of the paper. Section four introduces the research methodology and multiple sources of information we used, while section five elaborates on our findings by explicating key patterns and themes that emerged from the data sources. Section six discusses the issues and suggestions arising from our analysis, according to the four categories of equity introduced in the conceptual framework. Finally, in section seven, we arrive at a set of conclusions, emphasizing the need for a holistic set of equity considerations in planning and the developmental decision-making process.

Equity in the context of planning and human rights

We discuss the theoretical and pragmatic aspects of the concept of equity its association with human rights, and the fundamentals of equitable planning. We then introduce the study’s conceptual base, which pivots on four significant aspects: distributional equity, recognitional equity, procedural equity, and regulatory equity.

What is equity?

Equity is increasingly becoming a bedrock value of contemporary political and institutional practices that improve people’s lives and strengthen societies. It is a multifaceted concept, with associated meanings and purposes determined by several cultural, historical, geopolitical, and socio-economic factors (Gardner et al., 2019). While no single definition of equity exists, many scholars agree that equity stands for the just and fair treatment of individuals in society, regardless of their social, economic, and political placement in the community (see Frederickson, 1990, 2010; Guy & McCandless, 2012; Putnam-Walkerly & Russell, 2016). Equity is one of the schools of thought within social justice, derived from Rawls’ (1999, 2001) second principle of justice – the difference principle (Dadashpoor & Alvandipour, 2020). This principle aims to redress inherent disadvantages in terms of opportunity and social mobility. Notably, equity differs from the notion of equality – Rawls’ first principle of equal liberty, even though both concepts promote fairness and the necessary means of justice. Equity guarantees equal opportunities for everyone according to their needs and potentials, whereas equality stands for treating everyone the same, irrespective of their needs.

Several justice and human rights theorists such as Katzer (2022) posit that Rawls (1999), Sen (2012), and Nussbaum (1997) agree that norms and (human) rights – ethical or legal – provide necessary conditions to promote equity and equality in a democratic liberal society. Sales (2000) argues that from a legal perspective, equity and human rights involve similar reasonings. In fact, equity draws on human rights law and works to ‘soften the strict application of common law to do justice in circumstances of the individual case.’ (p. 407) The legal dimension of human rights and equity is discussed further in the later sections.

Equity in planning

Equity is increasingly central to many scholarly debates about the fundamental aim of planning, revolving around whether planners should serve the interests of (a) the state, such as politicians and decision-makers; (b) capital, such as corporations, landowners, and real estate developers; or (c) the public. Scholars of spatial justice and inclusion argue that planning should overcome social and economic inequalities, thus serving socially and economically disadvantaged communities (see Krumholz & Forester, 1990; Kumholz, 2018; Forester, 1999; Sandercock, 2009; Reece, 2018). Integrating equity and making cities inclusive are therefore fundamental tasks in planning.

In the context of civil rights and anti-war movements of the 1960s, Paul Davidoff (1965) introduced the notion of ‘advocacy planning,’ laying the foundation for an equity planning approach that seeks to build better relationships between community and municipal authorities. For him, it is planners and city officials’ duty to advocate for marginalized and disadvantaged communities that are not equally represented in cities’ decision-making processes. Norman Krumholz (1990, 2018) eventually brought the planners’ obligation of ensuring fair distribution to the city hall, incorporating equity planners into city administration. According to Krumholz & Forester (1990) and Krumholz (2018) ‘equity planners’ stand for a fair distribution and prioritize equity in urban and regional planning systems.

However, the question remains whether planners and municipalities could address urban disparities successfully. Fainstein (2010) reminds us that most cities’ pro-economic growth political policies marginalize equity, justice, and inclusion, which can be countered by a much-needed democratic and rights-based approach of planners and urban policymakers.

Numerous studies have shown how various municipal planning policies and zoning bylaws have been or can be discriminatory, producing deeply inequitable outcomes for different population groups (Wilson, 2008; Lens & Monkkonen, 2015; Rodríguez-Pose & Storper, 2019). They assert that municipal governments can develop intervention strategies to address inequities. However, to achieve a practical approach, we must explore tools and actions municipalities can employ.

Equity as encapsulated in human rights

Human rights refer to recognized norms that ensure equality for all people: universal ‘rights that we each possess by virtue of being human, based on our inherent dignity and equal worth as human beings’ (Agrawal, 2021b, p. 1). Braveman and Gruskin (2003) argue equity can reflect core human rights principles; however, not every aspect or instance of social, economic, or political inequity is compatible with recognized or codified human rights. Nevertheless, the two concepts overlap in their focus on equal opportunity for all people.

Human rights norms and standards can address ‘discrimination[s] on the basis of such factors as gender, racial or ethnic group, national origin, religion, disability, sexual orientation, and gender identity’ (Gruskin and Braveman, 2019, p. 469). Further, they can help define existing inequities, their remedies and prohibit discriminatory practices since they elucidate how the design of policies, programs, and procedures may promote or violate rights.

For example, Agrawal’s (2014, 2019, 2021b) studies on the intersections of municipal planning policies and human rights show how discriminatory aspects of land use regulations have successfully been challenged under Canadian human rights legislation. Studies in health equity have also explored the nexus of equity and human rights (Braveman, 2010), such as the World Health Organization’s attempts to mainstream gender, equity, and human rights across the organization, enabling programs that ‘are gender-responsive, enhance equity and promote rights’ (World Health Organization, 2016, p. 8).

An equitable human rights framework thus enables public policy administrators to become sensitized to diverse groups and their needs, readying them to implement socially equitable policies and avoid insular perspectives, while legitimizing changes in administrative updates (Alvez & Timney, 2008). Finally, a human rights lens can guide and ameliorate policy and practices, promoting equity and inclusion in society.

The conceptual framework

Our study uses an interdisciplinary theoretical framework to investigate equity concerns in planning and zoning based on the various intellectual debates on equity, justice, and human rights. As equity is situated within broader political, social, and legal phenomena, we consider four aspects of equity in this study: distributional, recognitional, procedural, and regulatory. The first three are substantially shaped by existing debates about equity in environmental and climate justice, legal studies, political theory, and urban studies (Meerow et al., 2019). The fourth aspect, regulatory equity, is our contribution to the current debate on municipal planning equity. It is unique in focusing on how specific court decisions and legal practices manifest equity in local regulations. The four elements collectively provide a holistic framework for this study.

Distributional equity

Equal distribution of power and resources, including social goods and access to freedoms are at the core of a just society (Rawls, 1999, 2001). Rawls (1999) argues that justice is ‘a standard whereby distributional aspects of the basic structure of society are to be assessed’ (p. 9). Scholars and practitioners now commonly interpret equity as the fair allocation of material and social goods and advantages to all society members. In addition, environmental justice scholars suggest that equity goes beyond the distribution of material goods (Schlosberg, 2004, 2007; Bulkeley et al., 2014; Meerow et al., 2019): a just environment and inclusive urban system also fairly distributes environmental risks and responsibilities, with ‘equitable access to goods and infrastructure, environmental amenities, services, and economic opportunities’ (Meerow et al., 2019, p. 797).

Distributional equity is not merely about delivering the same thing(s) for everyone. Rather, it addresses people’s basic needs – such as food, water, housing, education, and healthcare – through the fair allocation of resources and responsibilities. Thus, scholars argue for equal distribution of ecosystem or ‘green equity’ in urban settings (Leach et al., 2018; Nesbitt et al., 1997; Geneletti et al., 2020); equitable public transport systems that equally benefit all communities (Manaugh et al., 2015; Ricciardi et al., 2015; Litman, 2020); and fair use and distribution of urban energy systems (Tong et al., 2021). In the Canadian federalist system, many of these areas fall outside of municipal jurisdiction, barring a few, such as the provision of adequate housing, access to transit, and supply of water.

Recognitional equity

While distributive equity is critical in a just society, fair distribution alone cannot achieve equity. Political theorists like Young (1990) remind us that the underlying cause of injustice and inequality is not the issue of distribution but the absence of proper recognition of difference and diversity in society. Schlosberg (2004) also contends that recognition and acknowledgment are primary concerns of justice, equity, and inclusiveness in the personal and public realms. While recognition is related to individuals’ access to decision-making processes, it is fundamentally a ‘relationship, a social norm embedded in social practice’ that goes beyond the fair distribution of materials and services (Schlosberg, 2007, p. 23) to respect different identities and personalities and their associated social status. Land acknowledgments that commemorate Indigenous peoples’ principal kinship to the land exemplify this.

Many scholars examine how individuals’ diverse intersecting identities have been acknowledged in cities regarding multiple equity-related concerns, such as, establishing gender equity (Scraton & Watson, 2010; Beebeejaun, 2016); recognizing Indigenous communities in planning (Abele & Graham, 2011; Barry & Porter, 2011; Prusak et al., 2015); integrating the needs LGBTQ communities (Goh, 2017; Hartal, 2017); establishing racial equity for minority ethnic groups (Goetz et al., 2020; Solis, 2020); and recognizing immigrants in larger urban spaces (Miraftab, 2012).

Procedural equity

This third facet formally and institutionally involves all city residents in the decision-making process, particularly those in equity and equity-seeking groups.¹ Schlosberg (2007) elaborates here, arguing that procedural justice is the ‘fair and equitable institutional processes of a state’ (p. 5). Unfortunately, equity is often disregarded within neoliberal governing regimes, since they privilege economic growth (Fainstein, 2010). Therefore, a just city seeks procedural equity by engaging the community and reducing barriers to participation in the planning process.

Importantly, procedural equity is integral to democracy: it acknowledges peoples’ right to decide about their political systems and settlements. In urban planning, multiple mechanisms can enhance equity by facilitating participation in decision-making, such as public engagement sessions for development plans and zoning or public forums and town hall meetings on various municipal government operations. Such actions invite and enable people to entertain their rights and freedoms to produce and reproduce their spaces.

Regulatory equity

This fourth dimension of the theoretical framework is unique in its focus on the legal nature of equity, articulating how it exists in the constitutional and quasi-constitutional obligations of local government and local regulations. This relatively new approach to the planning scholarship on equity evolved from previous studies by Agrawal (2021a, 2021b, 2013). We use a human rights regulatory approach, similar to that taken to equity in the Canadian legal system, guided and informed by a rich legal jurisprudence on section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.² This constitutional provision provides the regulatory human rights framework to promote equity through the courts and other government agencies appointed to protect enumerated and analogous grounds.³ It is noteworthy that not all cases have been decided based on just section 15; many also involved multiple sections, such as section 2 (fundamental freedoms of religion, expression, and others) and section 7 (right to life, liberty, and security of the person).

In human rights law, substantial equality means equity (as noted before); this clarifies what is outside legal equality by determining if the statute or policy makes ‘disparities and inequalities worse, or better’ and offers an avenue to remedy disputes and inequities (Greschner, 2001, p. 301). Our analysis of case law and legal jurisprudence reveals several issues pertaining to zoning bylaws: among them, housing and homelessness, universal accessibility, Indigenous rights, and freedoms of expression and religion. Unfortunately, case law does not provide clear guidance, but highlights the complexity of these issues and how the law applies.

Housing and homelessness, as human rights issues, are rampant across Canadian cities (Agrawal, 2021b), but are also mired in judicial reluctance and legislative silence. For instance, in the Tanudjaja⁴ case, the Ontario Supreme Court rejected ‘inadequate housing’ as analogous grounds pursuant to section 15 of the Charter (Tanudjaja v Canada [Attorney General], 2013), concluding that Section 7 of the Charter ‘does not provide a positive right to affordable, adequate, accessible housing and places no positive obligation on the state to provide it’ (para. 81). Housing and homelessness cases often relate to municipal decisions affecting the survival tactics of the homeless, such as panhandling and the occupation of public spaces.

Other issues intersect with zoning restrictions on locating secondary suites (Agrawal, 2022), student housing (Ontario Human Rights Commission, 2012; The Neighbourhoods of Windfields Ltd. Partnership v Death, 2009⁵), rooming houses (Freeman, 2013), and group homes (Agrawal, 2014).

Issues related to freedom of religion are also common, particularly when municipal zoning restricts the locations of worship, such as with Islamic mosques or Jewish synagogues. Such issues have surfaced through zoning restrictions to erect Jewish eruvs⁶ in Outremont, siting ethnic places of worship, as with Village of LaFontaine⁷ and Centre Islamique Badr,⁸ or constructions of Sukkots in Montreal.⁹ In all these cases, the courts allowed religious minorities to practice their religion, including constructing their places of worship, based on Section 2 that guarantees freedom of religion to every Canadian.

Other issues concern protecting the rights of the Indigenous Peoples of Canada. Section 25 of the Charter and section 35 of the Constitution Act,¹⁰ 1982 recognize and affirm the existing Aboriginal and treaty rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. Notably, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) defined the meaning and scope of Aboriginal rights in a series of decisions (like Van der Peet,¹¹ Sparrow¹²). The procedural duty to consult with Indigenous groups arises when the Crown has knowledge (real or constructive) of an Aboriginal right or title and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect it.¹³

In regard to duty of a municipality to Indigenous peoples, the leading appeal court decision, Neskonlith Indian Band v. Salmon Arm (City),¹⁴ states that municipalities have no independent constitutional duty or capacity to consult First Nations whose treaty and other interests may be affected by municipal decision-making (Imai & Stacey, 2014). In this case, the Neskonlith were unsuccessful in using the duty to consult and accommodate, to challenge a decision of the City of Salmon Arm allowing a development permit to be issued in a floodplain area located right beside their reserve.

A 2017 SCC decision augments the likelihood that the duty to consult will extend to municipalities. In Clyde River,¹⁵ the SCC decided the Crown may rely on regulatory bodies (here, the National Energy Board), a form of administrative decision-maker, to satisfy the duty to consult. Still, municipal responsibility to protect Indigenous peoples’ rights, like the ‘duty to consult,’ and respect treaty rights remains dubious.

In sum, although not all equity-seeking cases were decided solely on the equity section per se – that is, Section 15—they clarify that municipalities are legally and morally responsible to mitigate unjustified barriers to affordable housing, protect Indigenous rights, and carefully consider their decisions related to places of worship.

The City of Edmonton (CoE) and the Zoning Bylaw Renewal Initiative (ZBRI)

Edmonton, a city of just over one million, is the capital of Alberta, a western Canadian province. Like other North American municipalities, the CoE uses zoning as the primary mechanism of implementing its municipal plans and policies, which provide a strategic direction for how the City will address its communities’ current and future needs, including land use and other considerations.

Edmonton’s zoning bylaw is a complex and lengthy document consisting of 46 zones, 127 uses, 13 overlays,¹⁶ and 1,100+ Direct Control¹⁷ (DC) zones that have accrued over time. The CoE has determined that the bylaw often results in inequitable outcomes and prevents desired changes as envisioned by city residents and articulated in the city’s plans and policies. The CoE’s zoning bylaw has been challenging to many groups, for instance, Indigenous people, a historically marginalized group, in accommodating their cultural and spiritual need for collective gatherings and conducting traditional ceremonies. Ethnic minorities have had issues in siting their places of worship. The CoE’s zoning bylaw by allowing exclusive single-family zoning contributes to effectively shutting off a large part of the city to renters, the impoverished, and the disabled to live and locate some basic amenities such as daycares and group homes. Single-family zones as a barrier to housing diversity is not an isolated trend in Edmonton. Instead, many contemporary planning scholars and practitioners argue that privileging single-family zoning results inequality and segregation among urban communities, obstructing equal access to housing in most North American cities (see Lens & Monkkonen, 2015; Manville et al., 2020; Wegmann, 2020). Of note, the city points to a surge in amendments to the zoning bylaw, the proliferation of DC zones, as well as a steady increase in appeals in the past decade or so as indicators of inequitable outcomes (City of Edmonton, 2019).

While the zoning bylaw has not undergone an extensive review since 1961, a significant update occurred in 2001 to harmonize five different land use bylaws carried over from large-scale annexations in 1982. In 2014, political and administrative leadership led several key amendments to the zoning bylaw to enable greater housing diversity – from removing parking minimums to abolishing single-family-only zoning. These regulatory changes inspired more extensive municipal discussion around the segregation of people and development throughout Edmonton neighbourhoods. Subsequently, the CoE initiated the ZBRI to more holistically align regulation with overarching city plans and policies, and to more explicitly embed priorities of equity and inclusion.

For the CoE, the ZBRI is an opportunity to align the revised zoning bylaw with its new municipal plan and other strategic goals (City of Edmonton, 2020). Most importantly, it is committed to using an equity lens for ZBRI, arguably the first Canadian municipality to make such an attempt. Therefore, Edmonton’s ZBRI is the most current and live example of a Canadian municipal effort to explicitly prioritize an equity lens in zoning bylaw.

Research methodology: data collection and analysis

Integrating and recognizing multiple dimensions, perspectives, and voices are significant actions in building equity and inclusivity. Therefore, we employed broad data sources to learn how different land use regulations and bylaws promote or impede equity. Focusing almost exclusively on permits, appeals and amendments has limits in eliciting inequities. We, therefore, included key informant interviews to the method. All in all, the following four primary data sources were vital in our analysis:

POSSE dataset

POSSE, which stands for Public One Stop Service, is the CoE’s centralized storage system, housing all its development permits, licenses, and development fees. We had access to a subset of this data, including the details of almost 2000 development permit appeals to the CoE’s Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (SDAB) from 2001 to 2019. The analysis of the dataset involved calculating descriptive statistics of the types of permits and appeals in various zones and overlays. The POSSE data analysis identified significant trends in development permit appeals, with implications for equity and inclusivity in the CoE. We followed the three existing sub-categories in POSSE, based on the magnitude of the development activities: 1) major: large-scale residential, commercial, and industrial developments; 2) minor: a variety of uses with more negligible impact though primarily residential and small-scale commercial, and 3) house combo: covering routine residential developments like new houses.

Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (SDAB) decisions

We also undertook a high-level scan of Edmonton SDAB decisions. Each Alberta municipality has an SDAB, a quasi-judicial appeals body that grants variances from the existing zoning bylaw from parameters defined by the provincial planning legislation. We focused on decisions based strictly on human rights or equity. First, we searched SDAB decisions in the Canadian Legal Information Institute (CanLII) database, using the following broad terms: ‘equity,’ ‘discrimination,’ ‘human rights,’ and ‘Charter [of Rights and Freedoms].’ This resulted in more targeted terms ‘disability,’ ‘accessibility,’ ‘wheelchair,’ and ‘crime,’ which helped us pursue a more thorough examination of cases, following the first author’s previous research works (Agrawal, 2022; Agrawal et al. 2022). Next, we scanned decisions from February 2018 to 2021 (the years available on CanLII) using different keywords generated by the search. We then reviewed a sample—15 of the 81 cases found – pulling out relevant equity themes and grouping them according to issues important to the appeals.

Zoning bylaw amendments

Our data source included 146 zoning bylaw text amendments and reports presented at City Council Public Hearings, the Executive Committee, or the Urban Planning Committee between January 2015 and February 2020. We had a summary spreadsheet of these documents from the CoE, comprising text amendments and reports along with hyperlinks to background staff reports, Council’s Executive Committee and Urban Planning Committee decisions and requests, and parts of the pertinent bylaws. Our analysis primarily relied on text of the administration’s reports to understand what and why amendments were undertaken and what circumstances led to the amendments (Kuckartz, 2014; Hawkins, 2017).

Interviews

Between February and May 2021, we conducted 24 semi-structured interviews over Zoom, a web-based communication platform, with key actors from within the CoE and from the wider community. With assistance from the ZBRI team, we selected 12 CoE staff from across the Urban Planning and Economy Department. We also interviewed 12 members from 10 community-based organizations in Edmonton, representing religious institutions, housing providers, multicultural community service providers, community leagues, business and industry associations, and Indigenous organizations. Besides, we complemented our interview data with 22 other key-informant interviews conducted by the CoE, as we were granted access to these transcripts. Few of our interviewees overlapped with those of the CoE.

Along with a thorough review of the POSSE dataset and amendments to the CoE’s zoning bylaw, we used a thematic analysis method for the interview transcripts. First, using qualitative data analysis software NVivo, we systematically organized all 46 interview transcripts for coding. Then we coded both interview sets, identifying critical issues and classifying appropriate themes (see Saldana, 2011, 2013 for further details on coding in qualitative data). Our analysis focused on equity problems identified by interviewees, recent or ongoing changes characterized as positive, and recommendations offered to improve equity in the land use bylaw. Common challenges for developing and implementing an equitable zoning bylaw also emerged as a theme in this analysis. We looked for specific examples and broader themes within each area of focus discussed below.

Research findings: equity and inequity in the CoE’s zoning bylaw

By elaborating the patterns and themes that emerged from the analyses, our findings are organized below into five main types of equity challenges in the CoE zoning bylaw: uses, definitions, zones, overlays, and appeal process and outcomes. Also included at the end are the efforts made by City Council to resolve some of the inequities in the zoning bylaw.

Uses

Discretionary uses

The analysis of POSSE data revealed that most appeals of minor and major development permits were for ‘discretionary uses.’ Discretionary uses are permitted in given zones at the discretion of the development authority, as opposed to ‘permitted uses,’ which are allowed as a right if the application meets all applicable regulations. We observed that a majority (58%) of major-type appeals were related to varying the use. A proposal for discretionary use requires public notifications and consultations. Unfortunately, much of this consultation results in appeals either by the development proponents or those opposed to it, drawing out the process.

This use category was also of paramount concern for respondents. Some of them spoke about the discretionary use system as an avenue for inequitable regulation:

if that use is listed as a discretionary use, it gives people … an opportunity to appeal a decision for grounds not related to [the] land use.

Therefore, discretionary use status can discriminate when applied to a particular use in all or most zones.

As noted, discretionary use is permitted in a given zone at the discretion of the development authority, but few parameters exist to adjudicate appropriate discretionary use or guide the development authority’s decisions. This not only allows the potential for bias in the process but also leads to appeals of decisions. Additionally, applications require more notifications to affected neighbours and community consultations, opening them to appeal by affected parties. This, in turn, enables NIMBYism and provides a venue for voicing prejudices against equity-seeking groups.

Commercial uses

Respondents found this use both numerous and narrowly defined as evident in the following quote by a city official:

In terms of commercial uses, I think [the city has] so many slightly different definitions. We do not really look at the actual impacts of those commercial uses … We have got like what 70-something commercial uses, and there is just no logic to where they are permitted or where they’re discretionary … .

Further, they explained that NIMBYism, morality, and misconceptions shaped commercial regulations about locations like pawn stores, body-rub centres, or adult mini-theatres. Similarly, the zoning bylaw became a lever to regulate sex and sexuality through permissions for gay bathhouses and adult fetish stores. Most problematic were the mechanisms to manage second-hand stores and pawn shops, specifically the second-hand and Pawn Stores Overlay (SPSO), which applies additional regulations.

Use definitions

Narrow definitions

Interviewees commented that the bylaw contains numerous and often narrowly defined uses. This is problematic because they pose problems for equitable, consistent regulation by overly differentiating between similar uses. For example, the current use definitions of religious assemblies require a change to accommodate the transforming social and religious relationships as articulated by a city official below:

Our religious assemblies regulations presume a certain type of congregation. Generally Christian, … That needs to be overhauled because … religious assemblies, even back in the day were … more multipurpose than our bylaws presume … We do need to broaden a lot of our definitions, instead of trying to constantly fine-tune them.

Specifically, narrow definitions separate other uses, even those with similar functions and land use impacts (and possible externalities) – such as distinguishing between nightclubs and pubs when the only real difference is that nightclubs dedicate more than 10% of floor area to entertainment facilities (pubs do not).

Confusing definitions

Respondents stated that the definition of ‘household’ was problematic because it relies on formal familial relationship terms (relation by blood, marriage, adoption, or foster care). The following quote by a city official summarizes the respondents’ sentiments:

you have other uses that are more related to the built form like the single-detached house, one dwelling, semis, but that you have these ones that, like the lodging and the group homes that are speaking to the types of people that might be living in those dwellings and to me that always feels uncomfortable. Because why? What makes someone live in a house? [So] what sort of impacts are we trying to regulate associated with that?

Specifically, a household may be one or more related persons or a maximum of three unrelated persons. This current definition seems very close to a definition of ‘family’ and presents a potential legal tension: it could be conflated with the meaning of family and construed as regulating users instead of use (see the Supreme Court of Canada’s Bell decision).¹⁸ As of June 2021, the definition has been amended to remove language that distinguishes individuals based on their relationships.

Zones

Effective but inherently selective mechanism to manage land uses

Respondents critically articulated that zoning was an exclusionary and discriminatory tool developed to control and exclude incompatible uses from zoned areas. In particular, they noted the historic and ongoing tendency to prioritize landowners, protect wealth, and reinforce segregation patterns through zoning. As well, from an Indigenous perspective, zoning is a historical ‘exercise in conformity’ as one respondent put it. These observations align with criticisms by several Canadian and other planning scholars who have argued that zoning is exclusionary, rigid, overly technical, and even irrelevant in modern cities (Maantay, 2001; Wilson et al., 2016; Skelton, 2012; Lens & Monkkonen, 2015; Whittemore, 2017; Rodríguez-Pose & Storper, 2019). These comments provide context for the limitations of zoning as a tool for equity but avoid outright pronouncement that more equitable land use bylaws are impossible.

Low-density residential zones

The POSSE data analysis indicated that most minor permit appeals and house-combo permit appeals occurred in the RF1 (single-detached residential zone) or RF3 zones (small-scale infill development zone). Among these, almost half were in RF1 and just under a quarter in RF3, which typically is more permissive of different housing types.

Our analysis also showed that most appeals were of infill developments in low-density residential zones such as RF1, RF2 (single-detached zone that also allows narrow lots, and other forms of small-scale housing) and others. Residential infills represent new housing developments in already established neighbourhoods, including secondary suites, garden suites, duplexes, semi-detached and detached houses, row houses, apartments, and other residential and mixed-use buildings. Of note, even the three-year averages of infill-type appeals show a significant increase year over year, suggesting that while infills are a growing interest in the city, infill policies the Council adopted in 2018 are not fully aligned with the regulations in the zoning bylaw.

Study participants supported the above findings, highlighting that single-detached residential zones fundamentally impede housing equity:

I think there is probably a lot of inequities, in my opinion, through a lot of the lower density residential zones. … I think that is probably a major source of inequity for the lower- lower density residential zones.

These low-density residential options prevent housing diversification and densification, curtailing universal access and affordability. Moreover, respondents believed creating new zones to provide various small dwelling types and densities in new neighbourhoods, like Planned Lot Residential (RPL) and Residential Mixed Dwelling Zone (RMD), is also unsuccessful.

Further, our analysis showed that almost all low-intensity residential zones are similar, with relatively minor variations. Zones such as RF1, RF2, RF3, and RF4 (zone for semi-detached and duplex housing) have nearly identical permitted and discretionary uses, including housing type. Even basic regulations, like height and site coverage, are the same across these zones. Other examples are RF5 (row housing zone in suburban setting), UCRH (row housing zone in urban settings), and RF1 and RSL (intended to enable small-lot, single-detached housing in suburban settings), which are almost identical despite potentially being more context-based (that is, urban vs. suburban).

A common complaint we heard from both CoE staff and community interviewees is that the complex and inaccessible nature of the zoning bylaw presented a core equity issue. In particular, regulatory complexity, poor user interface, and technical language make the CoE’s zoning bylaw difficult for the public to navigate, aspects especially acute for non-native English speakers or those unfamiliar with development regulations and processes.

Religious assemblies, restricted in most parts of the city

This is another way in which zones exclude and restrict specific uses. In 15 zones, including most residential and commercial zones, religious assemblies are a discretionary use; however, this is only a permitted use in two zones: Urban Services (US) and Community Services 1 (CS1), and is neither discretionary nor permitted in RPL and RMD. This evidence supports one respondent’s view that it is hard to develop such uses in new neighbourhoods.

Interviewees also raised the issue of insufficiently suitable land for places of worship in newer developments, vis-à-vis size or appropriate zone. One respondent, who has an architectural practice focusing on designing places of worship, highlighted that new Area Structure Plans¹⁹ or Neighbourhood Structure Plans²⁰ would typically not allocate much land for places of worship, as is done for schools, stormwater ponds, or amenities, likely because developers wish to maximize their development. Thus, religious institutions often move into industrial areas, with more land and plentiful parking. However, religious assembly is still a discretionary use in an Industrial – Business area, ensuring a long-drawn approval process. A similar situation arises in RF1, where a religious assembly is also a discretionary use. Many neighbourhood places of worship are in mature neighbourhoods, zoned RF1. If they wish to expand, redevelop, or renovate their facility and maximize their site use (which is often constrained), they usually must seek rezoning.

Minimum lot sizes and design regulations

These aspects present additional barriers to affordable housing as they increase development costs and hence add to housing costs. A few interviewees suggested eliminating minimum lot size in all zones; one noted that the RLD (Residential Low Density) zone was the first attempt in removing lot size minimums. Others, however, emphasized the importance of higher architectural standards for affordable housing, to ensure equal quality and eliminate distinctions between affordable and market housing. One official in the housing and homelessness section of the city said:

We tend to have minimum lot sizes, minimum lot widths. Those are being removed from some of the newer zones, you know, but we have a minimum, but not a maximum and the same with density. And so that can limit opportunities for smaller scale development that might be more affordable.

Direct control (DC) zones

These site-specific zones give City Council direct control over development on a site. In some cases, developments require a DC as the standard zones do not enable the projects the private developers may want to develop–- eventually restricting development to the whims of the council. For example, zoning amendments to permit limited supportive housing apply to all standard residential zones, but not to DC zones, which require individual amendments. All of this affects equity in the provision of diversity and affordability of housing.

Overlays

Our POSSE data analysis found that a significant majority (72%) of appeals pertaining to minor development permits occurred in zones RF1 or RF3 overlaid by the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay (MNO). The MNO regulates development in Edmonton’s mature residential neighbourhoods (primarily single-detached homes in the middle of the city). It requires (a) strict adherence to the context of the surrounding development, and (b) notifications to and extended consultation with the affected parties on the impact of any proposed variance to the MNO regulations. Worse, the appeals continued to increase despite council-approved amendments to the MNO in 2017. Fewer, though still significant, appeals of major development permits occurred in the MNO areas.

Many respondents also pointed out the MNO as the most problematic overlay, closely followed by the SPSO. For them, the MNO continues to be the primary barrier to densifying single-detached neighbourhoods and allowing more housing choices across the city as captured in a city’s official assertion:

Our MNO, like a regulation that’s driven primarily, … like the time capsule mentality, ‘I’ve got mine, don’t want anything to change, if somebody’s going to move in, don’t modify.’ That really hampers design potential[s].

Likewise, the SPSO applies additional regulations to second-hand stores and pawn shops in zones where they are listed as discretionary uses; specifically, they require notification of neighbours, community leagues, and business improvement area associations before the development authority’s decision. We also noted these businesses are of discretionary use in several commercial zones, particularly CB1, CB2, and CB3.

The appeal process and outcomes

Interviewees identified two intertwining barriers to accessing and benefiting from the appeal process: (a) only the well-off have access to the appeals process, and (b) the appeals process is very legalistic in tone and focus. One said that despite its relatively high authority, the SDAB allows a low bar for evidence, usually taking neighbours’ opinions at face value as evidence of impacts. Others such as a development officer at the city noted it is advantageous to have legal representation at the SDAB, something accessible to only economically well-off parties:

The main thing that I noticed was the wealthier communities are a lot more organized. They are able to hire a lawyer. Then sometimes, it’s just somebody trying to build a semi-detached house; they don’t have the resources really to hire their own lawyer and fight this really organized community opposition. And I think the same kind of thing happens with rezoning at Council as well. Certain communities have got the knowledge and the resources to fight against changes.

These exclusive and legalistic qualities make SDAB proceedings intimidating and inaccessible, while also emphasizing case law and legal minutiae at the expense of broader planning principles – perhaps because many lawyers are on this board. Several respondents attributed the board’s lack of diversity to its demanding, inflexible schedule and necessary time commitment; thus, most working individuals cannot participate as board members.

Our analysis of a small select set of SDAB decisions, where appeals partly raised human rights or equity concerns, showed that SDAB decisions were not based strictly on equity alone. This is because the board is guided by the provincial Municipal Government Act from which it derives its power. Hence, appeals or decisions do not stray far from the parameters defined in the act – which is silent on equity or human rights considerations.

Nevertheless, SDAB exhibited equity considerations through its decisions that mandated accessible parking in new developments or allowed various housing options or a religious assembly in neighbourhoods zoned exclusively as single-detached. The board frequently attached a provision of disabled parking as a condition of approving variances in multiple cases that were unrelated to parking. One SDAB decision allowed a change of use to a temporary homeless shelter in the RF1 zone, a highly contested issue, to combat increasing homelessness in the city due to the pandemic. In another case, the board overturned the CoE’s refusal to locate a religious assembly, a discretionary use, in a primarily single-detached neighbourhood.

Efforts to combat inequity

To combat inequity in zoning bylaw, between January 2015 and February 2020, Edmonton City Council made significant changes to the zoning bylaw: reductions and removal of minimum parking requirements; allowance of garage/garden/secondary suites; relaxation of the MNO; and adjustments to promote urban agriculture, infills, supportive housing, and context-based design. Collectively and individually, these amendments all touch on equity as they aim to increase housing choices, affordability, and food security in Edmonton although equity was not cited as a reason for the change.

The amendments also aligned the zoning bylaw with the CoE’s municipal plan and citywide policies, such as introducing the ‘Open Option Parking Policy’ in 2020 and the ‘Infill Roadmap’ in 2018. For instance, the CoE identified excessive parking requirements as a barrier to enable religious assembly locations, supportive housing in residential neighbourhoods, and childcare operations in the downtown area in the past few years. Significantly, Open Option Parking removes minimum set parking requirements and allows developers, businesses, and homeowners to decide how much parking they require based on their needs. In 2018, the Infill Roadmap identified a series of actions premised on enabling medium-density housing to welcome more people and new houses into older neighbourhoods and guided developers in planning and building better infills.

Discussion

To guide the discussion, we use the four-pronged equity approach introduced in the conceptual framework (summarized in Table 1). It is important to note that while zoning bylaws make cities significantly more equitable, they alone cannot guarantee all equity prospects.

Table 1. Summary of inequities and possible remedies in Edmonton’s zoning bylaw.

Distributional equity	Recognitional Equity	Procedural Equity	Regulatory Equity
Aims to establish the fair distribution of social advantages, including equitable allocation of material and social goods.	Acknowledges and dignifies citizens’ social and cultural diversity.	Recognizes equity-seeking groups in the decision-making process.	Embeds ‘substantial equality’ in local government’s regulations.
Equity issues Limits on available housing Classification of multiple housing types as discretionary uses restricted access Overlays demand “excessive” public notifications, impeding diversification of housing DC zones do not allow supportive housing	Equity issues The zoning bylaw does not explicitly acknowledge the Indigenous ways of appropriating spaces	Equity issues Lacks wider community participation in the decision-making process The public consultation elicits underlying prejudices and biases. Appeal board’s technical and legal nature limits community access to the appeal process The legalese involved in the board’s process makes it less approachable or welcoming	Equity issues Language used in zoning is inaccessible to a lay person Too many residential zones with minor variations limit housing options and affordability Overlays restrict further access to and diversity of housing Discretionary uses inhibit housing diversity Narrow and at times unclear definitions of uses lead to discriminatory outcomes Places of worship are restricted in many zones Zoning regulations are inconsistent with Indigenous perspectives on land use and management
Remedies adopted Zoning is amended to increase food security and local access to food. Developed the new class, use definitions and regulations for “urban garden.” Enabled more urban agricultural activities, including backyard chicken coops and beekeeping Infill policies allowed semi-detached and duplex housing in single-detached RF1 and RF2 zones.	Remedies adopted The city’s plan acknowledges Indigenous communities as the first inhabitants of the land and the existing ethnocultural diversity of the city.	Remedies adopted Appeal board’s decisions seemingly account for equity without explicitly expressing it	Remedies adopted Zoning amendments to allow infill developments Accommodations are made to allow Indigenous needs on a case by case basis.

Distributional equity

Distributional equity aims to establish the fair distribution of social advantages, including equitable allocation of material and social goods to all. Our findings suggest that much of the distributional inequity within the municipal purview concerns limits on available housing. This arises from narrowly crafted zones in which multiple housing types were classified as discretionary uses. Overlays demand ‘excessive’ public notifications and consultations also impede diversification and densification in historically homogeneous zones. Furthermore, many DC zones do not allow supportive housing.

The CoE has attempted to improve distributional equity through specific changes to the zoning bylaws. From 2015 and 2018, for instance, various zoning amendments increased food security and local access to food for residents and businesses, while contributing to the local economy. Specifically, the CoE developed the new class and use definition and regulations for ‘urban garden,’ which allowed personal, community, or institutional food production in most zones, enabling more urban agricultural activities, including backyard chicken coops and beekeeping throughout the city. The amendments also set out regulations and standards for these operations.

Also, we learned that, in response to the Infill Roadmap, certain zoning amendments allowed semi-detached and duplex housing as permitted uses with no restrictions in the mostly single-detached housing zones of RF1 and RF2. From a distributional equity perspective, these amendments help reduce barriers to developing these housing forms and increase housing choice throughout the city.

Recognitional equity

This concept articulates that cities support equity when they acknowledge and dignify society’s, and their residents’ social and cultural diversity. Our analysis revealed some critical challenges to recognitional equity in Edmonton: While the city’s plan acknowledges Indigenous communities, who were the first inhabitants of the land, as well as the current ethno-cultural diversity of the city, the zoning bylaw does not encapsulate the needs of these groups and, particularly, presents barriers to Indigenous ways of appropriating spaces (as explained later). These are concerns for recognitional equity as well as for the procedural and regulatory equity categories.

Procedural equity

This third element takes up formal and institutional recognition of citizens in the decision-making process. Our analysis shows three primary challenges: community consultation, appeals process, and the inaccessibility of the bylaw. We attribute much public discontent with the zoning bylaw to little meaningful community participation in decision-making, leaving people feeling unheard. While plan- or bylaw-making includes community consultation and participation, significant deficits exist in the consultation process. For instance, the process can result in eliciting underlying prejudices and biases and providing a platform for hostility and hurtful speech. This includes NIMBYism, to which Edmonton is no exception. These issues are further amplified in Edmonton as community engagement mostly involves a homogeneous, unrepresentative set of community members.

As noted, Edmonton’s SDAB has a more legalistic tone than other municipalities, making it intimidating, which impedes accessibility and citizens’ benefit from this process. In addition, limited diversity makes the board less approachable or welcoming. Finally, the legalese in the bylaw itself makes it inaccessible, a form of procedural mistreatment, resulting in restricted participation in the development permit process.

Regulatory equity

Regulatory equity, a unique contribution of this study, invokes the legal nature of equity as it exists in the constitutional and quasi-constitutional obligations of local government. Here, the key challenges are embedded in specific elements of the zoning bylaw: how zones are crafted, what types of permitted, what discretionary uses are included, and how various uses are defined. Addressing these issues in the regulations will thus lead to greater equity.

Homogeneous residential zones have led to limited housing options and affordability for city residents, resulting from multiple low-density residential zones (whether new or old, urban or suburban) that primarily exclude anything but single-detached homes. Zones are identical in nearly every respect, with similar permitted and discretionary uses, and housing types allowed. Our analysis shows discretionary use in an underlying zone is restricted further by overlays, exemplified by the MNO and SPSO. This approach isolates one type of use, subject to multiple sets of additional regulations, and undermines efforts towards consistency and clarity – a system best avoided.

The issue of siting places of worship and associated parking is not new, and frequently involves determining whether this use is included as a permitted use in a zone. The municipality should know of this concern and work to accommodate places of worship. Where such use is excluded, it must be demonstrably justified with reasons that can withstand legal scrutiny in the courts.

It is noteworthy that the CoE has made meaningful progress in easing bureaucratic barriers, and allow all types of activities in public spaces, thereby facilitating Indigenous ceremonies in public spaces. Nonetheless, zoning is a Eurocentric tool fundamentally in conflict with Indigenous ways and perspectives on land use and management as pointed out by several Indigenous study participants. While the legal obligations of Canadian municipalities are unclear here, an equitable approach to land use regulation should keep Treaty relationships in the foreground. Following the spirit of the TRC’s Calls to Action²¹ and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,²² the CoE’s land use regulation should make appropriate accommodations for Indigenous people to freely practice their cultural traditions.

To encompass all four aspects of equity, we came up with a definition of equity as applied in an urban planning context, and particularly zoning bylaw. Equity is to ensure that every city resident has equal access to all parts of the city to live, work, and play, while accounting for an individual or a group’s unique needs and potentials, coupled with land use impacts of new uses on adjoining properties.

Conclusion

This study aimed to elicit inequities embedded in zoning bylaws by examining Edmonton’s ongoing ZBRI. We used multiple methods to explore the CoE’s zoning bylaw, guided by a theoretical framework comprising four key aspects of equity. One of which is regulatory equity, our addition to the conceptual framework. We also developed a definition of equity as it applies to planning. All of this helped us uncover several equity issues in the CoE’s zoning bylaw. This method and analytical framework will be useful for other Canadian municipalities as they develop their own equitable zoning bylaws.

Our analysis highlights equity issues related to specific parts of the CoE’s zoning bylaw. Examples abound:

• Limits on types of developments in single-family zones

• Restrictions under the overlays and the resultant appeals

• Numerous discretionary uses with no clear parameters for decision-making

• Proliferating DC zones

• Problematic use definitions, such as religious assembly

The associated community consultation and appeals processes, particularly in the areas covered by the neighbourhood overlay, amplify these issues.

We also learned that the CoE had partially embedded equity considerations into the zoning bylaw, primarily through amendments to allow multiple forms of housing in single-family and other zones, open option parking, and reducing discretionary uses. However, some of these measures have had limited effects, and others have occurred too recently to enable robust commentary on their impacts.

To achieve equity is to provide a fair distribution of opportunities, resources, and choices to each individual city resident, as needed. Within urban planning, and particularly zoning, this means allowing every city resident to have access to all parts of the city, while accommodating for certain individual or group needs and accounting for potential externalities attached with land uses.

The study also suggests that changes to zoning bylaw to remove identified inequities alone may not solve all equity issues in the city or achieve the city’s vision of becoming an inclusive and compassionate city. Achieving all dimensions of equity requires a holistic approach, with reforms across the entire city operation and administration. This means introducing equity and human rights considerations into zoning bylaws, plans, policies, and decision-making processes.

Our research results guide how the CoE, or for that matter, any Canadian municipality, can best apply equity and human rights considerations in its zoning bylaw. We must recognize that working with zoning has limited capacity to propagate equity in every sphere of city residents’ lives, but this is a key tool currently available to regulate land uses and building locations. Our legal and moral responsibility as planners, therefore, is to ensure that zoning bylaws are rid of entrenched overt or covert discriminatory elements.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The work was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada [SSHRC PEG 892-2020-2018 Agrawal] and the City of Edmonton.

Notes

1. Are groups that experience significant collective barriers in participating in Canadian society through employment, education, and/or other opportunities. These groups include women, Indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities, members of visible minorities, and others.

2. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 [Charter].

3. Analogous grounds are additional prohibited grounds of discrimination, over and above those enumerated in Section 15 of the Charter. The courts can interpret the Charter broadly to arrive at these grounds.

4. Tanudjaja v. Canada (Attorney General). (2013). ONSC 5410.

5. The Neighbourhoods of Windfields Ltd. Partnership v. Death. (2009). ONCA 277, [2009] O.J. No. 1324 [Death].

6. Rosenberg et al. v Outremont (City), 2001 CarswellQue 1312, [2001] QJ NO 2858.

7. Congrégation des témoins de Jéhovah de St-Jérôme-Lafontaine v. Lafontaine (Village), 2004 SCC 48.

8. Montréal (City) v Badr Islamic Centre, 2017 QCCS 57.

9. Syndicat Northcrest v Amselem, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 551.

10. Constitution Act, 1982, s 35, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11.

11. R v Van der Peet, [1996] 2 SCR 507, 137 DLR (4th) 289. [Van der Peet cited to SCR].

12. R v Sparrow, [1990] 1 SCR 1075 [Sparrow].

13. Halfway River First Nation v. British Columbia (Ministry of Forests), 1997 CanLII 2719 (BC SC), [1997] 4 C.N.L.R. 45 (B.C.S.C.), at 71, per Dorgan J.

14. Neskonlith Indian Band v. Salmon Arm (City) (2014) 47.1 UBC Law Review 293–312 [Neskonlith].

15. Clyde River (Hamlet) v Petroleum Geoservices Inc., 2017 SCC 40 (CanLII), at para 22.

16. An overlay is an additional set of regulations applied to an area of the city on top of existing zone-related regulations.

17. This is a site-specific zone, which gives Edmonton’s City Council direct control over development on a site in the city. Many of them are proposed by private developers for their specific requirements, excluding affordable housing from these zones.

18. R v Bell, 2 SCR 212, 98 DLR (3d) 255 [Bell cited to SCR].

19. Area Structure Plans are statutory plans, which provide details on the growth and development of new areas of the city.

20. Neighbourhood Structure Plan is a subset of an Area Structure Plan, which describes the land use concept in detail at a neighbourhood level for a newly developed area of the city.

21. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015). Calls to Action. http://trc.ca/assets/pdf/Calls_to_Action_English2.pdf

22. UN General Assembly, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: resolution/adopted by the General Assembly, 2 October 2007, A/RES/61/295, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/471355a82.html