Delayed Charlottetown permit notice keeps planning appeal within time

A delay by Charlottetown in posting an occupancy-permit decision did not make a promptly filed challenge too late. In Chandler v. City of Charlottetown, 2026 PEIRAC 45, the Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission ruled on July 16, 2026 that Jonathan Chandler’s appeal was filed within the statutory period.

The order resolved a preliminary timing issue, not whether the occupancy permit granted to Star Homes & Construction Inc. should stand. It neither revoked the permit nor decided the substantive grounds of the appeal.

Notice appeared three weeks after the decision

The city made its decision on May 27. Chandler filed his notice of appeal on June 19, attaching a weekly permit summary and indicating that the decision had not appeared on the city’s website until June 18.

That chronology initially raised a jurisdictional concern. Subsection 28(1.3) of the Planning Act requires a notice of appeal within 21 days after the decision being challenged, and June 19 fell beyond 21 days measured from May 27.

The commission asked the city for details before deciding the issue. In a June 29 letter, the city’s lawyer confirmed that the initial permit summary was posted on June 17 and a revised summary on June 18.

Section 23.1 requires public notice within seven days of a planning decision. IRAC found that posting the initial summary 21 days after the decision did not comply with that requirement.

The appeal clock depends on notice

IRAC applied the Court of Appeal’s ruling in Booth and Peake v. Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission, 2004 PESCAD 18. As the commission described that authority, the appeal period begins when an appellant receives notice, either through actual notice or a general public posting.

Chandler had filed within two days of the city’s initial posting. In those circumstances, the commission accepted his appeal as timely. It noted that it had recently taken a similar approach in Order LA26-08, another case involving late municipal notice.

The ruling therefore concerns when the existing appeal period begins, rather than creating a new discretionary extension or excusing every late filing. Actual notice can also start the clock; the decision does not establish that an appellant may always wait for a website posting.

The formal order finds that the notice of appeal was within time because Charlottetown had not complied with its public-notice duty. No later decision on the occupancy permit’s merits was identified in the limited official-source check for this report.