New Brunswick’s Court of Appeal has dismissed Adam Morgan’s appeal from the refusal of an injunction aimed at stopping a Fredericton demolition, after he missed the statutory deadline for challenging a municipal decision.
The Oct. 1 ruling, Morgan v. The City of Fredericton, 2026 NBCA 113, awarded the city $2,500 in costs.
The Public Safety Committee found the building hazardous and dismissed his challenge on Jan. 29, while extending compliance to March 2. Morgan applied for an injunction on May 5, after the city authorized demolition.
Two separate appeal deadlines
The Local Governance Act creates a two-stage appeal process for dangerous or unsightly premises notices. Section 134(1) gives an owner or occupier 14 days after receiving a notice to appeal to the appropriate council committee. That hearing allows the person to be heard and represented by counsel. The committee may confirm, change or rescind the notice, or extend the compliance period.
A second deadline applies after the committee decides. Under section 134(8), the owner or occupier has 14 days after being provided with the decision to appeal to the Court of King’s Bench. The permitted grounds are failure to follow the Act’s required procedure or an unreasonable decision. A confirmed or modified notice becomes binding if that further appeal is not brought in time.
Those provisions make the date of receipt important at each stage. They also distinguish extra time to comply with a notice from the time available to challenge the committee’s decision in court.
Earlier notice supplied the deadline
Morgan argued the committee’s written decision omitted appeal-deadline instructions. The court answered that the earlier Form 4 notice to comply clearly provided them. It rejected his position that alleged procedural unfairness supplied jurisdiction for the relief sought despite the expired appeal period. (Reasons, paragraphs 22–28.)
The panel held that statutory authority was needed to extend the deadline and found the injunction appeal had no proper grounds. (Paragraphs 24–29.)
The distinction is reflected in Rule 3.02, which permits a court to extend time fixed by an order, judgment or the Rules of Court. It also allows an extension request before or after that time expires. Its wording does not give a general power to change deadlines fixed by legislation. Identifying the legal source of a deadline is therefore a separate question from explaining why it was missed.
Enforcement and temporary relief
Fredericton’s By-law S-16, sections 10–11, sets out the practical stakes once a notice becomes final and the compliance period expires. Depending on the condition involved, the city can arrange cleanup, repair or demolition. The work’s costs, including associated charges or fees, become a debt owed by the owner or occupier. For demolition based on dilapidation or structural unsoundness under section 10(1)(c), the bylaw requires a supporting report from one of the specified qualified officials or professionals.
Morgan had separately sought a stay pending his appeal. Justice LeBlanc’s June 22 order, 2026 NBCA 75, dismissed that motion and awarded $750 in costs. The published order contains no reasons.
An appeal itself ordinarily does not suspend the challenged order. Rule 62.26 provides a separate stay procedure, under which the court may impose protective conditions. Rule 62.23, meanwhile, permits a party to seek early dismissal where an appeal has no grounds, is frivolous or vexatious, cannot legally be brought, or has been unduly delayed in its preparation and perfection.