Regulatory Law Chambers logo

Cambridge Park Home Owners Association Review and Variance of Decision 26429-D01-2021, AUC Disposition 26640-D01-2021

Link to Decision Summarized

R&V – Rates

The AUC dismissed the application from the Cambridge Park Home Owners Association (“Home Owners”) for a review and variance (“R&V”) of Decision 26429-D01-2021 (the “Review Application”).


In Decision 26429-D01-2021 (the “Original Review Decision”), a review panel approved an application from AMAR Developments Ltd. (“AMAR”) to review and vary the method used in Decision 25519-D02-2021 (the “Final Rates Decision”) to calculate the variable charge. In the Original Review Decision, the review panel found that AMAR demonstrated that an error existed, on a balance of probabilities, with respect to the accounting methodology used to calculate monthly costs based on a monthly average over the entire period of 2020, which was mismatched with the approved revenue requirement for the period from May to December 2020.

In its Review Application, the Home Owners asserted that the review panel erred in the calculation of final rates for 2021 by failing to acknowledge overcollections by AMAR in the period from January to April 2020.

Does the Ground Raised by the Home Owners Relate to a Determination Made in Decision 26429-D01-2021?

The Home Owners argued that calculation errors had been made as AMAR was already overcharging customers from January to April 2020 to cover the additional usage requirements in the upcoming summer and fall months. Further, the Home Owners submitted that revenues collected for the entire year 2020 should have been considered to fairly calculate the refund or deficit.

The AUC determined that the finding that the Home Owners sought to have reviewed was made by the AUC in Decision 25519-D02-2021. No new finding was made regarding the revenues collected by AMAR from January to April 2020 in Decision 26429-D01-2021. The current review panel determined that the issue was known to the Home Owners prior to the issuance of Decision 26429-D01-2021. Therefore, the Home Owners were in a position to file their own review application following the issuance of the final rates decision.

The Review Application was filed 138 days following the issuance of the final rates decision that the Home Owners seek to have reviewed. However, the AUC found that the Home Owners could have filed the Review Application within the 60-day time period following the issuance of the final rates decision.

Finality and Certainty of AUC Decisions

AUC decisions are intended to be final and a review should only be granted in those limited circumstances described in Rule 016: Review of Commission Decisions. Only in exceptional circumstances should review decisions ever be subject to further review.

The current review panel was not persuaded that exceptional circumstances, such as the existence of an overriding and palpable error, apply that would weigh in favour of setting aside the principles of finality and certainty to allow the late Review Application. Further, and in the alternative, the current review panel finds that exceptional circumstances are not engaged in the Home Owner’s review application of the Original Review Decision, and the Home Owners did not demonstrate the existence of an error that is material to the Original Review Decision. Accordingly, the AUC determined that the Home Owners did not fulfill the requirements for a further review set out in Rule 016.

Related Posts

Sabo v AltaLink Management Ltd, 2024 ABCA 179

Sabo v AltaLink Management Ltd, 2024 ABCA 179

Link to Decision Summarized Download Summary in PDF Authority – Compensation Award Application On appeal from AltaLink Management Ltd. (“AML”), the Alberta Court of Appeal (“ABCA”) considered...