In Romegioli v. Langley (Township) 2018 BCSC 1867, the B.C. Supreme Court recently had opportunity to judicially review the decision of a bylaw adjudicator upholding over 500 bylaw infraction notices (with associated fees and costs of approximately $270,000) that had been issued to the petitioner, Mr. Romegioli, relating to the operation of a cannabis dispensary. The dispensary caught the attention of Langley for breaches of multiple bylaws relating to operations, renovations and signage.
In 1139652 B.C. Ltd. v Whistler (Resort Municipality), 2018 BCSC 1806, the B.C. Supreme Court recently reviewed a decision of the resort municipality of Whistler denying a property owner’s application for a Development Variance Permit (DVP). The Court upheld the decision, finding that it was reasonable.
In Compagna v. Nanaimo (City), 2018 BCCA 396, the British Columbia Court of Appeal has confirmed an earlier B.C. Supreme Court decision that recognized a building inspector’s discretion to request additional geotechnical reports following subdivision approval, at the building permit stage, as being consistent with the intent of section 56 of the Community Charter. Section 56 is a mechanism that local government building inspectors can use to require a geotechnical engineering report when a building or structure is proposed on hazardous lands, for example land at risk of landslide or flooding. The purpose of requiring such a report is to determine the suitability of the lands for the proposed building or structure and to obtain professional recommendations for conditions necessary to ensure the safe use of the land.
Peter Johnson will be presenting a “legal update” at the upcoming Association of Regional District Planning Managers annual conference, on November 7. The ARDPM annual conference is being held this year on November 6 and 7, in Victoria.
Peter will also be speaking at the LGMA Corporate Officers Forum on November 22, on the topic of Contracts and Agreements – Key Issues for Corporate Officers. The LGMA Corporate Officers Forum is being held this year in Kelowna, from November 21 – 23.
In Columbia Shuswap (Regional District) v Jones, 2018 BCSC 1776 the Columbia Shuswap Regional District (CSRD) recently obtained a judgment from the B.C. Supreme Court granting declaratory and injunctive relief against property owners in a case involving a zoning bylaw enforcement and “home occupation” matter. (more…)
Local governments that have zoning regulations in effect over properties adjoining a body of water need to be aware of the British Columbia Supreme Court’s October 1, 2018 decision in Fonseca v Gabriola Island Trust Committee, 2018 BCSC 1684.
At issue in the case was a zoning bylaw of the Local Trust Committee that required that all buildings and structures be sited a minimum of 30 metres from the natural boundary of the sea or other body of water. (more…)
Stewart McDannold Stuart’s Election Day Hotline will be available on Saturday, October 20.
Our lawyers will be available by telephone from 8am to 8pm to assist our clients’ Chief Election Officers and their staff.
In The Corporation of the City of Victoria v. Zimmerman, 2018 BCSC 321, the City of Victoria obtained a statutory injunction to restrain the permanent moorage of boats in the Gorge Waterway, on the grounds that permanent moorage of boats contravened the City’s zoning bylaw.
The respondents challenged the validity of the zoning bylaw, arguing that restricting moorage encroached upon the federal jurisdiction over navigation and shipping under the Constitution Act. In other words, they argued that the City’s zoning bylaw was venturing in unnavigable waters, jurisdictionally.
Colin Stewart and Kathryn Stuart are pleased to have been invited to participate as part of the Knowledge Cafe at the CAO Forum being held in Victoria on February 20-22, 2018.
In Wu v. Vancouver (City) 2017 BCSC 2072, Madam Justice Murray of the BC Supreme Court held that the City of Vancouver owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs, the purchasers of a home in the Shaughnessy area, who had applied for a development permit for the demolition of an existing house and construction of a new house. According to the decision, the City owed the plaintiffs a duty to make a final decision on their permit application, in accordance with the applicable statutory framework, within a reasonable time. Madam Justice Murray concluded that the City was negligent in this case since it acted in bad faith and failed to conduct itself in accordance with the standard of a reasonably competent municipality when dealing with the plaintiffs’ application. (more…)