A recent decision of the BC Court of Appeal affirms a local government’s authority to act quickly and in good faith to forestall development via downzoning of lands, and it clarifies the doctrine of “commitment to use” in respect of claims of an owner that it has already established a lawful non-conforming use.
In Onni Wyndansea Holdings Ltd. v. Ucluelet (District), 2023 BCCA 342, the Court dismissed an appeal by a developer, Onni Wyndansea Holdings Ltd. (“Onni”), seeking to quash zoning bylaws made by The District of Uclulet (the “District”) which downzoned its property and impeded its development plans or, in the alternative, seeking a declaration that Onni had a lawful non-conforming use for the property which would cause any downzoning to be inapplicable to its plans.
Recently, the B.C. Supreme Court denied a judicial review petition challenging the approval of a re-zoning application for an apartment complex. In Penticton Society for Transparent Governance and Responsible Development v Penticton (City), 2022 BCSC 2111, the Petitioner alleged that the City had effectively created a new, non-existent land use zone when it approved an amending bylaw that up-zoned a property to an existing zone but where the City was required to subsequently grant variances for aspects of the property that did not meet the requirements of that pre-existing zone. (more…)
The BC government has introduced Bill 43 – 2022, the “Housing Supply Act” to the legislature, with the stated intention of providing “a framework for housing targets to be established for specified municipalities, and for the minister or Lieutenant Governor in Council to take certain actions if housing targets are not met.” The proposed legislation represents a significant incursion by the Province into local land use and planning authority, and provides the authority for the Province to directly override the decisions of municipal councils, including the power to enact a bylaw in the name of a municipality (more…)
Annapolis Group Inc. v. Halifax Regional Municipality, 2022 SCC 36
The Supreme Court of Canada has issued a decision coming out of the province of Nova Scotia which broadens the basis upon which a local government may be held liable for “constructive taking” of private lands.
Local governments, like other public bodies and officials, are required by legislation to perform specific public duties and responsibilities. If these “public law duties” are not conducted correctly, this may be grounds for finding that the decision or action was improper, and a court may send the matter back for reconsideration. However, it does not necessarily give rise to a claim in negligence. To successfully bring a lawsuit for negligence, the plaintiff must show that the public body or official owed the plaintiff a “private law duty of care”. (more…)
Kaps v City of Surrey, 2022 BCSC 1191 (“Kaps“) is a recent decision of the BC Supreme Court which highlights the importance of ensuring that prohibitions in a sign bylaw are clear and concise in meaning so as to avoid infringing the constitutional protection for freedom of expression. The Kaps decision also reiterated the evidentiary burden that must be met when a person alleges that a bylaw was enacted for an improper motive or in bad faith. (more…)
The BC Supreme Court recently added to the volume of caselaw regarding the procedural fairness requirements that are applied in reviewing decisions of municipal governments.
SMS was pleased to attend and present at the 2022 LGMA Conference in Penticton. Please see our special edition SMS Newsletter that we prepared for the conference.
How should a council or board respond when one of its members has engaged in inappropriate or undesirable conduct? What sort of process is required? Controversial social media posts by the mayor, public fallout, and the disciplinary steps council attempted to take in response, are at the heart of the BC Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Michetti v. Pouce Coupe (Village), 2022 BCSC 472 (“Michetti”).
In the recent decision of Rosewall v. Sechelt (District of), 2022 BCSC 20, Justice Gomery of the BC Supreme Court has found the Province liable in nuisance arising from circumstances related to the exercise of statutory authority contained in the Emergency Program Act (“EPA“). In his decision, Justice Gomery concluded that the EPA contemplates an emergency as only being “of a temporary nature, as opposed to a usual and enduring state of affairs”. The decision has potential implications for any local governments with states of local emergency that are regularly being extended. (more…)