The British Columbia Court of Appeal has issued two recent decisions which provide important insight into the ways local governments may utilize restrictive covenants to manage risk and regulate specific uses of land. Click here to continue reading at sms.bc.ca

In Held v. Sechelt (District), 2021 BCCA 350 the British Columbia Court of Appeal affirmed that an approving officer could not be held personally liable in negligence while acting in the course of his duties related to the review, consideration and approval of a subdivision and development within a municipality. Click here to continue reading at sms.bc.ca

Changes to the authority for local governments to hold electronic board and council meetings are afoot.    After the current authority under the COVID Related Measures Act/Ministerial Order M192 to hold electronic meetings expires on September 28, fully electronic regular council, board, and committee meetings will only be possible if council or the board has enacted certain amendments to its procedure bylaw. According to the Province’s “Guidance for Adapting to the New Electronic Meetings Framework”, similar changes are planned for the Regional District Electronic Meetings Regulation.  This document also states that these bylaw amendments cannot receive first reading until after the new electronic meeting provisions of the Community Charter come into effect on September 29.   This means that there will be a gap in the authority to hold fully electronic committee and regular meetings that will last from September 29 until a local government is able to enact the required procedure bylaw amendments. Click here to continue reading at sms.bc.ca

A recent court decision confirms that the interest or bias that is required to prove an elected official has a conflict of interest is one that relates to the distinct interest of the elected official in the particular case and is not merely some financial interest possessed by that elected official that she or he shares with other fellow electors. Click here to continue reading at sms.bc.ca

On June 9, 2021, the British Columbia Court of Appeal released reasons for judgment in Yu v. Richmond (City), 2021 BCCA 226. In this court action the City of Richmond (the “City”) appealed a judicial review decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia in which it was held that pre-building soil densification measures that were undertaken on two properties in Richmond, British Columbia constituted construction within the meaning of the City of Richmond Building  Regulation Bylaw No. 7230 (the “Building Bylaw”).

This decision will be of interest to local governments and building inspectors in British Columbia, as well as building inspectors in other Canadian jurisdictions, as an indication of how courts will assess what constitutes a construction activity within the meaning of a building bylaw. Click here to continue reading at sms.bc.ca