In the recent decision of Sevin v. Prince George (City), the B.C. Supreme Court declared invalid a zoning bylaw amendment that would have allowed a former elementary school in a rural zone to be used as a 30-bed addiction treatment centre.  The Supreme Court found that the amendment was inconsistent with the City’s Official Community Plan (the “OCP”), contrary to section 884(2) of the Local Government Act which requires that all bylaws adopted after the adoption of an official community plan must be “consistent” with the plan. (more…)

The new Limitation Act (the “New Act”) will affect many types of claims typically faced by local governments.  The biggest changes in the New Act are a shift to a basic limitation period of 2 years for most claims and a reduction in the ultimate limitation period from 30 to 15 years.

Before describing the changes under the New Act, it is important to state what I mean by “basic limitation period” and “ultimate limitation period”.  The basic limitation period is the time in which a person must bring a claim under normal circumstances.  If the person attempts to bring a claim outside of the limitation period, the court can dismiss the claim on the basis that the claim has been “extinguished”.  The basic limitation period is what people usually mean when they refer to the “limitation period” for a certain type of claim. (more…)

In Okanagan Land Development Corporation v. City of Vernon 2012 BCCA 332, the Court of Appeal overturned the lower court decision which had held a latecomer bylaw to be invalid on the basis that the municipality was not authorized to impose a per unit charge based on future potential development of the benefiting properties, payable at the time of subdivision.

There were four main issues on appeal, two of which were based on the statutory interpretation of section 939(5)(c) of the Local Government Act (“LGA”);  the third dealt with the question of certainty; and the fourth with the issue of discrimination. (more…)

The Supreme Court of Canada has recently released its judgment in the case of Halifax (Regional Municipality) v. Canada (Public Works and Government Services), the second in a line of cases decided by the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to the application of the Federal Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act (the “Act”).  This decision follows on the 2010 judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in Montreal (City) v. Montreal Port Authority, which was the subject of an article in the Summer 2010 edition of LoGo Notebook.  Please see that Article for further background on the Montreal Port Authority case, as well as the payment in lieu of taxes scheme. (more…)

The recent British Columbia Supreme Court case of Scory v. Langley (Township) may be of interest to local government.

The Plaintiff, Mr. Scory, brought action against the Township for damages allegedly resulting from the Defendant Township delaying the issuance of a building permit through what the Plaintiff claimed was an abuse of public office. (more…)

As noted in our client bulletin dated April 2012, respecting the BC Supreme Court decision in Neskonlith Indian Band v. Salmon Arm (City), although local governments may not have a duty to consult and accommodate First Nations that parallels that of the Crown, the Crown’s duty to consult and accommodate remains an important fact of life for local governments where local government concerns intersect with the exercise of provincial powers.  This is illustrated by the recent BC Court of Appeal decision in Adams Lake Indian Band v. Lieutenant Governor in Council. (more…)

The recent decision of the BC Court of Appeal in Fisher Road Holdings Ltd. v. Cowichan Valley (Regional District) highlights the ongoing challenges faced by local government elected and appointed officials in ensuring a fair public hearing process that can withstand judicial review.

The case involved the rezoning of land in the Cowichan Valley owned by Fisher Road Holdings Ltd. (“Fisher Road”) and used for a composting and recycling operation under license from the CVRD.  The CVRD had proposed to eliminate composting and recycling from the uses permitted on the Fisher Road property and, at the same time, was processing a Waste Stream Management License amendment (the “License Amendment”) to allow Fisher Road to expand its composting facility operations.  Neighbourhood concerns about the composting facility use resulted in the preparation of both an environmental report (the ‘EBA Report’) and a report from a citizens advisory committee that the CVRD had instructed to consider the question of the proposed Waste Stream License (more…)

In the case of William v. Kelowna (City), 2012 BCSC 421, the plaintiff, William, brought an action against the City of Kelowna and one of its employees, O’Reilly, on the basis that the Defendants were negligent in processing a criminal record check and had defamed her by advising her prospective employer of the content of the criminal record check. (more…)

A recent British Columbia Supreme Court case involving the Columbia Shuswap Regional District and a proposed development of a campground on the shore of Shuswap Lake within the Regional District may be of some interest to local government.

In MM Project Management Services Inc., Re, 2012 BCSC 47 the owner of the campground lands sought declarations of the Court entitling it to protection under section 911 of the Local Government Act over certain non-conforming uses. (more…)

When the interpretation of any bylaw is in question, the court’s task is to determine the intent of the Board or Council, as expressed through the wording of the bylaw.  That is not always a straightforward matter. Two recent cases illustrate the approach the courts use when interpreting zoning bylaws: Whistler (Resort Municipality) v. Whistler Aggregates Ltd., 2012 BCSC 151; and Okanagan-Similkameen (Regional District) v. Leach, 2012 BCSC 63. In both cases the court rejected the local government’s own interpretation of the bylaw. (more…)