Denman Island Local Trust Committee v. Stoneman, 2013 BCCA 517

• Judge: Bauman, C.J.B.C., D. Smith and Bennett, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: September 13, 2013
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 2013 BCCA 517;(2013), 347 B.C.A.C. 213 (CA)

Denman Island Local Trust v. Stoneman (2013), 347 B.C.A.C. 213 (CA);

    593 W.A.C. 213

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] B.C.A.C. TBEd. DE.011

Daniel John Stoneman and Debra Monica Stoneman (appellants/petitioners) v. Denman Island Local Trust Committee (respondent/respondent)

(CA040708)

Denman Island Local Trust Committee (respondent/petitioner) v. Daniel John Stoneman and Debra Monica Stoneman (appellants/respondents)

(CA040709; 2013 BCCA 517)

Indexed As: Denman Island Local Trust Committee v. Stoneman

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Bauman, C.J.B.C., D. Smith and Bennett, JJ.A.

December 3, 2013.

Summary:

The Denman Island Local Trust Committee (the Trust) designated the Komas Bluff on Denman Island as a development permit area (DPA). The Komas Bluff DPA was amended by the enactment of Bylaw 111 by the Trust as part of a package of Bylaws. The Trust sought a declaration that the Stonemans unlawfully construed various buildings and structures on their lands and an injunction relating thereto. The Stonemans attacked the validity of Bylaw 111. The Trust's position was that the validity of Bylaw 111 had already been decided in the case of Denman Island Local Trust v. Ellis et al., to which the Stonemans, who had purchased the lands from Ellis, were added as parties: see [2005] B.C.T.C. 1238, affd. (2007), 248 B.C.A.C. 29; 412 W.A.C. 29. The Trust argued that the matters were res judicata and could not be raised again by the Stonemans.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2013] B.C.T.C. Uned. 218, held that the claims that Bylaw 111 was invalid, that the bylaws boundaries were invalid, and that no permit was needed for development were all matters that had been heard and decided. The Court found the matters to be res judicata. The Stonemans appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Cause of action estoppel applied to all of the Stonemans' submissions on Bylaw 111. Their submissions on Bylaw 111 were equally vulnerable in light of issue estoppel.

Estoppel - Topic 379

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Cause of action - See paragraphs 62 to 73.

Estoppel - Topic 386

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Issues decided in prior proceedings (incl. validity of statutes) - See paragraphs 90 to 96.

Land Regulation - Topic 3200

Land use control - Building or development permits - General - See paragraphs 1 to 11.

Cases Noticed:

Denman Island Local Trust Committee v. 4064 Investments Ltd., [2000] B.C.T.C. 842; 2000 BCSC 1618, revd. (2001), 161 B.C.A.C. 215; 263 W.A.C. 215; 2001 BCCA 736, refd to. [para. 14].

Denman Island Local Trust Committee v. Ellis et al., [2005] B.C.T.C. 1238; 2005 BCSC 1238, refd to. [para. 19].

Denman Island Local Trust v. Ellis (2007), 248 B.C.A.C. 29; 412 W.A.C. 29; 2007 BCCA 536, refd to. [para. 29].

McLeod (Grant) Contracting Ltd. v. Forestech Industries Ltd., [2008] B.C.T.C. Uned. 417; 2008 BCSC 756, refd to. [para. 68].

Doering v. Grandview (Town), [1976] 2 S.C.R. 621; 7 N.R. 299, refd to. [para. 68].

Hoque v. Montreal Trust Co. of Canada et al. (1997), 162 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 485 A.P.R. 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 69].

Mohl v. University of British Columbia (2006), 222 B.C.A.C. 258; 368 W.A.C. 258; 2006 BCCA 70, refd to. [para. 71].

Letang v. Cooper, [1965] 1 Q.B. 232 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71].

Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc. et al., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 460; 272 N.R. 1; 149 O.A.C. 1; 2001 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 91].

Angle v. Minister of National Revenue, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 248; 2 N.R. 397, refd to. [para. 92].

Statutes Noticed:

Islands Trust Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 239, sect. 3 [para. 5].

Local Government Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 323, sect. 918 [para. 81]; sect. 919.1(1)(b) [para. 7].

Counsel:

D.W. Burnett, for the appellants;

F.V. Marzari, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on September 13, 2013, before Bauman, C.J.B.C., D. Smith and Bennett, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. In reasons written by Bauman, C.J.B.C., the Court delivered the following judgment, dated December 3, 2013.