Haldorson et al. v. Coquitlam (City),

• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Judge: Southin, J.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2000 BCCA 0484
• Citation: 2000 BCCA 0484,(2000), 141 B.C.A.C. 295 (CA),141 BCAC 295,(2000), 141 BCAC 295 (CA),141 B.C.A.C. 295
• Date: 21 August 2000
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)

Haldorson v. Coquitlam (2000), 141 B.C.A.C. 295 (CA);

    231 W.A.C. 295

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] B.C.A.C. TBEd. OC.035

Elizabeth Haldorson, Jim Nyhus, Bela Sivak, Roger Loubert and Denis Howarth (petitioners/appellants) v. The City of Coquitlam (respondent/respondent) and Greater Vancouver Regional District and Greater Vancouver Housing Corporation (respondents/respondents)

(CA025602; 2000 BCCA 0484)

Indexed As: Haldorson et al. v. Coquitlam (City)

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Southin, J.A.

August 25, 2000.

Summary:

The Official Community Plan (OCP) designation for property which housed the City of Coquitlam's City Hall was for Civic and Major Institutional use. On November 16, 1998, the City amended the OCP to designate the property for Medium Density Apartment use and rezoned the property. The petitioners sought to quash the bylaws which resulted in the rezoning and the change to the OCP alleging, inter alia, bad faith and a lack of procedural fairness. The allegations included that the City amended the OCP and zoning bylaw to ensure the sale of the prop­erty and the availability of the funds necess­ary to construct the new City Hall.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported in 2 B.C.T.C. 207, dis­missed the application. The petitioners applied for leave to proceed with the appeal.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Southin, J.A., dismissed the application.

Courts - Topic 83

Stare decisis - Authority of judicial deci­sions - Prior decisions of same court - Court of Appeal - Single appellate judge - The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Southin, J.A., stated that the decision of a single appellate judge sitting in Chambers was persuasive, but not binding - See paragraph 6.

Practice - Topic 8907

Appeals - Procedure - Restoring appeal to general list - Delay - The ap­pellants applied for leave to appeal a deci­sion pronounced January 26, 1999 - Although the appellants gave notice of appeal on February 24, 1999, nothing was done in the appeal since that time - There was no certificate of readiness, appeal book or factum - The appeal went on the inactive list February 24, 2000 - The Brit­ish Columbia Court of Appeal, per Southin, J.A., refused to grant leave to proceed with (reinstate) the appeal because of the appellants' delay - See paragraphs 21 to 22.

Cases Noticed:

Stasiuk v. Szabo (1997), 86 B.C.A.C. 253; 142 W.A.C. 253; 29 B.C.L.R.(3d) 49 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Boaler v. Brar et al. (1997), 88 B.C.A.C. 243; 144 W.A.C. 243; 9 C.P.C.(4th) 48 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Galiano Conservancy Association v. Brit­ish Columbia (Minister of Transportation & Highways) et al. (1997), 93 B.C.A.C. 149; 151 W.A.C. 149; 40 B.C.L.R.(3d) 171 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Rowan v. Dunwoody & Co. et al. (1999), 131 B.C.A.C. 311; 214 W.A.C. 311 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Trooper Technologies Inc. et al. v. Thermo Tech Technologies Inc. et al. (1999), 128 B.C.A.C. 139; 208 W.A.C. 139 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Knight's Mineral Exploration & Co. Part­nership v. Corcoran & Co. Partnership et al. (1997), 88 B.C.A.C. 317; 144 W.A.C. 317; 29 B.C.L.R.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Hansard Spruce Mills Ltd., Re, [1954] 4 D.L.R. 590 (B.C.S.C.), not appld. [para. 6].

Jones et al. v. Delta (Municipality) et al. (1992), 14 B.C.A.C. 241; 26 W.A.C. 241; 69 B.C.L.R.(2d) 239 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Statutes Noticed:

Court of Appeal Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 77, sect. 25 [para. 2].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bacon, Francis, Essay of Judicature, gen­erally [para. 7].

Counsel:

Denis Howarth, in person, on behalf of all the appellants;

Daniel R. Bennett, for the respondent, City of Coquitlam;

Robert J. McDonell, for the respondents, Greater Vancouver Regional District and Greater Vancouver Housing Corp.

This application was heard in Vancouver, British Columbia, in Chambers, on August 21, 2000, before Southin, J.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, who delivered the following decision on August 25, 2000.