Hubbard et al. v. West Vancouver (District), (2005) 222 B.C.A.C. 61 (CA)

• Judge: Southin, Hall and Thackray, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: October 26, 2005
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (2005), 222 B.C.A.C. 61 (CA);2005 BCCA 633

Hubbard v. West Vancouver (2005), 222 B.C.A.C. 61 (CA);

    368 W.A.C. 61

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] B.C.A.C. TBEd. JA.029

Terry R. Hubbard, Paul James Allison, Alistair Kent, Geoffrey Massey, Stathis Tsogas, Richard T. O'Callaghan, Kathleen Staley, Trudie E. Hodges, May R. Shuma and Brian E. Kyle, Wendy Duke, James R. Cruikshank, Don McGregor, Fereidoon Demehri, Eve Boehm, Cecil Scatlan, Arthur Mudry and Joan Ramsay (respondents/petitioners) v. The District of West Vancouver (appellant/respondent)

(CA031345; 2005 BCCA 633)

Indexed As: Hubbard et al. v. West Vancouver (District)

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Southin, Hall and Thackray, JJ.A.

December 21, 2005.

Summary:

The petitioners applied to quash two rezoning bylaws adopted by a municipal district.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported [2003] B.C.T.C. Uned. 726, allowed the application. The municipal district appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.

Municipal Law - Topic 3854

Bylaws - Quashing bylaws - Grounds for judicial interference - Unfairness - A municipal district held a public hearing in respect of two proposed rezoning bylaws - Most people present voiced opposition - The municipal district's planning staff reviewed the submissions presented at the hearing and reported back to council - The report responded to four issues raised at the public hearing, namely: the request for an adjournment, the issue of spot rezoning, traffic and safety and the height of the proposed development - The municipal district council passed the bylaws - The British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld the bylaws where receipt of the planning staff's report did not render the process unfair since it did not contain anything really new that required a further public hearing.

Cases Noticed:

Pitt Polder Preservations Society v. Pitt Meadows (District) (2000), 139 B.C.A.C. 247; 227 W.A.C. 247; 189 D.L.R.(4th) 219; 2000 BCCA 415, consd. [para. 8].

McMartin et al. v. Vancouver (City) (1968), 70 D.L.R.(2d) 38; 65 W.W.R.(N.S.) 385 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 10].

Bourque et al. v. Richmond (Township) (1978), 87 D.L.R.(3d) 349; 6 B.C.L.R. 130 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Bay Village Shopping Centre Ltd. v. Victoria (City), [1973] 1 W.W.R. 634; 31 D.L.R.(3d) 570 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Jones et al. v. Delta (Municipality) et al. (1992), 14 B.C.A.C. 241; 26 W.A.C. 241; 11 M.P.L.R.(2d) 1; 92 D.L.R.(4th) 714 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Hall v. Maple Ridge (District) (1993), 15 M.P.L.R.(2d) 165 (B.C.S.C.), consd. [para. 16].

Royal Oak College v. Burnaby (District) (1993), 14 M.P.L.R.(2d) 137 (B.C.S.C.), consd. [para. 16].

Haldorson et al. v. Coquitlam (City) (1999), 2 B.C.T.C. 207 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 19].

Counsel:

B.S. Williamson, for the appellant;

W.S. Berardino, Q.C., and A.N. MacKay, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard at Vancouver, B.C., on October 26, 2005, by Southin, Hall and Thackray, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Hall, J.A., on December 21, 2005.