Maple Ridge (District) v. Thornhill Aggregates Ltd. et al., (1998) 109 B.C.A.C. 188 (CA)

• Judge: McEachern, C.J.B.C., Cumming and Finch, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: June 23, 1998
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (1998), 109 B.C.A.C. 188 (CA);1998 CanLII 6446 (BC CA);162 DLR (4th) 203;[1999] 3 WWR 93;54 BCLR (3d) 155;109 BCAC 188;47 MPLR (2d) 249

Maple Ridge v. Thornhill Aggre. (1998), 109 B.C.A.C. 188 (CA);

   177 W.A.C. 188

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] B.C.A.C. TBEd. JL.048

District of Maple Ridge (plaintiff/defendant by counterclaim/respondent) v. Thornhill Aggregates Ltd., Montcalm Aggregates Ltd. and Maple Ridge Ready-Mix Ltd. (defendants/plaintiffs by counterclaim/appellants) and Allard Contractors Ltd., Albion Aggregates Ltd. and Maple Ridge Ready-Mix (1993) Ltd. (plaintiffs by counterclaim)

(CA020643)

District of Maple Ridge (plaintiff/defendant by counterclaim/respondent) v. Thornhill Aggregates Ltd., Montcalm Aggregates Ltd. and Maple Ridge Ready-Mix Ltd. (defendants/plaintiffs by counterclaim/appellants) and Allard Contractors Ltd., Albion Aggregates Ltd. and Maple Ridge Ready-Mix Ltd. (plaintiffs by counterclaim)

(CA022685)

Indexed As: Maple Ridge (District) v. Thornhill Aggregates Ltd. et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

McEachern, C.J.B.C., Cumming and Finch, JJ.A.

June 23, 1998.

Summary:

A municipality applied for a permanent injunction under s. 750 of the Municipal Act to restrain the defendants from using a ready-mix concrete plant in a gravel pit. The defendants had unsuccessfully applied for an amendment of the Official Community Plan, a rezoning and a Temporary Industrial Use Permit. The defendants counterclaimed for a reconsideration of their application. Fol­low­ing a summary trial under rule 18A, a Chambers judge granted the municipality injunctive relief. Following a trial, the trial judge dismissed the defendants' counter­claim. See 38 M.P.L.R.(2d) 121. The defen­dants appealed both decisions.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, McEachern, C.J.B.C., dissenting, dismissed the appeals.

Administrative Law - Topic 262

The hearing and decision - Right to a hearing - When right exists - The British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that there was a common law right to a hearing in the case of legislative acts - At common law the right to a hearing may arise where a decision may lead to the loss of some existing right or privilege, but not where a party was seeking a right or privilege - See paragraphs 30, 32.

Administrative Law - Topic 550

The hearing and decision - Decisions of the tribunal - Reasons for decisions - Effect of lack of - [See Administrative Law - Topic 2010 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2010

Natural justice - General principles - Cir­cumstances when private or individual rights affected - The defendants' ready-mix concrete operation contravened the appli­cable zoning bylaw - The municipal­ity obtained an injunction pursuant to s. 750 of the Municipal Act to enforce the bylaw - The defendants counterclaimed that the municipal council or its employees exer­cised bad faith or procedural unfair­ness in denying their application for rezoning and a temporary industrial use permit (TIUP) - The British Columbia Court of Appeal affirmed that there was no lack of pro­cedural fairness, particularly because of council's failure to give reasons for its refusal of a TIUP - The defendants' appli­cation did not involve the revocation or loss of any existing right or privilege - See paragraphs 15 to 38.

Injunctions - Topic 697

Granting an injunction - Considerations affecting grant - Private benefit vs. public interest - The British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that where an injunction was sought to enforce a public right, the courts will be reluctant to refuse it on discretion­ary grounds - To the extent that the def­endants might suffer hardship from the imposition and enforcement of an injunc­tion, that will not outweigh the public interest in having the law obeyed - See paragraph 9.

Municipal Law - Topic 381

Councils - Meetings - Public hearings - General - The British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that the right of an applicant to make submissions concerning a change to zoning or the Official Community Plan only arose if the municipal council decided to take the consequent bylaw to third reading, in which case the Municipal Act required that a public hearing be held - See paragraph 31.

Municipal Law - Topic 430

Councils - Decisions of - Reasons - [See Administrative Law - Topic 2010 ].

Municipal Law - Topic 1409

Powers of municipalities - General prin­ciples - Legislative power defined - The British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that the decision of a municipal council not to proceed with a proposed amendment to the Official Community Plan was a legis­lative function - See paragraph 29.

Municipal Law - Topic 3983

Bylaws - Enforcement or prosecution - Injunction (incl. cease and desist order) - The defendants' ready-mix concrete oper­ation on the land in question contravened the applicable zoning bylaw and was illegal - The municipality obtained an injunction pursuant to s. 750 of the Mu­nicipal Act to enforce a public right (en­forcement of a zoning bylaw) - A judge, however, stayed the enforcement of the injunction until resolution of the defen­dants' counterclaim that the municipal council or its employees exercised bad faith or procedural unfairness in denying the defendants' application for rezoning and a temporary industrial use permit - The British Columbia Court of Appeal affirmed the judge's decision - See para­graphs 5 to 14.

Practice - Topic 8808

Appeals - Duty of appellate court respect­ing conclusions or interpretation of trial judge - The British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that it was not open for the Court of Appeal to overturn a trial judg­ment when the only point in issue was the interpretation of the evidence as a whole - See paragraph 19.

Cases Noticed:

Maple Ridge (District) v. Thornhill Ag­gre­gates Ltd. (1993), 14 M.P.L.R.(2d) 288 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

Maple Ridge (District) v. Thornhill Ag­gre­gates Ltd. et al. (1994), 48 B.C.A.C. 118; 78 W.A.C. 118; 21 M.P.L.R.(2d) 316 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Maple Ridge (District) v. Board of Vari­ance of Maple Ridge (District) (1996), 36 M.P.L.R.(2d) 215 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

Maple Ridge (District) v. Board of Vari­ance of Maple Ridge (District) et al. (1997), 100 B.C.A.C. 105; 163 W.A.C. 105; 43 M.P.L.R.(2d) 182 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1998), 228 N.R. 197; 110 B.C.A.C. 160; 178 W.A.C. 160 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

Shaughnessy Heights Property Owners' Association v. Northup (1958), 12 D.L.R.(2d) 760 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 7].

Kamloops (City) v. Baines (1996), 32 M.P.L.R.(2d) 264 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 7].

Nelson (City) v. Kranz (1990), 3 M.P.L.R.(2d) 258 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 7].

Saskatchewan (Minister of the Environ­ment) v. Redberry Development Corp. et al., [1987] 4 W.W.R. 654; 58 Sask.R. 134 (Q.B.), affd. [1992] 2 W.W.R. 544; 100 Sask.R. 36; 18 W.A.C. 36 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Galiano Island Trust Committee et al. (1995), 63 B.C.A.C. 81; 104 W.A.C. 81; 28 M.P.L.R.(2d) 157 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 16, 66].

Wilson v. Guichon and Hui (1993), 23 B.C.A.C. 284; 39 W.A.C. 284; 76 B.C.L.R.(2d) 191 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Schreiber Brothers Ltd. v. Currie Products Ltd. and Gulf Oil Canada Ltd., [1980] 2 S.C.R. 78; 31 N.R. 335, refd to. [para. 19].

Blyth v. Northumberland (County) (1990), 2 M.P.L.R.(2d) 155 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 29].

Bates v. Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone and Others, [1972] 1 W.L.R. 1373 (Ch. D.), refd to. [paras. 30, 66].

McInnes v. Onslow-Fane, [1978] 1 W.L.R. 1520 (Ch. D.), refd to. [paras. 32, 66].

Smith v. Surrey (City), [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. 123 (S.C.), consd. [para. 34].

Kirkfield Park & Arthur Oliver Residents Association Inc. v. Winnipeg (City) et al., [1996] 4 W.W.R. 393; 107 Man.R.(2d) 259; 109 W.A.C. 259 (C.A.), consd. [para. 37]; refd to. [para. 66].

Birch Builders Ltd. et al. v. Esquimalt (Township) et al. (1992), 12 B.C.A.C. 144; 23 W.A.C. 144; 66 B.C.L.R.(2d) 208 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 66].

Westfair Foods Ltd. et al. v. Saanich (Dis­trict) et al. (1997), 100 B.C.A.C. 223; 163 W.A.C. 223 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 66].

Wiswell et al. v. Greater Winnipeg, [1965] S.C.R. 512, refd to. [para. 67].

Polai v. Toronto (City), [1973] S.C.R. 38, refd to. [para. 76].

Statutes Noticed:

Maple Ridge (District) Bylaws, Procedure Bylaw No. 3100-1982, sect. 5(a), sect. 5(b) [para. 22]; No. 3770-1986, sect. 2, sect. 6, sect. 7, sect. 8 [para. 25].

Municipal Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 290, sect. 205(1) [para. 21]; sect. 750 [para. 1]; sect. 890(1), sect. 890(2) [para. 26]; sect. 895(1) [para. 24].

Counsel:

C.F. Willms and S.R. Coval, for the ap­pel­lants;

F.T. Williamson and J.G. Yardley, for the respondent.

These appeals were heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on June 1 and 2, 1998, before McEachern, C.J.B.C., Cumming and Finch, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

On June 23, 1998, the judgment of the court was delivered and the following opin­ions were filed:

Cumming, J.A. (Finch, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 38;

McEachern, C.J.B.C., dissenting - see paragraphs 39 to 78.