Burrardview Neighbourhood Association v. Vancouver (City) et al., (2004) 194 B.C.A.C. 78 (CA)
| Judge | Finch, C.J.B.C., Mackenzie and Thackray, JJ.A. |
| Court | Court of Appeal (British Columbia) |
| Case Date | February 27, 2004 |
| Jurisdiction | British Columbia |
| Citations | (2004), 194 B.C.A.C. 78 (CA);2004 BCCA 104 |
Neighbourhood Assoc. v. Vancouver (2004), 194 B.C.A.C. 78 (CA);
317 W.A.C. 78
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2004] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MR.022
Burrardview Neighbourhood Association (respondent/petitioner) v. Lafarge Canada Inc. and Vancouver Port Authority (appellants/respondents) and City of Vancouver (respondent)
(CA30256; CA30269; 2004 BCCA 104)
Indexed As: Burrardview Neighbourhood Association v. Vancouver (City) et al.
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Finch, C.J.B.C., Mackenzie and Thackray, JJ.A.
February 27, 2004.
Summary:
The Vancouver Port Authority owned land in fee simple in its own name. Lafarge proposed to lease the property and construct a marine terminal for off-loading and storage of aggregate shipped by barge to Vancouver from the Sunshine Coast. The proposed facility included a concrete mixing plant with silos (an integrated batch plant). No one applied to the City of Vancouver for a development permit under the Zoning and Development Bylaw. A neighbourhood association petitioned for, inter alia, an order requiring the city to enforce the bylaw.
The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2002] B.C.T.C. 1412, granted the petition and made a declaration that the Port Authority lacked authority to lease the land. The court subsequently declined to amend its order. Lafarge and the Port Authority appealed.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed the petition.
Editor's Note: see also a related case at [2002] B.C.T.C. Uned. 571.
Constitutional Law - Topic 5623
Federal jurisdiction (s. 91) - Federal debt and property - Federal public lands - The Constitution Act 1867, s. 91(1A), gave the federal Crown exclusive jurisdiction over "public property" - The Vancouver Port Authority, a Crown corporation, held real property in its own name - The Port Authority was not an agent of the federal Crown, but was still subject to significant governmental control, in terms of its ability to acquire, hold and dispose of property - Lafarge sought to lease the property to develop and construct a concrete batch plant - At issue was the necessity of a development permit under Vancouver's Zoning and Development Bylaw - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the property was "public property" within the meaning of s. 91(1A), and was therefore exempt from the bylaw's application - See paragraphs 62 to 93, 115.
Courts - Topic 4021
Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Relief against federal boards, commissions or tribunals - The Vancouver Port Authority, a Crown corporation, held real property in its own name - Lafarge sought to lease the property to develop and construct a concrete batch plant - A neighbourhood association sought to compel the city to enforce its Zoning and Development Bylaw, which allegedly required the obtaining of a development permit - The British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that the B.C. Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to make a declaration regarding the capacities of the Port Authority, as such was a "federal board, commission or other tribunal" within s. 18 of the Federal Court Act, exclusive jurisdiction over which was with the Federal Court, Trial Division - See paragraph 55.
Cases Noticed:
Hamilton Harbour Commissioners v. Hamilton (City) et al. (1976), 21 O.R.(2d) 459; 91 D.L.R.(3d) 353; 1 M.P.L.R. 133 (H.C.), affd. (1978), 21 O.R.(2d) 491; 91 D.L.R.(3d) 385; 6 M.P.L.R. 183 (C.A.), dist. [para. 43].
Hamilton (City) v. Hamilton Harbour Commissioners (1972), 27 D.L.R.(3d) 385; [1972] 3 O.R. 61 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].
Halterm Ltd. v. Halifax Port Authority (2000), 184 F.T.R. 16 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 55].
DRL Vacations Ltd. v. Halifax Port Authority, [2003] F.T.R. Uned. 610; 2003 FC 1084, refd to. [para. 55].
Eaton v. Board of Education of Brant County, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 241; 207 N.R. 171; 97 O.A.C. 161; 142 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 58].
Donas v. British Columbia Securities Commission (1997), 90 B.C.A.C. 252; 147 W.A.C. 252; 147 D.L.R.(4th) 668 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].
Aziz v. Aziz (2000), 139 B.C.A.C. 302; 227 W.A.C. 302; 2000 BCCA 358, refd to. [para. 58].
Mississauga (City) v. Greater Toronto Airports Authority et al. (2000), 138 O.A.C. 1; 50 O.R.(3d) 641; 192 D.L.R.(4th) 443; 16 M.P.L.R.(3d) 213 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2001), 274 N.R. 196 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 63].
Canada v. Powers, [1923] Ex. C.R. 131, refd to. [para. 74].
R. v. Red Line Ltd. (1930), 54 C.C.C. 271 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].
Reid v. Canadian Farm Loan Board, [1937] 4 D.L.R. 248 (Man. K.B.), refd to. [para. 74].
Ottawa (City) v. Shore and Horowitz Construction Co. (1960), 22 D.L.R.(2d) 247 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 74].
Carbert v. Farm Credit Corp. (1993), 108 Sask.R. 119; 101 D.L.R.(4th) 308; [1993] 5 W.W.R. 58 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 74].
LeBlanc, Mollins and LeBlanc, New Brunswick (Province) (execution creditor claimant) and Federal Business Development Bank, Re (1984), 54 N.B.R.(2d) 329; 140 A.P.R. 329; 8 D.L.R.(4th) 143; 31 R.P.R. 315 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].
British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General) (1889), 14 A.C. 295 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 75].
McGregor v. Esquimalt & Nanaimo Railway Co., [1907] A.C. 462 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 75].
Calgary and Edmonton Land Co. v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1911] 45 S.C.R. 170, refd to. [para. 75].
Spooner Oils Ltd. v. Turner Valley Gas Conservation Board, [1933] S.C.R. 629; [1933] 4 D.L.R. 545, refd to. [para. 75].
Mercury Oils Ltd. v. Vulcan-Brown Petroleums Ltd., [1943] S.C.R. 37; [1943] 1 D.L.R. 369, refd to. [para. 75].
Delta v. Aztec Aviation Group (1985), 28 M.P.L.R. 215 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 88].
Canadian Occidental Petroleum Ltd. v. District of North Vancouver et al. (1986), 13 B.C.L.R.(2d) 34 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 88].
Bell Canada v. Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (Qué.) and Bilodeau et al., [1988] 1 S.C.R. 749; 85 N.R. 295; 15 Q.A.C. 217; 51 D.L.R.(4th) 161, refd to. [para. 96].
Bank of Nova Scotia et al. v. Superintendent of Financial Institutions (B.C.) et al. (2003), 178 B.C.A.C. 118; 292 W.A.C. 118; 223 D.L.R.(4th) 126; 11 B.C.L.R.(4th) 206; 2003 BCCA 29, leave to appeal refused, [2003] S.C.C.A. No. 229, refd to. [para. 96].
R. v. Kupchanko (D.W.) (2002), 164 B.C.A.C. 41; 268 W.A.C. 41; 209 D.L.R.(4th) 658; 97 B.C.L.R.(3d) 219; 2002 BCCA 63, refd to. [para. 96].
Reference Re Validity of Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (Stevedores case), [1955] S.C.R. 529; [1955] 3 D.L.R. 721, refd to. [para. 101].
Whitbread v. Walley et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1273; 120 N.R. 109; 77 D.L.R.(4th) 25, refd to. [para. 102].
Ordon et al. v. Grail, [1998] 3 S.C.R. 437; 232 N.R. 201; 115 O.A.C. 1; 166 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 107].
Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2; 58 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 25 C.P.R.(3d) 417, refd to. [para. 108].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (2003) (Looseleaf), p. 1-5 [para. 89].
LaForest, G.V., Natural Resources and Public Property under the Canadian Constitution (1969), pp. 134, 135 [para. 73].
Counsel:
D.G. Cowper, Q.C., and D. Crerar, for the appellant, Vancouver Port Authority;
J.M. Sullivan and D.T. Neave, for the appellant, Lafarge Canada Inc.;
D.A. Hobbs, for the respondent, Burrardview Neighbourhood Association;
P.J. Scheer, for the respondent, City of Vancouver;
N.E. Brown, for the respondent, Attorney General of British Columbia.
This appeal was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on December 2 and 3, 2003, before Finch, C.J.B.C., Mackenzie and Thackray, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.
On February 27, 2004, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered and the following judgments were filed:
Finch, C.J.B.C. - see paragraphs 1 to 114;
MacKenzie, J.A. (Thackray, J.A., concurring) - see paragraph 115.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Table Of Cases
...788 Burrardview Neighbourhood Association v Vancouver (City), 2002 BCSC 1412, rev’d 2004 BCCA 104, rev’d 2007 SCC 23 ...................... 204 BWB Navigation Co v Kiltuish (The) (1922), 21 Ex CR 398, 67 DLR 525 .....................................................................................
-
Burrardview Neighbourhood Association v. Vancouver (City) et al., (2007) 241 B.C.A.C. 1 (SCC)
...(Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 91(10)). Lafarge and the VPA appealed. The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported (2004), 194 B.C.A.C. 78; 317 W.A.C. 78 , allowed the appeal and dismissed the petition. The court held that the VPA land constituted "public property"......
-
Maritime Law Jurisdiction in Canada
...boat while moored, remains an open question. 178 Ordon , above note 2 at para 38. 179 2006 BCSC 1492 [ Jackson ]. 180 2007 SCC 23, aff’g 2004 BCCA 104, rev’g 2002 BCSC 1412. 181 Jackson , above note 179 at para 28. 182 Ibid at paras 22–24. 183 2003 BCSC 1247. 184 (1992), 98 DLR (4th) 316 (B......
-
Burrardview Neighbourhood Association v. Vancouver (City) et al., (2007) 362 N.R. 208 (SCC)
...(Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 91(10)). Lafarge and the VPA appealed. The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported (2004), 194 B.C.A.C. 78; 317 W.A.C. 78 , allowed the appeal and dismissed the petition. The court held that the VPA land constituted "public property", as s. 9......
-
Burrardview Neighbourhood Association v. Vancouver (City) et al., (2007) 362 N.R. 208 (SCC)
...(Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 91(10)). Lafarge and the VPA appealed. The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported (2004), 194 B.C.A.C. 78; 317 W.A.C. 78 , allowed the appeal and dismissed the petition. The court held that the VPA land constituted "public property", as s. 9......
-
Burrardview Neighbourhood Association v. Vancouver (City) et al., (2007) 241 B.C.A.C. 1 (SCC)
...(Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 91(10)). Lafarge and the VPA appealed. The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported (2004), 194 B.C.A.C. 78; 317 W.A.C. 78 , allowed the appeal and dismissed the petition. The court held that the VPA land constituted "public property"......
-
Canadian Western Bank et al. v. Alberta, 2005 ABCA 12
...110; 82 Sask.R. 120, refd to. [paras. 52, 133]. Burrardview Neighbourhood Association v. Vancouver (City) et al., [2004] 7 W.W.R. 27; 194 B.C.A.C. 78; 317 W.A.C. 78; 2004 BCCA 104, leave to appeal granted, [2004] S.C.C.A. No. 185, refd to. [para. 54]. Morgan v. Prince Edward Island (Attorne......
-
R. v. G.F., 2018 BCCA 339
...Board of Education, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 241; Guindon v. Canada, 2015 SCC 41; Burrardview Neighbourhood Assn. v. Lafarge Canada Inc. et al, 2004 BCCA 104. The crucial role the notice provisions play in Charter litigation was explained by Justices Abella and Wagner in their dissenting reasons (no......
-
Table Of Cases
...788 Burrardview Neighbourhood Association v Vancouver (City), 2002 BCSC 1412, rev’d 2004 BCCA 104, rev’d 2007 SCC 23 ...................... 204 BWB Navigation Co v Kiltuish (The) (1922), 21 Ex CR 398, 67 DLR 525 .....................................................................................
-
Maritime Law Jurisdiction in Canada
...boat while moored, remains an open question. 178 Ordon , above note 2 at para 38. 179 2006 BCSC 1492 [ Jackson ]. 180 2007 SCC 23, aff’g 2004 BCCA 104, rev’g 2002 BCSC 1412. 181 Jackson , above note 179 at para 28. 182 Ibid at paras 22–24. 183 2003 BCSC 1247. 184 (1992), 98 DLR (4th) 316 (B......