Pitt Meadows (District) v. Jones (Ron) Ltd., 2004 BCCA 277

• Judge: Rowles, Ryan and Newbury, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: February 02, 2004
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 2004 BCCA 277;(2004), 197 B.C.A.C. 57 (CA)

Pitt Meadows v. Jones Ltd. (2004), 197 B.C.A.C. 57 (CA);

    323 W.A.C. 57

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MY.052

The Corporation of the District of Pitt Meadows (appellant/plaintiff) v. Ron Jones Ltd. (respondent/defendant)

(CA030800; 2004 BCCA 277)

Indexed As: Pitt Meadows (District) v. Jones (Ron) Ltd.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Rowles, Ryan and Newbury, JJ.A.

May 18, 2004.

Summary:

The defendant developed a new Toyota auto dealership in the District of Pitt Mead­ows, which was located across a highway from the old Toyota dealership. The District of Pitt Meadows sought summary judgment against the defendant under rule 18A for $85,286.86 in road development cost charges on account of the development of the new dealership.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2003] B.C.T.C. 597, dismissed Pitt Meadows' claim. Pitt Mead­ows appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the order dis­missing Pitt Meadows' claim and substituted an order that Pitt Meadows have judgment for the amount claimed.

Estoppel - Topic 1394

Estoppel in pais (by conduct) - Cir­cumstances where doctrine not applicable - To defeat positive statutory obligation or contravene public policy - The District of Pitt Meadows claimed against the defen­dant for road development cost charges (DCCs) on account of the defendant's development of a new auto dealership in Pitt Meadows - Pitt Meadows had not enforced payment of the DCCs until some 90 days after the issuance of the building permit to the defendant - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the doctrine of estoppel could not operate to prevent Pitt Meadows from recovering the DCCs even though they were not collected at the building permit stage - The munici­pality enacted the bylaw enabling the collection of DCCs without scope for discretion - Where the law left no discre­tion, estoppel could not be invoked to prevent the application of its strict terms - The court also considered the decision in Mount Sinai Hospital v. Quebec (S.C.C.) where Binnie, J., stated that even where there was discretion, but an overriding public interest motivated the intent of the law, estoppel would similarly not hinder the application of the law - See paragraphs 66 to 75.

Municipal Law - Topic 2141

Municipal taxation or levies - Development charges - General - The defendant de­veloped a new Toyota auto dealership in Pitt Meadows across a highway from the old Toyota dealership - Lot 2, on which the new dealership was developed, was created by the filing of a subdivision plan, which reconfigured four existing vacant parcels into three new parcels - The Dis­trict of Pitt Meadows sought summary judgment against the defendant for $85,286.86 in road development cost charges on account of the development of the new dealership - The trial judge dis­missed Pitt Meadows' claim - The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed an appeal - The court held, inter alia, that in determining whether there would be any new capital cost burdens created by the new dealership, the trial judge erred by comparing the likely burden created by the old and new auto dealerships rather than comparing the burden of the previously vacant and unimproved Lot 2 with the newly developed Lot 2 - See paragraph 36 to 38.

Municipal Law - Topic 2141

Municipal taxation or levies - Development charges - General - The defendant de­veloped a new Toyota auto dealership in Pitt Meadows across a highway from the old Toyota dealership - The District of Pitt Meadows sought summary judgment against the defendant for $85,286.86 in road development cost charges on account of the development of the new dealership - The trial judge dismissed Pitt Meadows' claim - The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed an appeal - The court held, inter alia, that the trial judge erred in holding that s. 933(3)(a) of the Local Government Act placed an onus on the municipality to establish that there would be new capital cost burdens on the munici­pality as a result of the new development - See paragraphs 39 to 48.

Municipal Law - Topic 2142

Municipal taxation or levies - Development charges - Time for imposition or payment - The District of Pitt Meadows claimed against the defendant for road development cost charges on account of the defendant's development of a new auto dealership in Pitt Meadows - The defendant argued that under s. 933(5) of the Local Government Act, development cost charges (DCCs) had to be paid at the time of the approval of the subdivision or the issuance of the building permit and that a municipality could not impose DCCs at any time other than those two identified occasions - The British Columbia Court of Appeal rejected the defendant's argument - Pitt Meadows had jurisdiction to recover DCCs after the issuance of the building permit - Section 933(5) was not a restriction on a munici­pality's ability to collect the charges that were within its power to make under s. 933(1) - Rather it was a requirement on the developer who faced DCCs to pay them at one of two particular points in the development process - Section 933(5) was a specific power that came within the general power of s. 933(1) and, under s. 3(2) of the Act, the general power was not to be interpreted as being limited by the specific power - See paragraphs 56 to 65.

Municipal Law - Topic 2142

Municipal taxation or levies - Development charges - Time for imposition or payment - The District of Pitt Meadows claimed against the defendant for road development cost charges on account of the defendant's development of a new auto dealership in Pitt Meadows - The defendant argued that s. 5 of the Pitt Meadows Development Cost Charge Imposition Bylaw No. 1573 required that development cost charges be paid at the subdivision stage where there was an application for a subdivision of property and that the Bylaw did not permit Pitt Meadows to demand payment later - The British Columbia Court of Appeal rejected the defendant's argument - Noth­ing in the wording of s. 5 of the Bylaw prevented municipal officials from making, at the time of subdivision, an assessment of whether the subdivision would result in any incremental service burden to the municipality's road infrastructure and to exercise their discretion based on that assessment - That was what happened in this case - The defendant's argument also did not accord with s. 3 of the Local Gov­ernment Act, which guided the interpreta­tion of the powers conferred on local governments by the Act - See paragraphs 50 to 55.

Cases Noticed:

Nanaimo (City) v. Rascal Trucking Ltd. et al., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 342; 251 N.R. 42; 132 B.C.A.C. 298; 215 W.A.C. 298; 2000 SCC 13, refd to. [para. 11].

Philps v. Saanich (District) (1987), 36 M.P.L.R. 213 (B.C.S.C.), consd. [para. 17].

549196 B.C. Ltd. et al. v. Kamloops (City) (2000), 135 B.C.A.C. 31; 221 W.A.C. 31; 10 M.P.L.R.(3d) 314; 2000 BCCA 91, consd. [para. 18].

Hunter v. Surrey (District) (1979), 18 B.C.L.R. 84 (S.C.), consd. [para. 19].

Campbell, Saunders Ltd. v. North Van­couver (District), [1999] B.C.T.C. Uned. 664; 5 M.P.L.R.(3d) 56 (S.C.), not folld. [para. 12].

Palisade Properties (1985) Ltd. v. Surrey (District) (1991), 5 M.P.L.R.(2d) 206 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 42].

Elsom et al. v. Approving Officer (Delta) et al. (1995), 60 B.C.A.C. 117; 99 W.A.C. 117; 7 B.C.L.R.(3d) 271; 29 M.P.L.R.(2d) 32 (C.A.), consd. [para. 45].

Elsom v. Dickinson, [1994] B.C.W.L.D. 353 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 46].

Leigh Square Holdings Ltd. v. Port Co­quitlam (City) (1993), 27 B.C.A.C. 277; 45 W.A.C. 277 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

Coho Creek Estates Ltd. v. Maple Ridge (District) (1996), 78 B.C.A.C. 53; 128 W.A.C. 53; 25 B.C.L.R.(3d) 355; 34 M.P.L.R.(2d) 6 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

St. Ann's Island Shooting and Fishing Club Ltd. v. Canada, [1950] S.C.R. 211; [1950] 2 D.L.R. 225, refd to. [para. 72].

Aurchem Exploration Ltd. v. Whitehorse Mining District (Mining Recorder) (1992), 54 F.T.R. 134; 91 D.L.R.(4th) 710; 7 Admin. L.R.(2d) 168 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 72].

Granger v. Canada Employment and Im­migration Commission (1986), 69 N.R. 212; 29 D.L.R.(4th) 501 (F.C.A.), affd. [1989] 1 S.C.R. 141; 91 N.R. 63, refd to. [para. 72].

Canada v. Dominion of Canada Postage Stamp Vending Co., [1930] S.C.R. 500; [1930] 4 D.L.R. 241, refd to. [para. 72].

Mount Sinai Hospital Center et al. v. Que­bec (Minister of Health and Social Ser­vices), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 281; 271 N.R. 104; 2001 SCC 41, consd. [para. 73].

Langley (Township) v. Wood (1999), 126 B.C.A.C. 136; 206 W.A.C. 136; 173 D.L.R.(4th) 695; 2 M.P.L.R.(3d) 35; 1999 BCCA 260, consd. [para. 74].

Statutes Noticed:

Local Government Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, s. 323, sect. 933(3)(a), sect. 933(5) [para. 15].

Pitt Meadows (District), Development Cost Charge Bylaw No. 1573, sect. 5 [para. 25].

Counsel:

M.C. Woodward, for the appellant;

A.W. Dabb, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on February 2, 2004, at Vancouver, British Columbia, be­fore Rowles, Ryan and Newbury, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The following decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Rowles, J.A., on May 18, 2004.