Virdis v. North Vancouver (City) et al., (2010) 286 B.C.A.C. 253 (CA)

• Judge: Lowry, D. Smith and Bennett, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: April 12, 2010
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (2010), 286 B.C.A.C. 253 (CA);2010 BCCA 222

Virdis v. North Vancouver (2010), 286 B.C.A.C. 253 (CA);

    484 W.A.C. 253

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MY.015

Sabrina A. Virdis (appellant/petitioner) v. The Corporation of the City of North Vancouver and Jordan Kutev Architect (respondents/respondents)

(CA037472; 2010 BCCA 222)

Indexed As: Virdis v. North Vancouver (City) et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Lowry, D. Smith and Bennett, JJ.A.

May 5, 2010.

Summary:

The North Vancouver City Council voted to adopt two amending bylaws that changed the land use designation of six residential properties. A resident living near the development challenged the validity of the amendments and petitioned for an order quashing the bylaws, based solely on procedural grounds.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported [2009] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1118, dismissed the petition. The resident appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Land Regulation - Topic 2620.1

Land use control - Zoning bylaws - Enactment and interpretation - Rezoning application - Procedure - The North Vancouver City Council voted to adopt two amending bylaws that changed the land use designation of six residential properties - A resident living nearby petitioned to quash the amended bylaws solely on procedural grounds - An applications judge dismissed the petition - The resident appealed - The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The court noted that, as part of the process, the city council had referred the matter to the City Community Development Department for discussion with the developers and area residents to be followed by a report to Council - The court held that while this procedure was not authorized by legislation or the city's bylaws, this was not a case where a municipal council had breached or acted contrary to its procedural bylaws - Any procedural deficiency here did not render the amending bylaws invalid - At best there was an irregularity in the way council proceeded and there was no place for the court's intervention.

Municipal Law - Topic 3467

Bylaws - Amendment or variation - Zoning bylaws - [See Land Regulation - Topic 2620.1 ].

Municipal Law - Topic 3475

Bylaws - Amendment or variation - Quashing (incl. grounds) - [See Land Regulation - Topic 2620.1 ].

Cases Noticed:

Botterill et al. v. Cranbrook (City) et al., [2000] B.C.T.C. 587; 13 M.P.L.R.(3d) 153; 2000 BCSC 1225, refd to. [para. 19].

Silverado Land Corp. et al. v. Courtenay (City) et al., [2000] B.C.T.C. 887; 15 M.P.L.R.(3d) 279; 2000 BCSC 1667, refd to. [para. 19].

Hidber et al. v. Bulkley-Nechako (Regional District), [2006] B.C.T.C. Uned. C94; 23 M.P.L.R.(4th) 300; 2006 BCSC 789, refd to. [para. 19].

Newson v. Esquimalt (Township), [1989] B.C.J. No. 525 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 29].

Houde v. Quebec Catholic School Commission, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 937; 17 N.R. 451, refd to. [para. 32].

Westcliff Management Ltd. and Fredericton (City), Re (1980), 32 N.B.R.(2d) 654; 78 A.P.R. 654; 118 D.L.R.(3d) 101 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Rogers, Ian MacF., The Law of Canadian Municipal Corporations (2nd Ed.) (1971 Looseleaf), vol. 1, p. 108, § 48.22 [para. 36].

Counsel:

J.H. Schenk, for the appellant;

D.R. Bennett and A. Kong, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on April 12, 2010, at Vancouver, British Columbia, before Lowry, D. Smith and Bennett, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. Lowry, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal on May 5, 2010.