Source: https://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/about/archives/cases/cany-v-cov-supreme-court/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 21:10:49+00:00

Document:
Place and Date of Trial/Hearing: Vancouver, B.C.
Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C.
The petitioner seeks judicial review of a number of decisions made by the City of Vancouver (the “City”) and its Development Permit Board (the “DPB”) in connection with the rezoning of city-owned property at 508 Helmcken Street, and the development of a property across the street at 1077-1099 Richards Street, in the New Yaletown neighbourhood.
The City and the DPB are joined as the statutory decision-makers whose decisions are challenged.
Brenhill Developments Ltd. (“Brenhill”) is joined as the ultimately intended purchaser and developer of 508 Helmcken Street (“508”), and the developer and vendor of 1077-1099 (“1099”) Richards Street.
 The parties have assembled an extensive factual record.
to provide safe, affordable housing for low-income and/or seniors and/or individuals with disabilities and assist them with their personal and social needs through the Community Worker Program.
Jubilee House was built in 1985 and contains 87 units occupied by 89 residents. Most of the residents receive war veterans’ allowances, Canada Pension disability payments, guaranteed income supplement, spouses’ allowances or income from the GAIN program.
Jubilee House is in a state of disrepair, according to a 2009 engineering report in the possession of the City. Significant expenditures would be required to address its deficiencies.
The City has, for some time, been concerned to encourage affordable housing. These concerns are expressed in a number of different policy instruments and statements. One example is found in the Downtown Official Development Plan which provides for the relaxation of floor space ratios for buildings with “low cost” housing.
– proceed with its own development project at 508, which would further advance City policy by including a significant component of market rental units.
– development of 508 would not start until after the Jubilee House residents took occupancy of the new housing at 1099.
By February 8, 2013, this proposal had reached the point where Brenhill was in a position to apply for the rezoning of 508 (which was still owned by the City), from the DD (Downtown District) zone to the CD-1 zone, which is described as a site specific comprehensive development zone. The rezoning application was for a 36-storey, 320-foot high building, comprising 448 units (110 of which were to be low cost units), a two storey pre-school, and retail space, occupying a total floor area of 365,000 square feet. This is a much larger and taller building than the existing zoning permitted.
On February 27, 2013, the City sent a notice of rezoning application and of an open house to surrounding property owners and renters, a distribution estimated at 9700 people.
On March 13, 2013, the open house was attended by approximately 135 people.
On April 24, 2013, the City’s Urban Design Panel considered the proposal and supported it by a vote of five to three.
On June 11, 2013, City Council considered the application for rezoning and referred the matter to public hearing.
508 Helmcken Street: Lots 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38, Block 94.
To rezone 508 Helmcken Street from DD (Downtown) District to CD-I (Comprehensive Development) District. The proposal is for a 36-storey, mixed-use building with 448 residential units, of which 110 are secured market rental, with retail and a private pre-school/kindergarten space at grade. A height of 97.5 metres (320 feet), a floor space ratio (FSR) of 17.19, and a total floor area of 33,444 square metres (359,984 square feet) are proposed.
amendments may speak at the Public Hearing. Please register individually before 5 pm, July 16 by emailing publichearing@vancouver.ca or by calling 604-829-4238. You may also register in person at the door between 5:30 and 6 pm on the day of the Public Hearing. You may submit your comments by email to mayorandcouncil@vancouver.ca, or by mail to: City of Vancouver, City Clerk’s Department, 453 West 12th Avenue, Third Floor, Vancouver, BC, V5Y 1V4. All submitted comments will be distributed to Council and posted on the City’s website. Please visit vancouver.ca/publichearings for important details.
time after the public meeting to make written submissions. The deadline for reception of these submissions was extended to July 22, 2013.
The City prepared an agenda package for the public and posted it online. It included a summary and recommendation section, a draft of the proposed amending by-law, and a policy document prepared by city staff. The package ran to nearly 100 pages.
ownership of that site to the city.
The application for the social housing building on Richards St. is currently going through the development permit process. The application before council this evening proposes to rezone the site at 508 Helmcken to allow for a 36 story mixed-use tower. It includes 448 residential units, of which 110 are market rental units, a two story private preschool/kindergarten facing in to the park, and some retail space at ground level. The rezoning involves an increase in density, from 3 to 17.19 FSR, and an increase in height from 70’ to 320’.
Developments Plan, can be considered to the underside of approved view corridors as is being proposed in this application to achieve public benefits.
The key public benefit of this application would be the new and replacement social housing that is proposed at 1099 Richards St. valued at $25 million. This includes an in-kind community amenity contribution of $24 million towards the $30.6 million cost of construction in turnkey social housing building at 1099 Richards St. as well as a cash community amenity contribution of $1 million towards the city’s affordable housing fund. The balance of the cost of the social hosing would be funded by the city from the proceeds of the sale of the 508 Helmcken St. site to Brenhill development.
transferred in turnkey condition to the city. Also at this time, the Jubilee residents would be relocated from their current location to the new building.
The social housing would be operated by a nonprofit operator, the 127 Society for Housing, the current operator of the Jubilee House.
Ms Clerk, could you back it up one? Under the home, housing, and homelessness strategy, long term and short term targets for non-market housing have been established. This application would add 75 new social housing units to the inventory.
[From the Minutes of the Public Hearing].
A number of people associated with the existing Jubilee House spoke in favour of the land exchange, that is, in favour of the erection of a new building for “social housing” across the street from the existing building at 508.
A number of people also spoke at the public hearing in opposition. Concerns included the size of the proposed building and its impact on views and sunlight. Its presence next to a park was also noted and some felt that if the land were to be redeveloped it should be to enlarge the park.
The City kept a tally of the written submissions. On July 12, 2013, the city clerk posted 15 items of correspondence on the internet, seven in favour, seven against, and one other. On July 15, 2013, 17 items were posted, 12 for, and 5 against. On July 16, 27 items were posted, 10 in support and 17 against. On July 18, 17 items were posted, 3 for, one against, and one other. On July 22, 121 items were posted, 7 in support, 110 against, and one other.
On July 23, 2013, following receipt of these further submissions, City Council met and gave approval in principle to the rezoning by-law, subject to the condition that a stand-alone building would go up at 1099, comprising 162 units of “social housing”, with a total floor area of 89,965 square feet, and including a further cash contribution of $1,000,000.
On March 4, 2014, the City posted the agenda for a Council meeting on its website notifying the public that the rezoning by-law would be coming before council for enactment.
City Council enacted the by-law after it had been advised that the $1,000,000 contribution had been received, and a “no development” covenant had been registered on 508 pending the completion of the building on 1099.
On or about April 24, 2013, Brenhill applied to the DPB for a development permit for 1099. This was for the building described as a community amenity contribution of 13 storeys, 120 feet in height, comprising 162 units totalling 89,965 square feet.
The development permit process applied to 1099 because the property did not need to be rezoned.
The development permit staff committee sent 5,792 notification postcards advising the neighbourhood property owners and residents of the application and of an open house that was to be held May 29, 2013. Fifty-eight people attended and 35 comment sheets were handed in.
On June 5, 2013, the Urban Design Panel voted 5-0 in favour of the issue of the development permit.
In early August 2013, the City issued a notice of an upcoming DPB meeting at which the application for 1099 would be considered. It also released a development permit staff committee report about the proposal.
On August 12, 2013, 11 members of the public attended the meeting of the DPB. Four submissions were in favour and seven were against.
At that meeting Brenhill’s development permit application for 1099 was approved.
 On February 19, 2014, City Council endorsed the DPB’s approval.
 On April 25, 2014, the petitioner was incorporated, and on May 6, 2014, it brought this petition for judicial review seeking to set aside the DPB resolution, City Council’s confirming resolution and the rezoning by-law.
Failing to provide proper notice of the January 23, 2014 Public Hearing relating to the amendment of s. 3.13 of the DODP [Downtown Official Development Plan].
2) A declaration that the Land Exchange Contract unlawfully fetters Council’s discretion under section 565 of the Vancouver Charter and is of no force and effect.
3) A declaration that Bylaw 10870, a bylaw rezoning 508 Helmcken is inconsistent with the DODP (Bylaw No. 4912).
4) A declaration the Development Permit DE416755 is void.
5) An Order quashing Council’s decision made on March 11, 2014 to adopt Bylaw No. 10870, a bylaw rezoning 508 Helmcken to CD-1(562).
6) An Order quashing Council’s decision made on February 4, 2014 to adopt s. 3(b) of Bylaw No. 10865, a bylaw to amend the DODP (Bylaw No. 4912).
7) An Order quashing Development Permit DE416755 issued on May 28.
8) Costs to the Petitioner.
 The effect of such orders and declarations would be, according to the petitioner, that the court would remit the matter back to City Council to hold a new public hearing with full and frank disclosure as required under s. 566 of the Vancouver Charter.
whether By-law 10865 amending s. 3.13 of the Downtown Official Development Plan ought to be quashed.
Brenhill has some different issues which I will address after I set out the issues between the petitioner and the City.
No issue is taken by the City respecting the petitioner’s This accords with the case law (See: Saanich Inlet Preservation Society v. Cowichan Valley (Regional District),  4 W.W.R. 173 (B.C.C.A.); Abbotsford Families United v. Abbotsford (City), 2009 BCSC 463.
The City does not assert any limitation period. This is not the case for Brenhill.
for disposing of any real or personal property of the city by sale, conveyance, lease, or licence when in the opinion of the Council such property is not required by the city, upon such terms and conditions as may be deemed expedient, and to accept in payment either money or other property; provided, however, that no parcel of real property which exceeds four hundred thousand dollars in value shall be sold to any person other than Her Majesty in her right of Canada or the Province, or any agency of the Crown, except by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of all the members of Council.
(j) describing the zones or districts by the use of maps or plans, and the information shown on such maps or plans shall form part of the by-law to the same extent as if included therein.
make uses or occupancies existing at a date specified in the by-law conditional approval uses as of that date.
(3) The regulations under subsection (1) may be different for different protected heritage property, as specified in the by-law.
Section 566 requires Council to hold a public hearing before the enactment or amendment of a zoning by-law.
zoning by-law until it has held a public hearing thereon, and an application for rezoning shall be treated as an application to amend a zoning by-law.
shall be published in accordance with section 3, with the last publication appearing at least 7 days and not more than 14 days before the date of the hearing.
(4) At the hearing all persons who deem themselves affected by the proposed by-law shall be afforded an opportunity to be heard in matters contained in the proposed by-law, and the hearing may be adjourned from time to time.
On the application of an elector or a person interested in the by-law or resolution, a Judge may declare the by-law or resolution void in whole or in part for illegality.
Notice of the application shall be served on the city at least ten days before the day of the hearing, and before the hearing the applicant shall furnish security for the city’s costs in such amount and in such manner as the Judge shall think proper. After the determination of the proceedings, the Judge may make such order as to costs as shall be just.
No application to quash a by-law or resolution, or part thereof, under this part shall be entertained unless notice of the application is served on the city within one month after the passing of the by-law or resolution complained of.
The notice of application shall set out particulars of the illegality alleged.
Section 561.(1) The Council may have development plans prepared or revised from time to time.
for the purposes of heritage conservation, heritage conservation areas in accordance with section 596A.
(3) A development plan under this section must include housing policies of the Council respecting affordable housing, rental housing and special needs housing.
a regional context statement, consistent with the rest of the development plan, of how matters referred to in section 850(2)(a) to (c) of the Local Government Act, and other matters dealt with in the development plan, apply in a regional context.
(5) To the extent that a development plan under this section deals with these matters, it should work towards the purpose and goals referred to in section 849 of the Local Government Act.
commit the Council to undertake any of the developments shown on the plan.
The Council shall not authorize, permit, or undertake any development contrary to or at variance with the official development plan.
It shall be unlawful for any person to commence or undertake any development contrary to or at variance with the official development plan.
after the close of the speakers list will not be circulated to Council.
8.23 Despite the provisions of subsection 18.4, a speaker at a public hearing may also submit public comments, graphics and other materials to Council during the public hearing, except that the public comments must be submitted no later than fifteen minutes after the close of the speakers list, and, if written, must not exceed 1500 words.
comments must be submitted no later than fifteen minutes after the close of the speakers list, and, if written, must not exceed 1500 words.
the permitted maximum density is varied throughout this District.
the maximum density for all uses on an interior site with a minimum frontage of 200 feet and a minimum site area of 24,000 square feet shall be floor space ratio 5.00.
Map #1 of the Downtown Official Development Plan shows both 508 Helmcken and 1099 Richards as being within the L1 zone.
the Board shall hear any representations of the applicant as well as other person interested in the application, and before rendering its decision shall consult with and receive any submissions of the Advisory Panel.
The function of the Advisory Panel is to act in an advisory capacity to the Board with respect to development permit applications that are brought before the board.
The duties of the Panel shall be to advise Council, the Director of Planning, or the Development Permit Board from time to time on the Urban Design of any proposed development or any revisions of any proposed development or any substantial changes to any previously-approved development after a development permit has been issued. In addition to the foregoing, the Panel may advise the City Council or any of its Boards on any matter where urban design is involved.
For the purpose of this By-law, “urban design” shall include the design and inter-relationship of all physical components of the City.
In fulfilling its duties and presenting its advice and recommendations, the Panel shall have regard to the guidelines set out in Schedule “A” hereof and the Zoning and Development By-law.
So much for the basic outline of events, the petitioner’s legal characterization of its concerns and the applicable legal framework.
The parties’ submissions are detailed and extensive. In coming to terms with the issues at the heart of case, I think it necessary to make some attempt to outline the submissions of the parties, and their references to the documentary record.
redevelopment at 1099 Richards Street which the [petitioner] says was inextricably linked to the rezoning of 508 Helmcken).
The documents the City provided to the July 16, 2013 public meeting did not include many of the documents related to the 1099 project because the City takes the position that those documents are not relevant to use and density at 508, which, the City submits is the proper scope of a rezoning proposal.
building containing 448 residential units, of which 110 are proposed as secured market rental, with retail use and a private pre-school/kindergarten facility at grade. A height of 97.5 m (320 ft.), a floor space ratio (FSR) of 17.19, a residential floor area of 32,833 m2 (353,287 sq. ft.), a retail floor area of 111 m2 (1,192 sq. ft.) and an institutional floor area of 512 m2 (5,505 sq. ft.) are proposed.
a $1,000,000 cash contribution, to be allocated to the Affordable Housing Fund, to be used to fund the project management and related legal, tenant relocation, and administrative expenses associated with the development of the site at 1077-1099 Richards Street.
no occupancy permit will be issued for the market residential units to be sold until the occupancy permits for all the market rental units have been issued.
on such other terms and conditions as the Managing Director of Social Development and the Director of Legal Services may in their sole discretion require.
Note to applicant: This condition to be secured by a Housing Agreement to be entered into by the City by by-law enacted pursuant to section 565.2 of the Vancouver Charter.
This report evaluates an application to rezone the site at 508 Helmcken Street from DD (Downtown) District to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District, to allow for a 36-storey building containing 448 residential units, of which 110 are proposed as secured market rental, with retail use and a private pre-school/kindergarten facility at grade.
This proposal was put forward in response to Council objectives to find innovative ways to facilitate the development of new social and affordable housing. The applicant has proposed to build social housing on land it owns across the street at 1077-1099 Richards Street; in exchange, the applicant proposes to develop a mixed-use residential building on the City-owned Helmcken Street site, including 110 secured market rental units. A social housing development, Jubilee House, with 87 social housing units, is currently located on the Helmcken Street site.
Staff have assessed the application and support the proposed uses and form of development, subject to the design development and other conditions outlined in Appendix B. The report recommends that the Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) from this rezoning be allocated towards the construction of 162 social housing units at 1077-1099 Richards Street, comprised of 87 replacement units for the current Jubilee House residents and 75 new social housing units, which would contribute towards affordable housing objectives in the Downtown South neighbourhood.
If, after Public Hearing, Council approves this rezoning application, and subject to approval of the social housing on the Richards Street site through the Development Permit process, the social housing would be constructed on the Richards Street site and occupied prior to any demolition of Jubilee House, allowing for the relocation of the current Jubilee House residents in advance of construction proceeding at 508 Helmcken Street.
Prior to enactment of the rezoning the General Manager of Engineering Services will bring a further report to Council to obtain authority to stop-up, close and convey the portions of lane adjacent to 508 Helmcken Street site to Brenhill Developments Ltd. for consolidation and formation of the rezoning site.
conditions of approval outlined in Appendix B.
neighbourhoods that enhance quality of life. The Three-Year Action Plan 2012-2014 identifies priority actions to achieve some of the Strategy’s goals. The priority actions that relate to this application are to refine and develop new zoning approaches, development tools and rental incentives to continue the achievement of secure purpose built rental housing, and to use financial and regulatory tools to encourage a variety of housing types and tenures that meet the needs of diverse households. This application also responds to the recommendations of the Mayor’s Task Force on Housing Affordability, including the use of City lands to deliver affordable rental and social housing.
In 2011, Brenhill Developments Ltd. (Brenhill) approached the City with a land exchange proposal that would involve the transfer of its ownership of 1077-1099 Richards Street to the City in exchange for the City-owned lands at 508 Helmcken Street, including the adjacent City lane. 508 Helmcken Street is currently occupied by Jubilee House, a social housing building containing 87 units, which is leased to and operated by a non-profit operator, 127 Society for Housing. Jubilee House was built in 1985 and is in need of significant repairs.
In consideration of the City agreeing to the land exchange, Brenhill would be responsible for all costs and risks of constructing, fitting out and delivering “turn-key” to the City 162 new non-market housing units on the Richards site, to be owned by the City and operated by 127 Society for Housing. These housing units would include replacement units for the residents of Jubilee House. Development of the Helmcken site would not be started until after the Jubilee House residents take occupancy of the new housing on Richards Street. The land exchange is subject to the approval in principle of the rezoning of 508 Helmcken Street, at Brenhill’s s risk and expense.
development, up to 110 units of secured market rental housing (non-stratified) are proposed. This application has not come in under the City’s rental housing programs, and no incentives are being requested. The public benefit accruing from these units is their contribution to Vancouver’s rental housing stock for the life of the building or 60 years, whichever is greater. If this rezoning application is approved, the rental housing would be secured through a Housing Agreement with the City, and would be subject to the conditions noted in Appendix B.
Financing Growth Policy, an offer of a Community Amenity Contribution from the owner of a rezoning site to address the impacts of rezoning can be anticipated. Such a CAC is typically made through the provision of either on-site amenities or a cash contribution towards other public benefits in the neighbourhood. Contributions are negotiated and are evaluated by staff in light of the increase in land value expected to result from rezoning approval.
Cash CAC — $1 million contribution to the City’s affordable housing fund.
The balance of the $30.6 million construction cost of the “turn-key” social housing building at 1077-1099 Richards Street (up to $6.6 million) would be funded by the City from the proceeds of the sale of 508 Helmcken Street to Brenhill.
commence construction of the building at 508 Helmcken Street.
The new social housing would be operated by 127 Society for Housing, the non-profit organization currently operating Jubilee House. The proposed tenant mix would ensure preservation of housing for the existing 87 Jubilee residents who have fixed incomes, while dedicating all 75 additional units to serve individuals at low-end-of-market (LEM) rates to achieve overall operational viability and financial sustainability.
savings arising from lower than expected construction costs will be retained by the City.
The 508 Helmcken site is within the Downtown South DCL District. If the rezoning application is approved, it is anticipated that the applicant will pay approximately $6,159,600 in DCLs and make a public art contribution of approximately $651,600 towards new on or off-site public art.
The proposed 162-unit social housing project will replace and renew 87 existing units at the Jubilee House and add 75 new non-market units.
optimizes long-term operational viability and financial sustainability of the project, while providing opportunities to advance Council’s housing objectives in Vancouver. The proposed tenant mix will preserve housing affordability for all existing Jubilee tenants at existing subsidized rates. In addition, the project will support a pre-paid lease and generate future operating surplus which will be shared between the Society and the City, providing funds that the City can use to further its housing goals.
of the information that was available to the public before the public meeting.
Contract and supporting documents, the policy regarding sale of city lands, the development agreement and the development permit application for 1099 Richards, along with the Urban Design Panel’s decision.
matter that would have materially added to the public’s understanding of the issues.
which materially add to the public understanding of the issues considered by council.
ability to make effective representations by the city’s refusal to disclose other documents.
 The petitioner’s concerns appear to be largely with the failure of the City to provide the Land Exchange Contract and the lease surrender document, documents showing the City’s working engagement with the developer, and documents specifically pertinent to the 1099 development, which were not, strictly speaking, part of the rezoning application for 508.
Many members of public, including members of petitioner, repeatedly urged Council to reduce the density and amend the proposed bylaw. These documents were not only relevant to the approval or rejection of the bylaw but also, to its amendments. The public did not know that after almost two years of negotiations Brenhill and the City had entered into a contract for a specific amount of density in exchange for the new social housing building and that the deal was dependent upon Council’s approval in principle by July 29, 2013.
Helmcken, while on the other hand, by entering into the agreements with Brenhill, 127 Society and BC Housing, the City had clearly made its mind up that it wanted to sell its property for $15,000,000 and get a new social housing building at 1099 Richards. Given this clear conflict, the City was required to move with “scrupulous care” (Eddington). Instead it withheld the contract and other pertinent information from the public.
The public hearing and subsequent decision to approve the rezoning in principle was nothing more than a rubber stamp on a development that Council had already decided to approve. The City’s purpose and motives were not directed toward the rezoning at all, but rather what it would get for it.
The fact that the City is trying to create more social housing does not lessen its disclosure obligations or its duty to act fairly. The Petitioner submits that the worthiness of the cause does not trump the public’s right to a fair and impartial public hearing. Council’s desired objective, no matter how noble, is not the determining factor.
In addition, while Council may consider matters relating to the disposition of property in closed meetings (s. 165.2), there is no exception in law that permits the City to withhold relevant executed agreements or the fact of their existence on the theory that the City has chosen to make them “confidential”. Such an exclusion would defeat the purpose of a public hearing and undermine the well-established disclosure requirements.
agreements that are in the process of being negotiated (Langford and Hastings Park), the City is required to disclose executed agreements that were considered by Council in making its decision [Loucks).
Firstly, the Staff Report does not “fully” describe the terms of the transaction. It does not even mention the Land Exchange Contract.
exchange of their respective properties if Council approves the “in principle” rezoning of 508 Helmcken on or before July 29, 2013 and if Brenhill builds a new social housing building at 1099 Richards.
The fact the City called it a “proposed” land exchange is extremely misleading. Calling this a proposal certainly does not suggest to the public that the City and Brenhill have already negotiated and entered into an agreement with very specific terms.
there were no documents available at the public hearing relating to the proposed density of 1099 Richards or the development generally.
The petitioner submits that it is no answer to say that the documents pertinent to 1099 were available at the meetings relative to 1099.
proposed in the rezoning application of 508. The petitioner asks how there could be a fair hearing when some members of the public in support of the application know more than those who are opposed.
Finally, the District argues that the appellant has not provided any evidence that it or any member of the public was prejudiced in any way by the non-disclosure in their right to be heard or in their ability to make effective representations and that the chambers judge did not err in concluding that evidence of prejudice was required. In the District’s submission, the decisions in Harrison v. Richmond, supra, at 272; Surfside R.V. Resort Ltd. v.
Parksville, supra, at 307; Wild Salmon Coalition v. North Vancouver (1996), 34 M.P.L.R. (2d) 122 at 130-31; and Jones v. Delta, supra, at 27-30, support its position in that regard.
unreasonable to assume that members of the public had adequate time for preparation.
(See also Fisher Road Holdings Ltd. v. Cowichan Valley (Regional District), 2012 BCCA 338).
 The petitioner submits that on a consideration of the relevant factors, the disclosure was inadequate. It submits that the City was in breach of s. 566 of the Vancouver Charter in failing to give the public a fair opportunity to be heard, and that, accordingly, the by-law must be set aside.
With respect to the petitioner’s ground for challenging the rezoning of 508 on the basis that the City failed to disclose relevant documents to the public hearing that was held July 16, 2013 the City first outlined aspect of the rezoning process, most of which have been set out as “facts” in these reasons. The City points out that the process respecting privately initiated rezonings commences when the prospective applicant approaches the City, following which the City Planning Department will study the proposal, and advise the applicant if it will be supportive of the application. If the Planning Department is supportive, a rezoning application will normally be submitted to City staff, which then reports to City Council recommending either refusal or a referral to public hearing. A public hearing must be held before City Council can approve a rezoning. Notices are then sent out. A draft of the rezoning by-law is posted.
Following a public hearing, City Council may approve, amend, or decline to approve a rezoning by-law.
In Brenhill’s case, the City submits that the development potential of 1099 Richards was limited because there were already “two towers on that block face providing challenges for appropriate tower separation and because of the height restrictions on that property arising from a view cones.” The City submits that the site at 508 Helmcken was not so constrained under existing City policy because there were no other towers on the block.
The City says that the decision to dispose of property in the form of the land exchange between the City and Brenhill was within its authority. It was approved in October 2012.
The City submits that contrary to the petitioner’s submission (at para. 62 herein), the exchange was for a “social purpose” because the land for which 508 was being exchanged was to be used for a “social purpose”.
The City submits that, in any event, policies are not statutes or by-laws and are not binding on City Council.
Lastly, on this subject the City submits that these proceedings do not address the land exchange specifically.
The City submits that in order for development to proceed on 508, the property would have to be taken out of the DD zone, that is, subject to the Downtown Official Development Plan, and rezoned CD1. The City submits that it is not at all unusual for a land exchange to be followed by a rezoning application.
In his approximately fourteen years experience working for the City, Mr. Jerry Evans, the Acting Director of the Real Estate Department, has been involved in a number of real estate transactions that were subject to a subsequent rezoning application. In his experience it is not uncommon for the City to sell or otherwise dispose of land to a developer on the basis that the developer will apply to rezone that land.
disposal of the land is made explicitly subject to a successful rezoning application. This is done so that if the rezoning application is unsuccessful for any reason the developer is not committed to completing the purchase of the land, the City is not committed to selling the land and the transaction will not proceed.
In Mr. Evans’ experience it is also made clear to the developer that the City acts in two separate capacities when conducting land transactions and hearing rezoning applications. When the City in its capacity as a landowner enters into a land transaction it does not commit the City when acting as legislator to deciding a zoning application in any particular manner. In his experience it is made clear to developers that when City Council considers a zoning application it will do so with an open mind and will not be constrained in any manner by the conditional contract that may exist between the City as landowner and the developer. Indeed, this is spelled out explicitly in the land transaction contract.
Also, the land exchange contract contains a clause at 5.9 on page 14 stating that Brenhill acknowledges that it will proceed with the rezoning application at its own risk and expense and that nothing in the contract will fetter City Council’s discretion in considering the rezoning application.
It is precisely this document, among others, that is at the heart of the petitioner’s argument respecting failure to disclose. The City’s position is that the production of the Land Exchange Contract was not necessary in order for the public to make meaningful submissions regarding the use and density issues pertaining to the 508 rezoning.
…[T]he City does not usually make public the specific details of a land transaction with a developer until all the conditions have been met and the transaction has closed. It could be detrimental for other developers to know the terms of the proposed purchase and sale contract that are unrelated to the zoning, but which could affect the City’s bargaining position if the transaction does not close. In other words, if the transaction did not close for any reason, other developers would have information which could affect the City’s bargaining position in future negotiations.
consideration of their rezoning applications.
In the case that is the subject of this proceeding, the basic terms of the land exchange contract between the City and Brenhill were in fact disclosed to the public as part of the public hearing package for the rezoning of the land at 508 Helmcken Street. This disclosure was made because the CAC offered by Brenhill to the City consisted of a cash payment and an in-kind CAC consisting of the construction of a social housing project at the land at 1099 Richards Street. The basic terms of the land exchange were disclosed in so far as they were relevant to the CAC at pages 11 – 14 of the Policy Report appearing in the public hearing package (see para. 45 herein).
Counsel for the Petitioner suggested in oral argument that the land exchange contract, the lease surrender, the development agreement and the proposed lease were “critical” documents based on staff’s description of them in the in camera reports, and therefore should have been made available to the public. While it is true that they were critical to the overall business dealings between the City, Brenhill and the 127 Society, they were not critical, or even material, to the issues in the rezoning of the property at 508 Helmcken.
It is submitted that the details of the agreements and of the proposed deal generally that were set out in the Policy Report gave the public ample information about those matters. It is not the role of the public at the public hearing into a rezoning to comment on or take a position on the business dealings of the City or the intricacies of its social housing strategy. These are not zoning matters.
It should also be noted that even where a document relevant to a rezoning bylaw is not made available to the public prior to the public hearing, this does not necessarily constitute a breach of the rules of procedural fairness. Our Court of Appeal has held that even where a report that was directly relevant to the rezoning was presented by a developer during the public hearing, and the public had access only to an executive summary of the report, and no advance notice of it, it was acceptable for council to consider the report: Pollard v. Surrey (District) (1993) 25 BCAC 81, City Brief of Authorities Tab 19.
The general terms of the land swap and CAC, relevant to the rezoning of the Helmcken property, were made available to the public and it is clear that the public was able to comment on them.
As such, the City’s disclosure obligations were clearly met in the circumstances of the case at bar.
The City breached the rules of procedural fairness by accepting submissions after the close of the July 16, 2013 public hearing.
I will deal with this shortly and without explication of the positions of each party. Despite the erroneous series of notifications (detailed in para. 16 herein), I am satisfied that the City met the basic statutory requirements for notice through the advertisements of July 6 and 8, 2013. The fact that until July 12, the public did not have notice as to where to send written comments was addressed by extending the time for written submissions to July 22. This cured a defect in a notice that was not required. As the numbers showed (see para. 22 herein), the opportunity worked in favour of those opposed to the rezoning, in any event. In the circumstances of this case, it would permit form to triumph completely over substance to give credence to such a trifle and I will not consider it.
(definitions); RM-5, RM5A, RM-5B and RM-5C (residential) District Schedule; C-5 and C-6 (commercial District Schedule; Downtown Official Development Plan; and Rental Housing Stock Official Development Plan.
The position of the City is that regardless of the label, the fact that the Downtown Official Development Plan was included in the amendments was evident, and that an appropriate notice was given as well as an opportunity to read the by­law. On this basis, they submit there are no grounds for the petitioner to object to the notice that was given.
unlawfully fetters City Council’s discretion under s. 565 of the Vancouver Charter and is of no force and effect.
However, notwithstanding Council’s July 23, 2013 Resolution, the City fettered its discretion by entering into the Land Exchange Contract. This Contract is not simply a contract relating to the purchase and sale of 508 and 1099, as submitted by the Respondents. It is both a contract of purchase and sale and a contract to rezone in exchange for a new social housing building.
The City acknowledges that Brenhill intends to develop and construct a new development project on the City Exchange Land following the Closing Date. The City agrees that, following the completion of the transfer of the City Exchange Land from the City to Brenhill on the Closing Date, and subject to the City’s customary developer permit process for similar development in the City, Brenhill will be permitted to proceed with its development project on the City Exchange Land in an unfettered manner and without any interference from the City, provided that Brenhill is otherwise in compliance with the City’s regulatory requirements.
This section expressly states that once 1099 Richards is completed and the lands are transferred the City will allow Brenhill to proceed with his planned development project “in an unfettered manner” and “without interference”. Accordingly, Council must rezone.
Despite Council’s July 23, 2013 Resolution that the “in principle” approval does not bind council to enact the zoning bylaw, the contract confirms that this is the bargain.
This is why the October 2012 Staff Report states that the contracts would provide Brenhill with a “strong level of “in principle” approval by Council”. If the contract was subject to enactment of the zoning bylaw, the “level” of approval or assurance wouldn’t have been any different than the approval “in principle” it received on July 23, 2013 i.e. Council is likely to rezone but there is no guarantee. The Contract gives Brenhill a guarantee that the City will enact the zoning bylaw, despite any Resolution giving Council a discretion.
Brenhill needed the assurance that the current or future council would enact the zoning bylaw once 1099 was constructed. The contract says to the developer: if we approve of the rezoning “in principle” to permit the density you want, you will build us a new building at 1099 and we will swap lands and rezone. This is unlawful.
these agreements were contrary to public policy, as they restricted the freedom of individual councillors to decide the merits of any bylaw solely upon relevant considerations in the context of the applicable municipal legislation. Circumstances, councillors, and councillors’ views may change. Elected representatives must therefore remain free to exercise their legislative powers as they deem appropriate, in the best interests of the community.
Nevertheless, by its unqualified covenant to pass the amending by-law the City effectively tied the hands of the members of the council upon consideration of the merits of the by-law when submitted, for there might be aldermen who would consider the by-law unwise in the light of the facts as they then appeared but who would not be prepared to expose the City to a claim for damages by defeating it.
Looking at it in another way, a contract of a municipal corporation by which it engages in advance that its council will pass a by-law involving the exercise of a discretion such as that vested in it by the Town Planning Act is contrary to public policy, for by introducing the extraneous consideration of a possible claim against the City for its failure to pass the by-Iaw the contract tends to restrict the freedom of the individual members to decide the merits solely upon the relevant circumstances, as the law requires. I do not think the law will support any such prejudgment by contract of the question to be decided upon the submission of such a by-law any more than it will the judgment of a Judge delivered before he had heard the evidence.
The problem with the Contract is clear: if the current council or a future council wants to repeal the zoning or downzone 508 before Brenhill begins construction on that property, it may feel it cannot do so, even it if would be the public interest, because of the contract and for fear that Brenhill will sue the City if it exercises its discretion.
Helmcken. This is based on the premise that the contract binds this Council, and future Councils, to rezone the land to a particular density.
…. It is clear throughout the contract that Brenhill bears the risk that the Helmcken property may not ultimately be rezoned.
The contract also clearly provides that it is contingent on a number of factors, including Brenhill applying for and being successful in obtaining approval in principle of the rezoning of the land (clause 4.3.2).
While counsel for the Petitioner suggests that once approval in principle is granted Council then must enact the zoning by-law, in order to comply with the contract, this is, again, not the case. The contract does not make any such provision promising enactment. Clause 5.22 pointed to by counsel for the Petitioner says that the City will not interfere with Brenhill developing the property as long as it is in regulatory compliance. This is not a promise to enact the rezoning by-law.
By-Law 10870, a by-law rezoning 508 Helmcken is inconsistent with the Downtown Official Development Plan.
Council’s March 11, 2014 decision to rezone 508 Helmcken is also in direct conflict with the DODP.
The City has permitted a density of 17.19 and a height of 320 ft. Although the City applied the DODP to the site in connection with the rezoning application, the Respondents now argue that the DODP does not apply. The Respondent argues that the DODP only applies to lands zoned (DD) and that since Council rezoned the lands, it no longer applies.
However, throughout the June 4, 2013 Staff Report the City applied the DODP and Downtown South Guidelines to the site. There was no suggestion by the City that the DODP would no longer be applicable once it was rezoned. To the contrary, in its Staff Report the City considered the DODP but then justified bending the rules (“pushing the envelope”) for this particular development.
submissions were made on the various violations of the DODP in response to the City’s staff report.
Lastly, whether or not the DODP applies to a particular property depends on whether or not the property is within a specified area, not its zoning. To interpret it otherwise would defeat the purpose of an official development plan and would also permit Council to unilaterally amend an ODP without adopting a bylaw as required by section 562.
Pursuant to section 561 of the Vancouver Charter, Council may have development plans prepared that relate to the whole city, to a particular area or to specific projects within the City. Pursuant to section 562 Council may, by bylaw, adopt a plan as official development plan and may also, by bylaw. amend it. Pursuant to section 563, Council shall not authorize or permit or undertake any development that is contrary to the ODP.
Downtown District Map 1, outlines the different “Downtown District Zoning Areas” including the LI and L2 areas. (DODP pg. 10) The properties are included in the LI Area.
In order for 508 to be excluded from the application of the DODP the City would have to amend the plan, by bylaw.
Council did not amend the DODP to take the subject property out of the LI area. Since the City did not amend the DODP and the rezoning bylaw is in direct conflict maximum height and density for the site, the rezoning bylaw must be set aside.
The Petitioner alleges that the CD-1 by-law that is now enacted in relation to the property at 508 Helmcken is contrary to the provisions of the Downtown Official Development Plan (“DODP”). In particular it is alleged that the DODP restricts maximum FSR to 3.0 and maximum height to 70 feet while this development has an FSR or 17.19 and a maximum height of 320 feet.
The Petitioner relies upon the Sevin v. Prince George case which held on an interpretation of certain sections of the Local Government Act, that a zoning by-law should be quashed where it was not consistent with the Official Community Plan of the city. While it is correct that Council may not, pursuant to s. 563 of the Vancouver Charter, authorize a development that is at variance with an applicable Official Development Plan, that is not what has occurred in the circumstances of this case.
The DODP applies only to property that is zoned Downtown District (“DD”) according to the “Application and Intent” statement appearing on page 3 of the document.
When Council in this case amended the zoning by-law to remove the subject property from the DD zone, and rezoned it to CD-1 zone, by definition the subject property ceased to be subject to the DODP.
Accordingly, the current CD-1 zoning of the subject property is not at variance with the DODP, because the DODP does not apply to CD-1 zoned properties.
Counsel for the Petitioner suggested in oral argument that staff indicated in the Policy Report that the property at Helmcken was subject to the DODP and would continue to be so. This is simply not the case. While the report indicates that the DODP is a relevant policy for the site, it is submitted that this is based on the historic DD zoning prior to the rezoning to CD-1 being completed. It is clear (for example in the discussion on page 8 of the report – that under the historic DD zoning the proposed building would exceed the height and FSR guidelines that apply. It is for that reason that a rezoning of the property to CD-1 is being applied for.
The petitioner next submits that Development Permit DE416755 is void.
A development permit is required in order to proceed with most new developments. Development permits for major developments are issued by the Development Permit Board (the “Board”).
A major development is one which, due to its location, scale and context, may have significant impact on its surroundings, or which may be contentious in the community.
Staff members prepare a report to the Board that describes and presents an analysis of the development. Their recommendations are forwarded to the Board. This written report is made available to the applicant and the public approximately five days prior to the Board meeting.
anyone interested in the development may attend and make representations.
Written submissions are also considered. A decision is usually made by the Board at the same meeting.
The Board comprises the Director of Planning (Chair), the General Manager Engineering and the Deputy City Manager. The Board makes all decisions but is given advice in its deliberations by an Advisory Panel consisting of nine members appointed by City Council. The Advisory Panel consists of two members from the Development industry, two from the design profession, four from the general public, the Chair of the Urban Design Panel and the Chair of the Vancouver Heritage Commission. The Advisory Panel sits in deliberation with the Board and renders advice to the Board; however, it does not vote.
Part of the CAC offered as part of the rezoning of 508 Helmcken is the development by Brenhill of a social housing project on 1099 Richards. No rezoning of 1099 Richards was required for this project but as the proposed development constituted a “major development” the application for a development permit was referred to the Board.
In accordance with the usual practice, a report was prepared by staff to the Board outlining the details of the application. Mr. Greer was one of the authors of that report.
On August 12, 2013 the Board met and considered the application. The Board issued a conditional approval for a Development Permit for 1099 Richards Street.
The conditions of approval of the development permit were set out in a letter sent to the architects for Brenhill on August 14, 2013.
One of the conditions set out by the Board was that prior to issuance of a development permit arrangements had to be made to the satisfaction of the City to enter into a lease registered on title that will restrict the uses of the property to social housing units, a portion of which meet the definition of low cost housing as it was then defined in the Downtown Official Development Plan as it existed at that time. This condition is set out in point 1.3 on page 1 of Exhibit “C”.
Although a lease has not yet been entered into in relation to the property, because the building has not yet been constructed, the City has secured the above referenced obligation by way of another instrument, a No Occupancy Covenant, which is registered on title and ensures that the building will not be occupied until the condition has been satisfied.
On or about April 7, 2014 this covenant was registered against the title to 1099 Richards which requires Brenhill to enter into a lease with the City that will restrict the use of 1099 Richards to social housing units, a portion of which meets the definition of low cost housing (as defined in the Downtown Official Development Plan (“DODP”)). This covenant ensures that condition 1.3 of the “prior to” letter of August 14, 2013 is satisfied.
As of May 28, 2014, all of the conditions set out in the letter of August 14, 2013 had been met, or secured by way of suitable legal agreements, and therefore the development permit was issued on that date to Brenhill.
At the time when Brenhill’s application was considered by the Board the DODP required that the Board have the prior approval of Council before issuing a development permit for a project that involved an increase in floor space ratio.
Because the CAC for the Helmcken rezoning included the development of the social and low cost housing project at 1099 Richards, Council did consider at the public hearing regarding the Helmcken rezoning the basic elements of the Richards project including the number of units and the square footage of the proposed development (which were set out in the Policy Report).
In addition, Council directly considered that issue again at a later meeting, on February 19, 2014, at which they passed a resolution that specifically endorsed the increased density and the Board’s decision of August 12, 2013 to issue a permit subject to the fulfilment of various conditions.
This Council approval regarding an increase in floor space ratio was, therefore, clearly in place by the time the conditions were fulfilled, and the permit was issued, on May 28, 2014.
The Petitioner suggests, first, that the Development Permit Board lacked jurisdiction to grant a development permit in relation to the 1099 Richards Street application because the development includes “social housing” rather than “low cost housing” and that under s. 3.13 of the DODP as it existed at the time the Development Permit Board could only allow an increase in density if the development includes the latter.
The approval granted by the Development Permit Board on August 12, 2013 was conditional on a number of matters that were not satisfied until very recently. The Development Permit was not issued to Brenhill until May 28, 2014.
One of the conditions of approval was that the City and Brenhill enter into an agreement securing the provision of low cost housing in the project. This was done by way of the registration of the No Occupancy Covenant referred to in the evidence of Mr. Greer at paragraphs 12 to 14 of his Affidavit.
As such, it is clear that in fact the development at 1099 Richards Street does include a component of low cost housing and therefore satisfied s. 3.13 of the DODP as it existed in August 2013.
Further, the Petitioner suggests that the Development Permit Board required, and did not have, the prior approval of Council to increase the permitted density on the lot. They suggest, relying on the Maple Ridge v. British Columbia case, that an unfulfilled statutory condition cannot be fulfilled by ratification of an earlier unauthorized act.
Again, this is an incorrect interpretation of the facts of the case at bar. The phrase “prior approval by City Council” which appeared in the DODP at the time was not defined. It is not required, in our submission, that there be a formal approval by way of resolution or by-law. Rather, it is sufficient if Council has in fact turned its mind to the issue and indicated approval. Council did turn its mind to the density of the development at 1099 Richards when dealing with the CAC issue during the rezoning of the Helmcken property.
By making it a condition of the enactment of the rezoning by-law that the developer provide a building at 1099 Richards Street with a certain amount of square footage, on a site of known size, it was clear that they were accepting of an increased density at that site.
In addition, as stated above, the approval of the development permit was conditional on a number of factors and the development permit was not actually issued until May 28, 2014.
Development Permit Board’s conditional approval of the development permit, and increase in density on the site.
It is clear that the development permit in this case was not actually issued until Council had, in fact, approved the increased density.
Finally, even if it were to be found that there was a procedural defect in the manner in which the approval was given in this case, it is submitted that this is a situation in which This Honourable Court should exercise its discretion not to interfere with the issuance of the development permit.
including the words “social housing” and changing “floor space ratio” to “floor area” is effectively confirmation that the DPB did not have the jurisdiction to grant the increase in FSR it purported to grant in August 2013.
DODP would be considered, and that it appeared that only amendments to the West End Community Plan were being dealt with at the public hearing.
The only legal requirement regarding notice of public hearings is that appearing in s. 3 and s. 566 of the Vancouver Charter. Those sections provide that notice of the hearing, specifying the time and place of the hearing and the place where and the times when a copy of the proposed by­law may be inspected shall be published in the newspaper on two occasions with the last publication appearing at least 7 and not more than 14 days before the date set for the public hearing. There is no requirement that notice be given of the specific amendments to the by-law that are contemplated, only that the proposed amended by-law be available for inspection.
amendments to the DODP were to be considered and gave a time and place where the proposed by-law could be inspected. It is submitted that there is simply no basis for the Petitioner to object to the form of notice of the public hearing in these circumstances.
Brenhill made its own arguments respecting the petitioner’s contention, after the close of the public hearing, that there was non-disclosure of relevant documents, and correspondence. Respecting the former, the submission is primarily a gloss on the case of Haldorson v. Coquitlam (City of), 1999 CarswellBC 133, where the petitioner sought to oblige the city to keep land it owned for civic uses instead of social housing. The court there found that land sale documents need not be disclosed.
For reasons I have already expressed (see para. 83 herein), I do not think more needs to be said about the acceptance of correspondence after the public hearing.
Brenhill’s substantively distinct submission is that even if quashing of the zoning by-law is warranted, it should not be granted because of the delay in the petitioner’s bringing on its application, and the prejudice to Brenhill as a result of the delay, including expenditures it alleges total some 7 million dollars and are running at some $500,000 per month, since September 2013, the month after the DPB’s approval.
 Brenhill submits that the text “British Columbia Planning Law and Practice” on page 2-2 is pertinent.
These limitation periods are strictly adhered to, as the court does not consider that it has jurisdiction to hear the matter once the limitation period has expired, even though the respondent in the matter may be willing to waive their limitation defence. The short limitation periods are related to the public nature of the decisions involved in these types of legal proceedings. Local governments and citizens rely on the validity of bylaws after they are enacted, and setting them aside for illegality long afterwards can cause great inconvenience.
Under the Judicial Review Procedure Act, decisions of…municipal councils and regional boards may be attacked on a variety of grounds through an application for judicial review to the B.C. Supreme Court…There is no limitation period on applications to set aside bylaws and resolutions when judicial review is sought on the basis of these more general provisions, but the Court has considerable discretion as to whether to grant a remedy if a great deal of time has passed since the bylaw was enacted or the resolution made.
the entering into of substantial construction contract and loan commitments.
whether the amendments to the Downtown Official Community Plan should be set aside and what its relationship is to the Zoning By-law.
 Standing back from the submissions, the essential question, it seems to me, is whether the City provided enough information for the public, in a form that was understandable, to fairly evaluate the pros and cons of the proposed development. Put in other terms, the issue might be described as whether the sacrifice the residents of that part of the City and the general public were expected to accept was worth the trade-off, or whether, as the petitioner appears to suspect, the net result would be, in essence, a private benefit to Brenhill at a loss to the public.
 What the petitioner has attempted to do is to identify a series of deficiencies having legal consequences. This is ordinarily how matters get before the court and I do not disparage the effort. But the case does not turn on which side of the case law this court applies as to whether or not the Land Exchange Contract, per se, is disclosed. The City may have valid reasons for not disclosing the contract, or parts of it, although I note that it resorted liberally to its terms to explain the circumstances in its submission to the court (see para. 79 herein).
effect of allowing the public eavesdrop on correspondence between technical staff and City Council.
It is obvious that the information required at a public hearing will vary with the nature of the project. Here, the City is giving up a parcel of City owned land that presently supports low income housing for a property across the street that the developer agrees to replace essentially bed for bed with a new facility. There is an allusion to an engineering report in 2009 identifying deficiencies in the old building, implying that a new building will be an advantage to the City.
Certain values and estimates of value are put on the City owned property and the building cost of the new facility. These appear to be arbitrary: if they are not, there is no apparent attempt to offer objective standards from which these values have been derived. Perhaps there are none. If that is the case, however, the public has a right to know that the City has provided conclusory figures that are not objectively justified.
The City takes the approach that the public hearing is essentially a chance for surrounding neighbours to express their views about the effects the building at 508 will have on them, divorced from the concerns related to 1099, which is subject to a different process, and that concerns about 1099 must be addressed apart from 508.
cost housing goals at minimal cost to those nearby. In this regard the position of the City set out in paras. 121-122 of its submission (see para. 81 herein) that “[i]t is not the role of the public at the public hearing into a rezoning to comment on or take a position on the business dealings of the City or the intricacies of its housing strategy” is unduly restrictive. The effect of the City’s business dealings and housing strategy are materially represented in proposals such as the Brenhill project, and the citizens affected by it should not be limited to a narrow discussion of matters like the dimensions of the building.
It should be obvious to the petitioner as well as to anyone else that the nature and complexity of such projects will almost inevitably mean that by the time a matter has reached the point where a public hearing is called, City staff and some members of council will be behind it. This is inevitable and should not be, in and of itself, grounds to be suspicious about the motives of those involved. Talk by city staff of a strong level of “in principle” approval (quoted in paras. 271-273 of the petitioner’s submission, para. 91 herein) is almost unavoidable for a project to reach the point where a public hearing is required.
It is, however, also obvious that, despite this, the public hearing should be a kind of counterweight, and as fair, open and transparent as the nature of the overall project dictates. To be fair, it cannot be conducted on the basis that the public will get just enough information to technically comply with the minimum requirements of a public hearing. The desire of those who have brought the project along to get past the approval stage cannot be allowed to truncate the process. A public hearing is not just an occasion for the public to blow off steam: it is a chance for perspectives to be heard that have not been heard as the City’s focus has narrowed during the project negotiations. Those perspectives, in turn, must be fairly and scrupulously considered and evaluated by council before making its final decision.
As authority, he referred to Karamanian and Paul Esposito Restaurants Ltd. v. Abbotsford (District),  B.C.J. No. 1658 (12 July 1990), Vancouver Reg. A900600 (S.C.).
24 In this case, procedural fairness demanded that the respondent make available to those who were interested, including the petitioners, information concerning the development permit variance applications, even though, at the time of the public hearing on February 15, 1995, they had not been formally dealt with by council.
With the exception of this aspect of the case (the numbers), I think the court has been favoured with a more extensive and intelligible description of the project and its perceived benefits than the public got at the public hearing. I make no comment on whether I am persuaded, which has nothing to do with my task. I simply note that I think the public was entitled to an explanation that was more like what the court was given in this proceeding. The submission was a lucid and integrated explication of the factors involved in the process.
The question of remedy is contentious. Brenhill submits that the statutory limitation applicable to setting aside by-laws should be applied, and that the failure of the petitioner to serve the City with notice of an application for a declaration quashing the by-law within one week of its enactment is fatal to their case.
All parties agree that judicial review is another way the passage of a by-law may be challenged and that such time limits do not apply, although the remedy is discretionary. I think it is the appropriate procedure in this case.
I am fortified in this by the position taken by the City, which does not rely on a by-law limitation argument, although it submits that there are pertinent limits to judicial review. Section 148 of the Vancouver Charter, for example, provides that a by-law is not open to question on the grounds that its provisions or any of them are unreasonable. There is a presumption of validity (see: MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Galiano Island Trust Committee (1995), 10 B.C.L.R. (3d) 121 (C.A.) at p. 144).
The City has also pointed out that s. 565 of the Vancouver Charter sets out very few procedural requirements. It submits that the only statutory requirement is that the public be afforded an opportunity to be heard with respect to the contents of the by-law.
 That last observation – which is irrefutable – is not an argument for a minimalist reading of the City’s obligations under s. 566. Rather, given Council’s undoubtedly extensive powers to pass by-laws, the public should be given an opportunity to make the fullest submissions possible.
 The petitioner does not, in any case, attack the substance of the by-law, but the procedure leading up to the public hearing. For the reasons I have given, I think the City’s limited approach to the public hearing was unfair.
I agree with the submissions of Seaspan (with which BCFS is in substantial agreement) that the standard of review applicable to issues of procedural fairness is best described as simply a standard of “fairness”. A tribunal is entitled to choose its own procedures, as long as those procedures are consistent with statutory requirements. On review, the courts will determine whether the procedures that the tribunal adopted conformed with the requirements of procedural fairness. In making that assessment, the courts do not owe deference to the tribunal’s own assessment that its procedures were fair. On the other hand, where a court concludes that the procedures met the requirements of procedural fairness, it will not interfere with the tribunal’s choice of procedures.
 The procedure the City adopted was unfairly restrictive, in presenting the public with a package of technical material that was opaque, compared to the material presented in court, in limiting comment on the integrated nature of the project, and in failing to provide an intelligible (i.e. where do the numbers come from?) financial justification for it.
Accordingly, I agree with the petitioner that the appropriate order is to quash zoning By-law 10870, pertinent to 508, and the development permit pertinent to 1099 and direct new hearings on each, permitting concerned citizens to address the whole project, including the essence and value of the land exchange to the City and its residents.
I do not think it necessary in the circumstances to declare By-law 10870 inconsistent with the Downtown Official Development Plan, although clearly the issue may arise on the reconsideration. I will say that the City’s suggestion that the Downtown Official Development Plan offers no restraint on zoning inconsistent with it was not wholly convincing.
The petitioner is entitled to costs.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.