Imperial Oil Limited v. City of Vancouver

Imperial Oil Limited v. City of Vancouver

Section 565A, read in context, confines conditions on development permits to matters connected to the appropriateness and impact of the proposed development; requiring an OSA to remediate off-site contamination unrelated to the proposed development falls outside that statutory authority. Section 189 does not supply the missing authority. Because the City acted without jurisdiction in conditioning the permit on execution of the OSA, the court will grant mandamus directing issuance of the development permit.

Citation
2005 BCSC 387
Parties
Petitioner: Imperial Oil Limited; Respondent: Ann McAfee; Respondent: Larry Beasley
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Reasons for Judgment (petition for Mandamus)
Outcome
Petition granted in part; court concluded City lacked jurisdiction to require an OSA as a condition of the development permit and ordered mandamus directing issuance of the permit
Legal Topics
Development Permits, Delegation of Authority, Sub Delegation, Off Site Soils Agreement, Jurisdiction, Mandamus, Statutory Interpretation
Source Language
English
Municipal Law Administrative Law Environmental Law Planning and Development Development Permits Delegation of Authority Sub Delegation Off Site Soils Agreement +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Imperial Oil Limited

Petitioner

Ann McAfee

Respondent

Larry Beasley

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Reasons for Judgment (petition for Mandamus)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the City of Vancouver has jurisdiction under the Vancouver Charter to require an Off-Site Soils Agreement (OSA) as a condition of a development permit where the remediation relates to off-site contamination unrelated to the proposed development
  2. 2 If such jurisdiction exists, whether City Council lawfully delegated the authority to require an OSA to the Director of Planning and whether Council provided adequate policy guidance
  3. 3 Whether there was an unlawful further sub-delegation of the Director's discretion to the City's Office of Environmental Protection

Ratio Decidendi

Section 565A, read in context, confines conditions on development permits to matters connected to the appropriateness and impact of the proposed development; requiring an OSA to remediate off-site contamination unrelated to the proposed development falls outside that statutory authority. Section 189 does not supply the missing authority. Because the City acted without jurisdiction in conditioning the permit on execution of the OSA, the court will grant mandamus directing issuance of the development permit.

Court Disposition

Petition granted in part; court concluded City lacked jurisdiction to require an OSA as a condition of the development permit and ordered mandamus directing issuance of the permit

Orders

  • Order in the nature of mandamus directing the Director of Planning to issue a development permit for the Imperial Oil site without requiring execution of an Off-Site Soils Agreement