Stoneman v. Denman Island Local Trust Committee

Stoneman v. Denman Island Local Trust Committee

The court held that the issues of the validity of Bylaw 111 and its DPA boundaries were previously litigated by the Stonemans (as parties) in the Ellis proceedings and are therefore barred by res judicata/issue estoppel; applying that conclusion and the evidence, the court found the Stonemans altered land and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2013 BCSC 218
Parties
Petitioner: Denman Island Local Trust Committee; Respondent: Daniel John Stoneman; Respondent: Debra Monica Stoneman; Respondent: Minister of Community Services
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review and Petition Concerning Bylaw Enforcement and Development Permits / Final Judgment (reasons for Judgment)
Outcome
Petition for judicial review dismissed; declaration that the Stonemans altered land without required development permits; injunctions, remediation, access and costs granted to the Trust
Legal Topics
Development Permit Areas, Bylaw Validity, Res Judicata / Issue Estoppel, Injunctions, Mandamus, Agricultural Land Reserve
Source Language
english
Local Government Law Administrative Law Land Use and Planning Property Law Environmental Law Development Permit Areas Bylaw Validity Res Judicata / Issue Estoppel +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Denman Island Local Trust Committee

Petitioner

Daniel John Stoneman

Respondent

Debra Monica Stoneman

Respondent

Minister of Community Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review and Petition Concerning Bylaw Enforcement and Development Permits / Final Judgment (reasons for Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Stonemans altered land within the Komas Bluff Development Permit Area without a development permit contrary to s.920(1)(b) and (d) of the Local Government Act
  2. 2 Whether Bylaw 111 (Komas Bluff DPA) and its boundaries are valid
  3. 3 Whether the issues on bylaw validity and boundaries are barred by res judicata/issue estoppel based on prior litigation (Ellis)

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the issues of the validity of Bylaw 111 and its DPA boundaries were previously litigated by the Stonemans (as parties) in the Ellis proceedings and are therefore barred by res judicata/issue estoppel; applying that conclusion and the evidence, the court found the Stonemans altered land and constructed structures within the Komas Bluff DPA without development permits in violation of s.920(1)(b) and (d) and dismissed their judicial review and mandamus relief; injunctive, remedial and access orders and costs were appropriate.

Court Disposition

Petition for judicial review dismissed; declaration that the Stonemans altered land without required development permits; injunctions, remediation, access and costs granted to the Trust

Orders

  • Declaration that Daniel John Stoneman and Debra Monica Stoneman altered land and constructed buildings and structures within Development Permit Area No.1: Komas Bluff without a development permit contrary to s.920(1)(b) and (d) of the Local Government Act
  • Prohibition against further alteration of land within the Komas Bluff Development Permit Area by the Stonemans without a valid development permit for each work, except as specifically ordered by the Court