Dick v. Coquitlam (City)

Dick v. Coquitlam (City)

The petition is dismissed because issue estoppel applies: the 2016/2017 application did not introduce material new evidence beyond a one-page land survey and thus re-litigated issues already decided by prior proceedings; alternatively, the approving officer's denial was reasonable and not tainted by bad faith, discrimination, or a totally inadequate factual basis, given unresolved landslip/erosion and zoning concerns.

Citation
2017 BCSC 2063
Parties
Petitioner: Rodney Daniel Dick; Approving Officer/general Manager of Planning and Development, City of Coquitlam: Jim McIntyre; Approving Officer, City of Coquitlam: Tom Hawkins; Municipality/respondent: City of Coquitlam
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Land Title Act (petition) / Hearing of Petition in Supreme Court of British Columbia (judgment)
Outcome
Petition dismissed; respondents awarded costs at Scale B
Legal Topics
Issue Estoppel, Cause of Action Estoppel, Subdivision Approval, Approving Officer Standard of Review, Bylaw Compliance, Landslip/erosion Risk, Costs
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Municipal Law Property Law Land Title Law Issue Estoppel Cause of Action Estoppel Subdivision Approval Approving Officer Standard of Review +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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rodney Daniel Dick

Petitioner

Jim McIntyre

Approving Officer/general Manager of Planning and Development, City of Coquitlam

Tom Hawkins

Approving Officer, City of Coquitlam

City of Coquitlam

Municipality/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under Land Title Act (petition) / Hearing of Petition in Supreme Court of British Columbia (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether issue estoppel bars re-litigation of prior proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the approving officer's denial was tainted by bad faith, discrimination, or a totally inadequate factual basis
  3. 3 Whether new material evidence was submitted with the 2016/2017 application sufficient to allow a different outcome

Ratio Decidendi

The petition is dismissed because issue estoppel applies: the 2016/2017 application did not introduce material new evidence beyond a one-page land survey and thus re-litigated issues already decided by prior proceedings; alternatively, the approving officer's denial was reasonable and not tainted by bad faith, discrimination, or a totally inadequate factual basis, given unresolved landslip/erosion and zoning concerns.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed; respondents awarded costs at Scale B

Orders

  • Petition dismissed
  • Respondents awarded their costs of this proceeding at Scale B