City of Prince George v. Slat

City of Prince George v. Slat

The modified structure as it existed on July 2, 1997 fell within the zoning bylaw's site coverage definition; the City's removal of the roof was unnecessary and beyond what the June 23, 1997 order authorized, so expenses attributable to that additional work are not recoverable under the order; the City's invoice is not adequately itemized and further inquiry (by master or independent expert) is required before any assessment or certification of expenses may be made.

Citation
2001 BCSC 306
Parties
Petitioner: City of Prince George; Respondent: Ivan Slat
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Post Judgment Enforcement Application (assessment of Expenses) / In Chambers – Adjourned for Submissions on Mode of Inquiry
Outcome
Application adjourned for further submissions; no final assessment awarded; court directed parties to address whether inquiry should proceed under R.32 or R.32A and the selection/remuneration of an expert or master
Legal Topics
Site Coverage, Zoning Bylaw Interpretation, Enforcement of Court Orders, Assessment of Expenses, Appointment of Master or Expert Under Rules of Court, Unnecessary Remedial Work
Source Language
English
Municipal Law Zoning Civil Procedure Property Law Costs and Enforcement Site Coverage Zoning Bylaw Interpretation Enforcement of Court Orders +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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

City of Prince George

Petitioner

Ivan Slat

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Post Judgment Enforcement Application (assessment of Expenses) / In Chambers – Adjourned for Submissions on Mode of Inquiry

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the City may have its enforcement expenses ascertained and certified to be binding on the respondent pursuant to R.32
  2. 2 Whether the respondent complied with prior court orders and the zoning bylaw (site coverage)
  3. 3 Whether the City performed work beyond what was authorized and whether such additional work is recoverable

Ratio Decidendi

The modified structure as it existed on July 2, 1997 fell within the zoning bylaw's site coverage definition; the City's removal of the roof was unnecessary and beyond what the June 23, 1997 order authorized, so expenses attributable to that additional work are not recoverable under the order; the City's invoice is not adequately itemized and further inquiry (by master or independent expert) is required before any assessment or certification of expenses may be made.

Court Disposition

Application adjourned for further submissions; no final assessment awarded; court directed parties to address whether inquiry should proceed under R.32 or R.32A and the selection/remuneration of an expert or master

Orders

  • Counsel to contact the trial co-ordinator to arrange a date to make submissions regarding the mode of inquiry and choice/remuneration of any expert or master
  • No assessment certified at this time; further inquiry to be determined after submissions