C.P.R. v. Vancouver (City)

C.P.R. v. Vancouver (City)

The Court held the City acted within its statutory planning powers under ss.561-563 of the Vancouver Charter in enacting the AC ODP Bylaw; s.569(1) precludes compensation for exercises of those Part XXVII powers; the chambers judge erred in finding the bylaw ultra vires; CPR's cross-appeal for acquisition/compensation and procedural challenges were dismissed.

Citation
2004 BCCA 192
Parties
Respondent; Petitioner; Appellant on Cross Appeal: Canadian Pacific Railway Company; Appellant; Respondent; Respondent on Cross Appeal: City of Vancouver
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 April 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; chambers judge's order setting aside the AC ODP Bylaw set aside. Cross-appeal by CPR for acquisition/compensation dismissed. Procedural cross-appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Official Development Plan, Zoning, Ultra Vires, Procedural Fairness, Public Hearing, Statutory Interpretation, Takings/injurious Affection
Source Language
English
Municipal Law Property Law Administrative Law Land Use Planning Expropriation/compensation Official Development Plan Zoning Ultra Vires +4 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canadian Pacific Railway Company

Respondent; Petitioner; Appellant on Cross Appeal

City of Vancouver

Appellant; Respondent; Respondent on Cross Appeal

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Arbutus Corridor Official Development Plan Bylaw was intra vires the City under Part XXVII of the Vancouver Charter
  2. 2 Whether the designation of private rail corridor as a public thoroughfare effected a 'taking' requiring acquisition or compensation
  3. 3 Whether s.569(1) or other Charter provisions preclude compensation for planning designations

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the City acted within its statutory planning powers under ss.561-563 of the Vancouver Charter in enacting the AC ODP Bylaw; s.569(1) precludes compensation for exercises of those Part XXVII powers; the chambers judge erred in finding the bylaw ultra vires; CPR's cross-appeal for acquisition/compensation and procedural challenges were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; chambers judge's order setting aside the AC ODP Bylaw set aside. Cross-appeal by CPR for acquisition/compensation dismissed. Procedural cross-appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Allow City's appeal and set aside the chambers judge's declaration that the Bylaw was invalid
  • Dismiss CPR's cross-appeal seeking an order requiring the City to pay for the land