Kinney v. The Provincial Agricultural Land Commission

2026 BCSC 478 Kinney v. The Provincial Agricultural Land Commission IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Kinney v. The Provincial Agricultural Land Commission, 2026 BCSC 478 Date: 20260320 Docket: S231783 Registry: Victoria In the Matter of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 241 and in the Matter of the Agricultural Land Commission Appeal Decision, ALC File 87334 & 126599 Between: Nancy Anne Kinney Petitioner And: The Provincial Agricultural Land Commission Respondent Before: The Honourable Justice LeBlanc Reasons for Judgment The Petitioner, appearing on her own behalf: N. A. Kinney Counsel for the Respondent: M. Pongracic-Speier, K.C. Place and Date of Hearing: Victoria, B.C. March 11, 2026 Place and Date of Judgment: Victoria, B.C. March 20, 2026 Table of Contents Introduction.. 3 Procedural Background.. 5 Summary of Issues. 8 Issue #1 - Should the petitioner be permitted to further amend the Amended Petition?. 8 Applicable Legal Principles. 9 Position of the petitioner 9 Position of the Commission. 10 Analysis. 10 (a) Judicial review of additional decisions. 11 (b) Declarations permitting certain work to be undertaken on the Property.... 13 (c) Requiring the filing of a complete record. 15 (d) Misfeasance and civil conspiracy claims. 15 (e) Costs on a full indemnity basis. 17 Conclusion on Issue #1. 17 Issue #2 - Should there be an order directing the Commission to produce additional materials?. 18 Applicable Legal Principles. 19 Analysis. 20 Issue #3 - Should the petitioner be granted leave to file additional affidavits and should there be an order deeming service of affidavits?. 21 Conclusion.. 22 Introduction [1] The petitioner owns property located in Saanich, B.C. with a municipal address of 5895 Old East Road (the "Property"). The Property is located in the agricultural land reserve and the District of Saanich. [2] The depositing of fill, as a permitted farm use of the Property, has been an ongoing issue between the petitioner and the Agricultural Land Commission (the "Commission"). [3] On May 16, 2023, the petitioner filed her petition for judicial review (the "Original Petition"). In it, she sought to have an April 3, 2023 decision (the "2023 Decision") of the Commission set aside, and a declaration that soil placement at the Property is a necessary specified farm use. Alternatively, the petitioner sought an order directing the Commission to reconsider the appeal of a December 14, 2021 stop work order and a January 25, 2022 penalty. [4] On March 27, 2025, the petitioner amended the petition (the "Amended Petition") to seek the judicial review and setting aside of a decision of the Commission Appeal Panel issued on July 26, 2018 (the "2018 Decision"), and an extension of time to seek judicial review of the 2018 Decision, in addition to setting aside the 2023 Decision. In the Amended Petition, the sought after declaration concerning soil placement on the Property was abandoned. [5] The petitioner now applies to further amend the Amended Petition and seeks other procedural orders. Part 1 of the petitioner's notice of application is reproduced here: 1. An order pursuant to Rule 4-7(1) deeming the following affidavits to have been effectively served on the Respondent as of the dates indicated: (a) Affidavit #1 of Nancy Anne Kinney (sworn May 19, 2023) - deemed served May 19, 2023; (b) Affidavit #2 of Nancy Anne Kinney (sworn July 14, 2025) - deemed served July 31, 2025; (c) Affidavit #3 of Nancy Anne Kinney (sworn December 8, 2025) - deemed served December 8, 2025; (d) Affidavit #4 of Nancy Anne Kinney (sworn February 20, 2026) - deemed served February 20, 2026. 2. An order granting leave to the applicant to rely on the following affidavits as evidence at the hearing of this petition, pursuant to Rule 16-1(7): o Affidavit #1 of Nancy Anne Kinney sworn May 19, 2023; o Affidavit #2 of Nancy Anne Kinney sworn July 14, 2025; o Affidavit #3 of Nancy Anne Kinney sworn December 8, 2025; o Affidavit #4 of Nancy Anne Kinney sworn February 20, 2026. 3. An order pursuant to Rule 6-1 granting leave to the applicant to file a Further Amended Petition in the form attached as Schedule "A". 4. An order pursuant to section 17 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, RSBC 1996, c 241, directing the Respondent to file a complete record of the proceedings, including but not limited to: (a) the complete record of the 2018 appeal proceedings (ALC File 87334); (b) Birchmore's June 28, 2022 email forwarding the bias complaint to Laing (Affidavit #2, Exhibit "E", p. 150); (c) ALC staff discussions regarding public shaming (August 9, 2021) (Affidavit #2, Exhibit "E", pp. 37-38); (d) all complaints, logs, photographs, and communications from the neighbour (S. 22(1)) from 2021-2023 (Affidavit #2, Exhibit "E", multiple pages); (e) ALC emails encouraging the neighbour's surveillance (2021-2022) (Affidavit #2, Exhibit "E", pp. 33, 45-47, 91-93, 112, 146-148); (f) emails regarding the timing of the title notation (May 10-14, 2021) (Affidavit #2, Exhibit "E", pp. 4-5, 8, 16, 50-68); (g) ALC correspondence with trucking companies (November-December 2021) (Affidavit #2, Exhibit "E", pp. 39-42, 62-66, 87-90, 108-112); (h) BC Assessment consultation and redaction emails (July 11, 2022) (Affidavit #2, Exhibit "E", pp. 155-157, 201-203); (i) the November 22, 2022 email regarding delayed enforcement (Affidavit #2, Exhibit "E", p. 211); and (j) all documents evidencing Mike Romaine's government connections and communications with the ALC and Saanich (Affidavit #4, Exhibits A-G; Affidavit #2, Exhibit "E", multiple pages). 5. Such further and other relief as this Honourable Court may deem just. 6. Costs of this application. [6] The Commission opposes the relief sought by the petitioner. Procedural Background [7] On May 28, 2018, the Commission became aware of fill being deposited onto the Property. [8] In June 2018, a Commission official served a compliance notice and stop work order (the "2018 SWO") on the petitioner which required the immediate cessation of importation and deposition of fill material on the Property for the purpose of land development work. [9] On June 18, 2018, the petitioner appealed the 2018 SWO. [10] By way of the 2018 Decision, the 2018 SWO was confirmed. [11] On February 26, 2019, the petitioner requested that the appeal panel reconsider the 2018 Decision and on April 23, 2019, the appeal panel refused the request for reconsideration. [12] The 2023 Decision concerned the appeal of two compliance and enforcement decisions: a) a varied stop work order issued by the Commission C&E Officer, Steven Laing, to the petitioner dated December 14, 2021 ("Varied 2021 SWO"); and b) a penalty order issued by Commission Chief Executive Officer, Kim Grout, to the petitioner dated January 25, 2022 ("Penalty Order"). [13] At the hearing resulting in the 2023 Decision, the petitioner advised the Commission that she would comply with the Varied 2021 SWO pending the outcome of a non-farm use application she intended to submit, but she was not going to withdraw her appeal of the Varied 2021 SWO because it was "inexorably linked" with the Penalty Order appeal. [14] The 2023 Decision found that the Penalty Order was reasonable and proportionate and cancellation/reduction was refused. [15] As noted above, the petitioner filed the Original Petition on May 16, 2023. [16] On May 19, 2023, the petitioner filed her first affidavit ("Kinney Affidavit #1"). [17] On June 16, 2023, the Commission filed and served a petition response and Affidavit #1 of Elizabeth Sarioglu, made on June 16, 2023 (the "Sarioglu Affidavit"). The Commission submits that the Sarioglu Affidavit contains the record of proceedings regarding the 2023 Decision. [18] On January 5, 2024, the petitioner retained legal counsel to represent her in the petition. She had previously been self-representing. [19] On August 12, 2024, the petitioner set the petition for hearing during the assize week of February 24, 2025. [20] On February 3, 2025, the hearing of the petition was adjourned by consent and at the request of the petitioner. [21] On March 27, 2025, the petitioner filed the Amended Petition. [22] On March 31, 2025, the Commission filed an amended petition response. [23] On April 8, 2025, the petitioner set the petition for hearing on the assize for the week of August 25, 2025. [24] On July 22, 2025, the petitioner delivered an unfiled copy of Affidavit #2 of the petition made on July 14, 2025 ("Kinney Affidavit #2"). [25] On August 8, 2025, the petitioner filed a notice of intention to act in person. [26] The hearing of the petition was adjourned by consent, at the request of the petitioner, to the assize during the week of December 15, 2025. [27] On December 3, 2025, the petitioner sought an adjournment to which the Commission did not consent. The parties exchanged written submissions between December 5 and 11, 2025. [28] On December 8, 2025, the petitioner provided the Commission with a filed copy of Kinney Affidavit #2 and third affidavit of the petitioner made on December 8, 2025 ("Kinney Affidavit #3"). [29] A judge was not available to hear the petition during the week of December 15, 2025, and it was rescheduled, by consent, to the assize during the week of April 7, 2026. [30] On December 18, 2025, the petitioner sought confirmation as to whether the Sarioglu Affidavit was the record of the 2023 Decision, and if confirmed, requested amendment of the record to include all documents in the Commission's possession, including material contained in Kinney Affidavit #2. On the same day, the Commission confirmed its position that the Sarioglu Affidavit contained the record of proceeding of the 2023 Decision within the meaning of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 241 [JRPA], and advised the petitioner that if she sought to have additional materials before the court, she would need to apply to adduce additional evidence. [31] On February 12, 2026, the petitioner advised that she would bring the current application. [32] On February 20, 2026, the petitioner filed a notice of application along with a further affidavit made on February 20, 2026 ("Kinney Affidavit #4"). The February 20, 2026 application was abandoned by the petitioner on February 25, 2026. [33] On February 25, 2026, the petitioner filed the current application. This application was scheduled on the regular chambers list with a time estimate of less than two hours. In support of her application, the petitioner filed five, 4-inch binders containing thousands of pages of material. At the hearing, the petitioner provided the court with additional materials. I advised the petitioner that given the volume of material before me, she would need to focus her submissions and direct my attention to those aspects of the record that supported her application. Notwithstanding that direction, the petitioner did not direct my attention to anything specific in the record, and her submissions included broad complaints about how she had been treated over the last ten plus years by the Commission and others. [34] The petitioner submits that fairness favours her on this application and I should afford her the benefit as a self-represented litigant. [35] While appreciating that the petitioner is self-representing on this application, given the lack of particularized submissions, I have no option but to consider the document production components of the petitioner's application in a generalized and holistic manner. The petitioner did provide me with a written summary of her submissions, and in it, I am able to find some references to specific documents and I have considered the same. Summary of Issues [36] The following issues are to be determined on this application: a) Should the petitioner be permitted to further amend the Amended Petition? b) Should there be an order directing the Commission to produce additional materials? c) Should the petitioner be granted leave to file additional affidavits in support of her position on this petition and should there be an order deeming service of the petitioner's affidavits on the Commission? Issue #1 - Should the petitioner be permitted to further amend the Amended Petition? [37] The petitioner has submitted a draft further amended petition to the court (the "Further Amended Petition"). [38] The Further Amended Petition contains 117 pages. Although some of those pages contain portions to be struck out, the amendments are still voluminous and include expanding the nature of the judicial review beyond the current decisions contained in the Amended Petition, and seeking relief against additional entities and persons. Applicable Legal Principles [39] The petitioner requires leave to file the Further Amended Petition, as the Commission does not consent to the filing: Rule 16-1(19) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, B.C. Reg. 168/2009 [Rules]. [40] On an application for leave to amend pleadings, the court has adopted a generous approach, so that properly raised issues can be determined at the hearing, consistent with the objective for Rule 1-3(1): Berezowski v. British Columbia (Residential Tenancy Branch), 2014 BCSC 363 at para. 196. [41] Although the approach may be generous, the court must still consider the substance of the amendments to determine if they are of sufficient merit and meet the requirements of proper pleadings. Pleadings that disclose no reasonable claim, or are otherwise scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious should not be permitted. [42] In the context of a petition proceeding, the question is whether the petition discloses the type of claim that may be brought by petition: E.B. v. Director of Child, Family and Community Services, 2016 BCCA 66 at para. 42. [43] Additionally, the court can refuse amendments when they would result in prejudice to the other parties: Berezowski at paras. 208-210. Position of the petitioner [44] The petitioner submits that the issues between her and the Commission are multi-faceted and to make out her case, the amendments are necessary. [45] The petitioner urges the court to look past any procedural and legal technicalities and focus on the prejudice the petitioner alleges to have suffered as a consequence of the years of enforcement the petitioner submits has been taken against the Property by the Commission and others. Position of the Commission [46] The Commission submits that the amendments sought would dramatically broaden the scope and fundamentally change the nature of the proceedings. If leave is granted to file the Further Amended Petition, this proceeding will be further delayed and will prejudice the Commission which has prepared for this hearing on three prior occasions. [47] In addition, the Commission argues that the proposed pleadings do not constitute proper pleadings as the factual summary is not brief. Rather, the Commission submits that the proposed amendments are prolix, verbose, incoherent, disorganized and confusing. [48] Lastly, the Commission submits that the amendments raise matters that are not properly brought by petition, raise no reasonable claim, or are otherwise scandalous, frivolous or vexatious. Analysis [49] The proposed amendments include: a) expanding the scope of judicial review to additional decisions; b) seeking declarations permitting certain work to be undertaken on the Property; c) requiring the Commission to file a complete record; d) declarations of misfeasance in public office and civil conspiracy; an order that the damages arising from the misfeasance and civil conspiracy are referred to the trial list and the Registrar; a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to compensation for losses arising from unlawful conduct; and e) costs on a full indemnity basis. [50] I will consider each of the new heads of relief separately below to determine if leave should be granted to the petitioner to seek the additional relief. (a) Judicial review of additional decisions [51] The petitioner seeks to expand the scope of this judicial review to additional decisions. I have reproduced that portion of the Further Amended Petition here: 4. An order in the nature of certiorari quashing the following enforcement orders that derive their authority from, or are consequential upon, the 2018 and 2023 Appeal Decisions: the June 11, 2018 Stop Work Order, the December 3, 2019 Remediation Order, the December 3 2020 Failure to Remediate Order, the December 8 and 14, 2021 Stop Work Orders and Varied Stop Work Order, and the January 25, 2022 $100,000 Penalty Order; and an order directing the Registrar of Land Titles to cancel the notation registered against PID: 003-193-110 on May 12, 2021, namely: "NOTICE OF REMEDIATION ORDER AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION ACT SECTION 52.1. SEE CA9004206" (defined as "Proposed Para. 4") [52] Proposed Para. 4 would seek judicial review of four additional stop work orders issued by the staff of the Commission, a remediation order and a penalty issued by the Commission CEO, and a notice of a failure to remediate issued by the Commission staff (the "Additional Decisions"). [53] The Commission is a corporation established under s. 4 of the Agricultural Land Commission Act, S.B.C. 2002, c. 36 [ALCA] and governed by it. Pursuant to s. 55.1 of the ALCA, the Commission has the exclusive jurisdiction to inquire into, hear and determine all those matters and questions of fact, law and discretion arising or required to be determined in an appeal under s. 55 of the ALCA and to make any order permitted to be made. Pursuant to s. 57 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, S.B.C. 2004, c. 45 [ATA], the time limit for seeking judicial review of a decision of the Commission is 60 days. [54] The Additional Decisions sought to be reviewed by the petitioner are subject to the Commission's internal appeal process, of which the petitioner has not availed herself. [55] The Court of Appeal in Yellow Cab Company Ltd. v. Passenger Transportation Board, 2014 BCCA 329 considered the availability of judicial of a decision maker's initial decision: [39] There is a general principle that a party must exhaust statutory administrative review procedures before bringing a judicial review application: Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Matsqui Indian Band, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 3; Harelkin v. University of Regina, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 561. For that reason, where an alleged error comes within a tribunal's statutory power of reconsideration, a court may refuse to entertain judicial review if the party has not made an attempt to take advantage of the reconsideration provision. Of course, where the power of reconsideration is not wide enough to encompass the alleged error, reconsideration cannot be considered an adequate alternative remedy to judicial review, and the existence of the limited power of reconsideration will not be an impediment to judicial review. [56] Beyond relying on her self-representing status, the petitioner has not provided a reasonable basis to explain why the internal processes were not followed, nor has she provided a reasonable explanation as to why steps were not taken earlier to have these decisions reconsidered either by way of the internal processes available or by way of judicial review (assuming leave would have been granted). [57] Allowing these amendments would substantively entail a new judicial review outside of the 60-day time limit for bringing such a review. If these issues are allowed to go forward, the hearing scheduled for April will be further delayed. [58] The prejudice to the Commission is clear. They have prepared for the hearing on three prior occasions and agreed to adjournments sought by the petitioner on two prior occasions. With each adjournment, the Commission is put to additional time and expense to prepare for the hearing. [59] The timelines prescribed by the ALCA and the ATA for seeking review of decisions indicates an intention of the legislature to have these types of disputes determined in a timely manner. The significant delay, coupled with not having utilized the internal processes, is a significant barrier that the petitioner faces to having the Additional Decisions judicially reviewed. For example, in Sekyer v. British Columbia (Medical Services Commission), 2025 BCSC 1434, the petitioner sought judicial review of an internal decision approximately six years following the decision. In that case, I found that the delay was so significant that it had serious negative consequences from a public administrative standpoint. With these barriers in mind, I do not find it to be in the interests of justice to permit amendment within this proceeding, as it will further delay this proceeding. If the petitioner wishes to seek judicial review of the Additional Decisions, she can file a new petition, but will have to address delay and why she did not follow the internal processes. [60] Furthermore, the proposed amendment seeks relief against the Registrar of Land Titles without naming the Registrar as a respondent. Permitting the amendment would bring a further party into the proceeding. Additionally, I have been unable to find a legal basis within the Further Amended Petition that would support the relief being sought by the petitioner against the Registrar. [61] The petitioner faces significant hurdles if the amendments are permitted. The petitioner first requires the court to significantly extend the statutorily prescribed limitation period. If the limitation period is extended, the court will have to find a basis to depart from the conclusions set out in Yellow Cab Company to permit judicial review of the Additional Decisions as they have not been previously reviewed by the statutorily prescribed decision maker. Lastly, the petitioner will have to serve notice on the Registrar of Land Titles and seek further amendment of her pleadings to provide a legal basis for the relief she is seeking. [62] Given these deficiencies, I find that it is not in the interests of justice to permit amendment to include Proposed Para. 4. (b) Declarations permitting certain work to be undertaken on the Property [63] The petitioner seeks to expand the relief sought at the judicial review hearing by seeking the following declarations related to operations on the Property: 5. A declaration that the Petitioner's farm remediation project constitutes land development works within the meaning of section 6 of the Agricultural Land Reserve Use Regulation, B.C. Reg. 30/2019, and is therefore a farm operation as defined in section 1 of the Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act, conducted as a normal farm practice within the meaning of section 2 of that Act, and is a farm use within the meaning of section 1 of the Agricultural Land Commission Act, S.B.C. 2002, c. 36. It is further declared that, as such, the project: (a) may not be prohibited by any municipal bylaw, including the District of Saanich's Fill Deposit Bylaw; (b) does not require any application, approval, permission, or notification to or from the Respondent; (c) cannot be the basis for any stop work order, remediation order, penalty, or other enforcement action by the Respondent; and (d) cannot be the basis for any injunction, prosecution, or other enforcement action by the District of Saanich. ("Proposed Para. 5") [64] Proposed Para. 5 is replete with issues. [65] First, the petitioner seeks declarations that would bind the District of Saanich without notice. The District of Saanich is not a respondent to this judicial review, and it should not be required to participate in the judicial review of a decision to which it was not involved. [66] Second, the declarations sought are outside the Commission's statutory authority and the Commission ought not have to participate in a dispute that appears to be between the petitioner and the District of Saanich. Declarations that are outside the scope of a statutory decision maker cannot be granted on judicial review: Gibbons v. Comox Valley (Regional District), 2024 BCSC 2141 at para. 84. Under s. 2(2) of the JRPA, declaratory relief on judicial review is only available "in relation to the exercise, refusal to exercise, or proposed or purported exercise, of a statutory power". As the declarations described in Proposed Para. 5 are not directed at exercise or proposed or purported exercise of a decision of the Commission, declaratory relief under s. 2(2)(b) of the JRPA is not available. [67] Third, the declarations described in Proposed Para. 5 appear to be seeking future looking declarations insulating the petitioner from potential future enforcement. Courts will decline to grant declaratory relief when the issue is hypothetical, academic or not sufficiently concrete. [68] For these reasons, I decline to permit amendment to include Proposed Para. 5. (c) Requiring the filing of a complete record [69] The petitioner's amendments seek an order directing the respondent to file a complete record of proceedings for this judicial review, including all materials required under Commission Appeal Rule 26. [70] As this relief is also sought in this application, I will consider this matter on its merits later in these reasons. Accordingly, this amendment is not necessary, and therefore, leave to amend is not granted. (d) Misfeasance and civil conspiracy claims [71] The petitioner's proposed amendments concerning her misfeasance and civil conspiracy claims are reproduced here: 7. A declaration that the facts found in this judicial review establish a prima facie case of: (a) misfeasance in public office against the individual ALC officials named herein; (b) civil conspiracy against the ALC, the District of Saanich, and Mike Romaine, acting in combination; and (c) de facto taking of the Petitioner's property rights by the Respondent. 8. an order that the Petitioner's claims for damages arising from said misfeasance, civil conspiracy, and/or de facto taking shall proceed to trial (or a reference) on an expedited basis, with the findings of fact from this judicial review binding on the parties in that proceeding; 9. A declaration that the Petitioner is entitled to compensation for losses caused by the Respondent's unlawful conduct, including but not limited to the losses particularized in the Causation Timeline (Schedule "B" hereto) with the quantum of such compensation to be determined in accordance with Order 10 below; 10. An order referring the assessment of the quantum of compensation to a Master or Registrar of this Court pursuant to Rule 18-1 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, B.C. Reg. 168/2009, with such assessment to proceed on an expedited basis, and with liberty to the Petitioner to adduce evidence for the purpose of such assessment including but not limited to: (a) financing and investment agreements, letters of intent, and related documents for cannabis business transactions from 2017 to 2021; (b) rental agreements for agritourism sites developed on the Property; (c) the 2025 judgment in The Corporation of the District of Saanich v. Kinney, 2025 BCSC 1132, and related court documents; (d) correspondence from brokers, banks, and lenders regarding the impact of the ALC's title notation and regulatory uncertainty on financing; (e) any further evidence relevant to the quantification of losses flowing directly from the Respondent's unlawful conduct; ("Proposed Paras. 7-10") [72] Proposed Paras. 7-10 contain the same statutory and procedural issues as Proposed Paras. 5. The petitioner seeks declarations that are outside the scope of the Commission and are not available on judicial review. The petitioner also seeks declaratory relief and orders against parties to which no notice has been given. [73] Although the petitioner frames Proposed Paras. 7-10 as a claim for declaratory relief, properly read, it is a claim for compensation. A claim for compensation or damages is not available on judicial review: Madadi v. British Columbia College of Teachers, 2014 BCSC 1062 at paras. 41-50; Westcoast Association for Property Rights v. British Columbia, 2025 BCSC 296 at para. 96. [74] Other procedural problems with the proposed amendments include: a) seeking costs of what appears to be an unrelated proceeding in this judicial review; and b) seeking findings of fact on contested evidence in a judicial review proceeding. [75] For these reasons, I decline to permit amendment to include Proposed Paras. 7-10. (e) Costs on a full indemnity basis [76] The last amendment to the relief sought by the petitioner includes seeking costs on a full indemnity basis. [77] The Commission opposes this amendment on the basis that subject to limited exceptions not articulated in the Further Amended Petition, there is traditionally immunity protecting quasi-judicial tribunals from costs awards. [78] While I agree with the Commission that this type of cost award is rare, it is not prohibited, and there is little prejudice in permitting the petitioner to plead that relief. Permitting the amendment will not delay the current hearing and will not extend the time necessary for hearing the petition, as the costs submissions will be discrete. [79] Accordingly, I would exercise my discretion to allow the petitioner to file a further amended petition with the following additional paragraph to Part 1: "Costs of this proceeding on a full indemnity basis." Conclusion on Issue #1 [80] The remainder of the Further Amended Petition is prolix, disorganized, and relates primarily to the additional grounds of relief sought by the petitioner. The petitioner did not address these amendments in her submissions other than by advising that the amendments are required for the "court to understand the complete picture". I disagree. The proposed amendments serve no useful purpose with respect to the narrow issue that will be before the court. [81] I agree with the Commission that permitting the amendments contained in the Further Amended Petition would not be consistent with the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of the proceeding on its merits. Furthermore, it would undermine the administrative scheme which establishes an expeditious system for the resolution of disputes. [82] As such, I am dismissing the petitioner's application to file the Further Amended Petition. As stated above, I am permitting the petitioner to file an amendment to the Amended Petition that contains the following within Part 1: Orders Sought: "Costs of this proceeding on a full indemnity basis." Issue #2 - Should there be an order directing the Commission to produce additional materials? [83] The petitioner seeks the following documents to be included in the record pursuant to s. 17 of the JRPA: (a) the complete record of the 2018 appeal proceedings (ALC File 87334); (b) Birchmore's June 28, 2022 email forwarding the bias complaint to Laing (Affidavit #2, Exhibit "E", p. 150); (c) ALC staff discussions regarding public shaming (August 9, 2021) (Affidavit #2, Exhibit "E", pp. 37-38); (d) all complaints, logs, photographs, and communications from the neighbour (S. 22(1)) from 2021-2023 (Affidavit #2, Exhibit "E", multiple pages); (e) ALC emails encouraging the neighbour's surveillance (2021-2022) (Affidavit #2, Exhibit "E", pp. 33, 45-47, 91-93, 112, 146-148); (f) emails regarding the timing of the title notation (May 10-14, 2021) (Affidavit #2, Exhibit "E", pp. 4-5, 8, 16, 50-68); (g) ALC correspondence with trucking companies (November-December 2021) (Affidavit #2, Exhibit "E", pp. 39-42, 62-66, 87-90, 108-112); (h) BC Assessment consultation and redaction emails (July 11, 2022) (Affidavit #2, Exhibit "E", pp. 155-157, 201-203); (i) the November 22, 2022 email regarding delayed enforcement (Affidavit #2, Exhibit "E", p. 211); and (j) all documents evidencing Mike Romaine's government connections and communications with the ALC and Saanich (Affidavit #4, Exhibits A-G; Affidavit #2, Exhibit "E", multiple pages). [84] The Commission submits that the sole decision on review, unless the court grants an extension of time for the petitioner to seek judicial review of the 2018 Decision, is the 2023 Decision. The Commission further submits that it has provided the record of the proceeding for the 2023 Decision on June 16, 2023, which it says can be found in the Sarioglu Affidavit. Applicable Legal Principles [85] Section 1 of the JRPA defines "record of proceedings" as follows: "record of proceedings" includes the following: (a) a document by which the proceeding is commenced; (b) a notice of hearing in the proceeding; (c) an intermediate order made by the tribunal; (d) a document produced in evidence at a hearing before the tribunal, subject to any limitation expressly imposed by any other enactment on the extent to which or the purpose for which a document may be used in evidence in a proceeding; (e) a transcript, if any, of the oral evidence given at a hearing; (f) the decision of the tribunal and any reason given by it; [86] Section 17 relied on by the petitioner provides that on an application for judicial review of a decision made in the exercise or purported exercise of a statutory power of decision, the court may direct that the record of the proceeding, or any part of it, be filed in the court. [87] Setting aside for a moment the record of the 2018 Decision, the Commission has filed the record of the 2023 Decision. There is a lack of evidence before me that would suggest that there are records that have been withheld. Based on the petitioner's submissions, it appears the additional materials sought to be included in the record are "extra disclosure documents". In reaching this conclusion, I note that the petitioner referred me to my decision in Duncan v. (British Columbia) Minister of Education and Child Care, 2025 BCSC 2011, where I ordered extra document production. [88] Consistent with the court's supervisory role, the record on judicial review, prima facie, consists of the material (documents and other information) that was before the decision maker: British Columbia (Lieutenant Governor in Council) v. Canada Mink Breeders Association, 2023 BCCA 310 at para. 25. [89] In limited circumstances, the court has the power to admit evidence to augment or supplement the record where the admission of such evidence is necessary to ensure that the court can properly discharge its supervisory role. Such circumstances can include, for example, where it is alleged that a tribunal is biased or acted for an improper purpose: Mink Breeders at para. 77 citing Tsleil-Waututh Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2017 FCA 128 at para. 99. Analysis [90] To succeed on her application, the petitioner must establish that the extra documents are both necessary and relevant to judicial review of the 2023 Decision, and if leave is granted, the 2018 Decision. [91] Much of the additional evidence the petitioner seeks to have included with the record pertains to the petitioner's conspiracy and misfeasance in public office allegations, which I have concluded cannot be determined on this judicial review. For example, I have been able to locate many references to the additional documents within the Further Amended Petition under the following sections "misfeasance in public office", "The Combination", "Unlawful Means Conspiracy", and "Predominant Purpose Conspiracy (in the alternative)". [92] Based on the materials before me, I am unable to conclude that production of the extra documents is both necessary and relevant to the judicial review of the 2023 Decision. Accordingly, I decline to grant an order directing the Commission to supplement the record by including those documents listed at paragraph 4(b) - (j) of Part 1 of the notice of application. [93] If leave is granted, the record of the 2018 Decision will be relevant to the petition hearing and ought to be included in the materials before the court. The difficulty I am faced with is the petitioner's failure to previously seek leave to judicially review the 2018 Decision. It is unknown whether the 2018 Decision will be the subject of judicial review until the petition comes on for hearing. As such, I am adjourning the relief sought by the petitioner at paragraph 4(a) of Part 1 of the notice of application. That question should be determined by the judge hearing the judicial review. Issue #3 - Should the petitioner be granted leave to file additional affidavits and should there be an order deeming service of affidavits? [94] The petitioner seeks an order pursuant to Rule 4-7 deeming service of affidavits she has sworn: Kinney Affidavit #1, Kinney Affidavit #2, Kinney Affidavit #3 and Kinney Affidavit #4. [95] In addition, the petitioner seeks leave to rely on these affidavits at the hearing of the Amended Petition. [96] The Commission submits that the petitioner did not comply with Rule 16-1(7) and requires leave of the court to serve Kinney Affidavit #2, Kinney Affidavit #3 and Kinney Affidavit #4. Further, the Commission submits that additional affidavits in petition proceedings should be admitted "sparingly and only in clearly meritorious cases where to exclude the evidence would result in a substantial injustice": V.I. Camelot Homes Ltd. v. Eberwein, 2024 BCSC 966, paras. 7, 9. [97] Consistent with my supervisory role on judicial review, I will first consider whether the affidavits would be admissible on a judicial review proceeding. On judicial review, the reviewing court generally does not admit evidence that is not part of the record: SELI Canada Inc. v. Construction and Specialized Workers' Union, Local 1611, 2011 BCCA 353 at para. 80. A reviewing court usurps the role of the administrative decision maker where it receives new evidence that was not before the tribunal and conducts a de novo hearing rather than reviewing the tribunal's decision based on the record that was before the tribunal: Actton Transport Ltd. v. British Columbia (Employment Standards), 2010 BCCA 272 at para. 23. [98] The materials in Kinney Affidavit #1 are intended to supplement the record of the 2023 Decision; however, Kinney Affidavit #1 contains largely inadmissible evidence on a judicial review, including legal analysis, requests of the court, and speculative statements. Much of the affidavit is not admissible evidence. The 2023 Decision pertains to the appropriateness of a $100,000 penalty imposed on the petitioner. What remains of admissible materials in the Kinney Affidavit #1 would supplement the record in a manner that was cautioned against in Actton. [99] Kinney Affidavit #2 is over 400 pages, contains the materials and evidence from Kinney Affidavit #1, along with additional documents the petitioner obtained through freedom of information requests. Kinney Affidavit #2 contains similar problems as Kinney Affidavit #1, including speculative statements and legal argument. However, having reviewed Kinney Affidavit #2, while I would exclude much of the affidavit, I would permit the plaintiff to rely on paragraph 80 as it contains the petitioner's evidence related to procedural fairness, a matter she has raised in the judicial review. Accordingly, the front page and the signature page along with the page containing paragraph 80 of the Kinney Affidavit #2 shall be included in the hearing record, with any other visible paragraphs being redacted. The remainder of Kinney Affidavit #2 will not be considered on the judicial review. [100] Having reviewed Kinney Affidavit #3, it primarily contains evidence post-dating the 2023 Decision and is not relevant to a judicial review of the 2023 Decision. Even if the petitioner is granted leave to a judicial review of the 2018 Decision, Kinney Affidavit #3 would have no bearing on the issues before the court. The petitioner submits that she requires this affidavit to demonstrate a regulatory deadlock between the Commission and the District of Saanich; however, that will not be an issue the court has to consider on this judicial review. [101] Kinney Affidavit #4 exhibits information concerning Mike Romaine. As the amendments contained in Proposed Paras. 7-10 have been denied, Kinney Affidavit #4 is not relevant and would not assist in a determination of the Amended Petition on its merits. [102] Accordingly, Kinney Affidavit #1, Kinney Affidavit #2 with the exception of paragraph 80, Kinney Affidavit #3 and Kinney Affidavit #4 are not admissible. Leave to file other than paragraph 80 of Kinney Affidavit #2 is denied. Conclusion [103] Below is a summary of the orders I have made: a) The petitioner may file and rely on paragraph 80 of the Kinney Affidavit #2 at the hearing of the judicial review; b) the petitioner has leave to file a further amended petition with the following additional paragraph to be included in Part 1: "Costs of this proceeding on a full indemnity basis."; c) paragraph 4(a) of Part 1 of the notice of application is adjourned generally to be determined by the judge hearing the judicial review; and d) the remainder of the relief sought by the petitioner in the notice of application filed on February 25, 2025 is dismissed. "LeBlanc, J."