In Greater Vancouver Regional District v. British Columbia, the British Columbia Court of Appeal clarified the interpretation of s.3(c) of the Local Government Act, R.S.B.C. The issue arose in the context of challenge brought by the Greater Vancouver Regional District ("GVRD") that the Musqueam Reconciliation, Settlement and Benefits Agreement Implementation Act ("Reconciliation Act") was ultra vires the British Columbia Legislature. Dismissing the appeal, Justice Newbury held for the court that s.3(c) does not create obligations for the Province of British Columbia nor a right for the GVRD for notice to be given.
"Block F" and "Block K" ("Park Lands") were sold to the GVRD by the Province in 1989 subject to the condition that it was without prejudice to the Musqueam claim over the lands. In 2008, a "Settlement Agreement" was reached in which the Park Lands were transferred to two companies designated by the Musqueam in exchange for the settlement of certain claims. The Reconciliation Act that then came into force provided that all claims the GVRD had were extinguished. In challenging the constitutionality of the Reconciliation Act, the GVRD claimed that the Province violated s. 3 of the Local Government Act in transferring the lands due to inadequate notice to them.
Newbury J. held that s.3 (c) only stated the "aspirational principle" that there should be notice for actions affecting regional interest such as that of the GVRD's, and should be treated like language in the preamble of a statute. Since the section does not state that the Province would necessarily provide such notification, it does not constitute a "manner and form" restraint on the Province's authority to enact new legislation, and therefore neither a legal obligation on the Province nor a right for GVRD was created. GVRD was denied the declaratory relief it sought and the appeal was dismissed.
August 15, 2011
Link to Decision
Adrienne Ho
*
No comments:
Post a Comment