COW ELECTION 2014

LIVE CAM HWY 97 @ WESTSIDE RD

CHBC TV News

Carr's Landing

Joe Rich Community

Trepanier

Kelowna Capital News
Issuu

Kelowna Daily Courier

Penticton Herald

Penticton Western

Summerland Review

Sumrlnd.myezrock

Vernon Morning Star
Issuu

Vernon Daily Courier

Castanet.net

Bennett Bridge Cam

Interior Highway Cams

Kelowna Airport

Regional District of Central Okanagan

RDCO's Facebook

Regional District of Okanagan Similkameen

District of Lake Country

District of Peachland

City of Penticton

District of Summerland

City of Vernon

District of West Kelowna

--------


Kelowna's Best Rock

RDCO Board Calender
RDCO Meeting Schedule

RDCO Board Reports

RDCO Board Agenda

RDCO Board Minutes

Gov Service Agenda

Gov Service Minutes

NWCA Minutes

SILGA - Board

UBCM

RDCO GIS Map

For sprinkling and watering days, click here.

-------

Westside Rd. Maps

C.O.W. Links

NW Ratepayers

Edgson News

NWCA

Westside Rd Interchange

Westside Road Updates

Westside Rd COMPLAINT FORM

Westside Residents Association

Jobs in Vernon

Jobs in Kelowna

Report Email Spam here.

Report Bad Links Here

Food Action Society

JOKES

WolframAlpha
Calculator/Answers

WikiLeaks.org

Datadotgc.ca

OpenDataBC

ProactiveDisclosure

BCGov FOI form

BC Forest Fire Info
Twitter
Facebook

BC Wildfires of Note
EmergencyInfoGovBC
Sound Cloud

Scan BC

Kelowna Yacht Club Wind Direction/Speed

MissingKids.ca

Follow okanaganlakebc.ca on Twitter

Follow OkanaganLakeBC on Twitter

okanagan lake directory, waterfront vacation rentals, local businesses, shopping, vernon, kelowna, westbank, westside, winfield, kaleden, oyama, peachland, penticton, summerland, naramata

Water System Judgements We Found On The Net

This page is made up of snippetts of court cases we found on the internet to do with

approving officers, potable water, public interest, subdivision approval, Dept. of Highways, specious or totally inadequate factual basis

Click refresh to be sure you see updates.

LAST UPDATE January 25, 2015

Blue Divider Line

Valley of the Sun is interested in the water system regulations for their subdivision that may have existed in 1970 when Valley of the Sun subdivision was approved, and so we looked up these judgements and wanted to remember them and thought making this page was a good way for everyone.

Blue Divider Line

Case from the year 2000

[6] The Regional District was originally incorporated by Letters Patent on August 24, 1967 and is now incorporated under the provisions of the Municipal Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 323. On November 30, 1969 the Regional District assumed responsibility for, among other things, community planning and building regulation from the Central Okanagan Regional Planning Board (the “Planning Board”) by Supplementary Letters Patent.

[7] The Department of Highways has at all material times been responsible for granting approval of the Subdivision.

Blue Divider Line

Local Services Act
Subdivision Regulations
[includes amendments up to B.C. Reg. 4/2010, January 14, 2010]

* This is only a snippett, please click link for entire Act *

Application
Where these regulations apply
1.01 These regulations apply to the subdivision of all land in the Province except land

(a) within a municipality,

(b) regulated by a bylaw under section 938 of the Municipal Act, and

Purpose
Purpose
2.01 The purpose of these regulations is to assist in assuring the safe, healthful, equitable, efficient, economical and attractive subdivision of land for the benefit of the community as a whole.

Regulations apply where there is no bylaw
1.03 Notwithstanding section 1.01 (b), where a bylaw does not regulate a matter covered by these regulations, these regulations apply to that matter.

[en. B.C. Reg. 424/87.]
 
Purpose
2.01 The purpose of these regulations is to assist in assuring the safe, healthful, equitable, efficient, economical and attractive subdivision of land for the benefit of the community as a whole.

Definitions
3.01 In these regulations, unless the context otherwise requires:

"approval" means approval in writing from the authority having jurisdiction; 

"building regulations" means regulation of construction of buildings by a building code adopted pursuant to the Local Services Act or to the Building Regulations Division of the Municipal Actą; 1. R.S.B.C. 1960-255

"community water system" means a system of waterworks which serves 2 or more parcels and which is owned, operated and maintained by an improvement district under the Water Act or the Municipal Act, or a regional district, or which is regulated under the Water Utility Act;

"potable water" means water which is approved for drinking purposes by the medical health officer in accordance with the Health Act;

Other regulations
4.02 Nothing contained in these regulations shall relieve the owner of a subdivision from the responsibility to seek out and comply with the legislation applicable to his undertaking.

Community water systems
4.09 (1) The design of any community water system to serve the subdivision shall be in accordance with the requirements of any authority having jurisdiction over the system pursuant to

(a) the Health Act and the Water Utility Act,

(b) the Health Act and the Water Act, when an improvement district has an applicable subdivision bylaw pursuant to the Water Act, or

(c) the Health Act and the Municipal Act, when a regional district has an applicable bylaw setting out the terms and conditions of any extension to its community water system,

as the case may be.

(2) The community water system approved pursuant to section 4.09 (1) shall be installed as approved before the subdivision is approved.

(3) Notwithstanding the requirements of section 4.09 (2), a subdivision may be approved prior to the construction of the community water system, provided that an arrangement securing performance of such construction satisfactory to the approving officer has been made with

(a) the Comptroller of Water Rights (under the Water Utility Act),

(b) an improvement district having an applicable subdivision bylaw adopted pursuant to the Water Act, or

(c) a regional district having an applicable bylaw setting out the terms and conditions of any extension to its community water system,

as the case may be, but in no case shall the subdivision be approved before the plans for the community water system have been approved.

"potable water" means water which is approved for drinking purposes by the medical health officer in accordance with the Health Act;

Access to navigable waters
5.06 When a subdivision borders on the shore of navigable waters, access shall be given in accordance with the requirements of the Land Title Act.

Blue Divider Line

We received a development plan map from the land titles office that has this information on it.

Valley of the Sun Development Plan #20608

Approved under the Land Registry Act by the Department of Highways Approving Officer on August 18, 1970.

plan 20608 Valley of the Sun, Westside Road, B.C. August 18, 1970

plan 20608 Valley of the Sun Westside Road B.C.

 

Regional District of Central Okanagan Governance and Services Committee Minutes March 8, 2006
It was suggested that services which are mandatory (statutory), and meet life, health
and safety requirements be clearly identified.  (found on page 3)

The question arises as to whether a municipal official, without any broad factual background, or supporting reasons, is entitled to unilaterally declare what is "the public interest".

 

C. ROLE OF APPROVING OFFICER

[26] The approving officer is a statutory officer under the Land Title Act and, in the case of rural areas, appointed by the Deputy Minister of Transportation and Highways. The approving officer is independent of the local government responsible for zoning and subdivision regulation and is charged by statute with the approval of subdivisions. The Land Title Act deals with the requirements for subdivision generally and establishes the authority of the approving officer to approve or reject a subdivision application. The particular jurisdiction of the approving officer is set out in ss. 85-88 of that Act:

 

[12] Although Becker submits that the Resolution amounts to an OCP or a Regional Growth Strategy I conclude the Resolution's wording reflects only guidelines, not regulations such as would be found in bylaws establishing an OCP or a Regional Growth Strategy which would require compliance without variation. The Resolution provides the Regional District with development guidelines, but offers a flexibility allowing the Regional District when considering development applications to exercise a discretion, rather than being bound by the terms of a bylaw establishing an OCP or a Regional Growth Strategy. The Regional District's decision to reconsider the rezoning application for District Lot 5343 reflects the flexibility and discretion afforded by the Resolution.

[13] I conclude the decision in Davison v. Maple Ridge (District) (1991), 60 B.C.L.R. (2d) 24 (B.C.C.A) applies, the Court of Appeal finding that the district's council was entitled to adopt a policy with respect to the exercise of its discretion "provided it was willing to consider individual applications for variance or exemption". In the instant case, the Regional District established policy guidelines regarding development, but that those guidelines were open to the consideration of individual development applications.

[14] I find the Resolution to be neither an OCP nor a Regional Growth Strategy. I dismiss the application.

 

1. Refusal Reason No. 1: The subdivision is contrary to the Official Community Plan (OCP)

[37] Under this heading, the approving officer's December 20, 2005 refusal letter states:

1. Official Community Plan - The proposed subdivision is contrary to the Official Community Plan (OCP). Specifically, the proposed five lots do not correspond with the physical dimensions of the area designated as Residential and Open Space. Council and the public have clearly provided direction, formally through a Public Hearing process, that their vision for the proposed development is that it will generally be within the area designated as Residential with the remainder of the lot continuing as Open Space.

[38] At the hearing of this appeal, the primary argument advanced by the approving officer was that section 9.5.3 of the OCP expressly discourages subdividing land designated as Open Space and as the proposed subdivision contemplates subdividing Open Space it is therefore contrary to the public interest.

[39] In response to the fact that the Open Space on the property adjacent to Lot 6 was subdivided, the approving officer argues that it was subdivided to deal with an encroachment so that the subdivision was “uncontroversial” and only “to make the lot line work properly.”

[40] The approving officer argues that his overriding consideration is the public interest; simply because the proposed subdivision may comply with the bylaws does not mean that approval ought to be given as a matter of course if the subdivision is otherwise contrary to the public interest: Vancouver (City) v. Simpson (supra); Cole v. Anderson (1993), 44 A.C.W.S. (3d) 606, [1993] B.C.J. No. 2557 (QL) (S.C.); Wyles v. Penticton (City) (1995), 28 M.P.L.R. (2d) 250, [1995] B.C.J. No. 1257 (QL) (S.C.).

[41] In Vancouver (City) v. Simpson, the proposed subdivision met the zoning and bylaw requirements, but the lot was within a top priority area that the City sought to purchase for a proposed park that would become a link in a scenic drive around the City’s waterfront. The proposed subdivision was therefore against the public’s interest in having a waterfront park.

[42] In Cole v. Anderson, the proposed subdivision complied with the zoning bylaws, but the approving officer found that it was against the public interest because it conflicted with a recent policy in the Official Community Plan that no subdivision or rezoning of land would be permitted due to the importance of a watershed area. Macdonald J. concluded that the policy in the OCP was a reasonable factual basis for the approving officer’s assessment of the public interest and dismissed the appeal by the property owners.

[43] Both Vancouver (City) v. Simpson and Cole v. Anderson were referred to in Wyles v. Penticton (City), which similarly found that the approving officer was entitled to consider the Official Community Plan in determining what was in the public interest.

[63] The approving officer is clearly entitled to consider the views of the adjacent property owners, but as Baker J. stated in Dubuc v. Saanich (District) (1994), 22 M.P.L.R. (2d) 47, [1994] B.C.J. No. 1407 (QL) (S.C.) at ¶ 28, the private interests or opinions of adjacent property owners are not synonymous with the public interest. The petitioner put it more bluntly: the “not in my backyard” or “nimby” response does not necessarily equate to public interest.

[64] I will now deal with the primary concerns of the neighbours:
- neighbours may be concerned that any development on Lot 6 would restrict their current views of the valley and the lake, but at law a property owner does not have the right to a view, in the absence of a statute, bylaw or agreement (Honigman v. Clements, [1980] B.C.J. No. 1087 (QL) (S.C.));

E. Conclusion
[71] While I am mindful that a court should not lightly interfere with the decision of an approving officer, I have regrettably concluded that in the circumstances of this case the petitioner has satisfied me that the decision rejecting the subdivision application was made on a specious or totally inadequate factual basis. I therefore allow the appeal.

 

[3] The issues in this case include whether the plaintiff has standing to advance these claims, whether any of the actions of the city officials were unlawful and, if so, what consequences flow from that finding. This includes determining the circumstances under which city officials can be held personally liable. I must also decide whether the court can or should invalidate development permits when the buildings have already been built and leased to tenants who are not parties to this action.

 

Several years later the owner again applied for subdivision of his property. The approving officer refused approval on the ground that it would be against the public interest to allow further subdivision which would result in more intensive development in the proposed public park area. The owner appealed the approving officer's decision to the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The appeal was dismissed. The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, and directed the approving officer to approve the subdivision. The Supreme Court of Canada restored the decision of the trial judge and upheld the decision of the approving officer to reject the subdivision plan. The Supreme Court of Canada disagreed with the Court of Appeal that the refusal of the right to subdivide is in derogation of common law rights. They held that the Land Registry Act (now the Land Title Act) curtailed common law rights and took away a free right to subdivide. They pointed out that a landowner has no right to subdivide except with the consent of the approving officer who is required by the Act to determine if the contemplated development will be against the public interest. The court said the only question was whether the approving officer acted improperly. They approved the Reasons of Justice Kirke Smith, the trial judge, in this regard. The key passage in those Reasons is set out here in full:

....I start from the premise that on an appeal of this nature it is at least as true today as it was in 1954 (per Coady, J. in Re Land Registry Act: Re Proposed Subdivision (1955), 15 W.W.R. 143) that:

"There are many reasons why municipal corporations should have and are given a measure of control over proposed subdivisions and the court should not on appeal lightly interfere with the decision of the approving officer."

Where, as here, there is direct statutory foundation for the ground given for the decision to approve or disapprove, and where it is not shown that that decision, despite its impact on an individual, was made in bad faith, or with the intention of discriminating against that individual, or on a specious or totally inadequate factual basis, there should, in my opinion, be no interference by the court with municipal officials honestly endeavouring to comply with the duties imposed on them by the Legislature in planning the coherent and logical development of their areas.

Following the decision in Simpson, there are numerous decisions of British Columbia trial and appellate judges applying these principles. In Groskek v. City of Vancouver, reflex, (1981) 30 B.C.L.R. 5, a majority of the Court of Appeal, with Justice Craig in dissent, directed an approving officer to approve a subdivision which he had rejected, on the basis that he had acted on a specious or totally inadequate factual basis and in a discriminatory way and therefore not in good faith.

For these reasons the appeal must be dismissed.

At the conclusion of his reply, counsel for the applicants sought to introduce into evidence for the first time a document he referred to as a community plan. Counsel for Mr. Hopper objected, as did counsel for the interested parties. No reference to the community plan is made in any of the applicants' affidavits, or in their Chambers brief. No reference is made to it in Mr. Hopper's reasons for rejecting the subdivision application. No reference was made to a community plan or its possible relevance during the applicants' original submissions on the hearing of the appeal. When asked about the relevance of the plan, counsel for the applicants suggested that a reference to the plan was proper reply because a community plan is referred to in the Hlynsky decision, which is relied upon by counsel for the approving officer. But Hlynsky was first referred to by counsel for the applicants in his original submissions and is included in the applicants' book of authorities. The reference to a community plan was not proper reply. Its relevance to these proceedings has not been established. I declined to admit it into evidence or to hear submissions in reply, which would have necessitated further submissions by counsel for the approving officer and counsel for the interested parties.

Was it in the public interest of neighbouring subdivisions for the approving officers to approve development of a subdivision with no water supply in respect to fire?

While the private interests or the opinions of the immediately adjacent property owners are not synonymous with the public interest, the legislature clearly intended that these interests be taken into account. That is why the approving officer is specifically empowered to hold hearings. In addition he is specifically authorized to consider the anticipated effect of the proposed subdivision on the established amenities of adjoining or reasonably adjacent properties. Such amenities include the factors referred to by the approving officer in his letter of rejection and in his affidavits. In considering the input of the owners of nearby properties and in giving some weight to the views of those owners, the approving officer is not venturing into the political realm and he is not acting in bad faith.

SPECIOUS OR TOTALLY INADEQUATE FACTUAL BASIS

The proposed subdivision was rejected by the approving officer because, in his opinion, it was not in the public interest. Specifically, he says that the anticipated development would injuriously affect the established amenities of adjoining or reasonably adjacent properties, and that the subdivision is unsuited to the configuration of the land being subdivided. He considers that the imposition of a two and one-half storey house and associated fill to accommodate vehicle turn-around would be a detrimental imposition on the landscape which is characterized by a natural bowl at the rear of the large lots on Clovelly Terrace and those along Salsbury Way.

 

[30] The legislature has made it clear that the approving officer may refuse to approve a subdivision plan if he considers that the deposit of the plan is against the public interest.

[31] I note, particularly, that in coming to a contrary conclusion to that of the approving officer on the second and third grounds, the chambers judge stated that the proposed subdivision complied with the existing zoning requirements. I pause to point out that in Simpson v. Vancouver the proposed subdivision also complied with all the zoning requirements, yet the approving officer rejected the proposed subdivision on the grounds that it would, in his opinion, be against the public interest to approve such a subdivision. The Supreme Court in restoring the judgment of Kirke Smith J. said that in coming to this conclusion, he was performing his duty which was cast upon him under s. 96 of the Land Registry Act [now s. 85(3) of the Land Title Act] - the duty to disapprove of any subdivision which in his opinion would be against public interest.

[32] In this particular case, the approving officer was performing his duty which was imposed upon him under s. 85(3) of the Land Title Act. He concluded that it would be against the community (public) interest to approve the plan. His paramount obligation under s. 85(3) was to consider the public interest. He did this and I do not think it can be said that he based his conclusion on a "specious or totally inadequate factual basis".

[33] In my view, the chambers judge simply substituted her opinion for that of the approving officer. This is not permissible.

[34] Accordingly, I would allow the appeal and restore the decision of the approving officer.

 

[85] The Health Act describes a "health hazard" as something which does not meet prescribed standards which, for sewage disposal systems, are set out in the regulations. A failure to meet these standards constitutes a health hazard under the Act. Section 3(3) of the Sewage Disposal Regulation contains a mandatory prohibition against the issuance of a permit. It stipulates that no permit shall be issued unless the health authorities are satisfied that "the construction, installation and ultimate use will not contravene this Act or this regulation". Thus, I am led to the ineluctable conclusion that both the public health engineer and the public health inspector were negligent in recommending that a permit for construction be issued.

[97] Section 3 of the Sewage Disposal Regulation states that a permit shall not be issued if the disposal system, which obviously includes a water source, will contravene the Act or this regulation. The Health Act also contains the mandatory provisions dealing with waterworks systems. So, if the proposed disposal system also contemplated the creation of a waterworks system, ss.21-22 of the Health Act was to be complied with in addition to the regulations, regardless of whether or not a separate application was made.

[98] Finally, the Ministry's policy was that in the case of a waterworks system the water must be tested by a health unit for potability.

[99] One of the specific job functions of the public health engineer, Miller, was to investigate and assess unapproved water systems. It follows from this that his duties were not limited to situations where a formal application had been made.

[100] The public health officials at bar had express duties with respect to the enforcement of the Act and the regulations. They did not have any discretion as to whether or not to enforce the relevant provisions of the Act or the Ministry's policy. I find they were aware that a waterworks system was installed in respect of Lots 3 and 4. That being so, they had an obligation to comply with the Act and with the Ministry's policy. It follows that they cannot escape liability by relying upon their own inaction with respect to such enforcement. In the present case they should have insisted that construction of a waterworks system be in compliance with the appropriate standards and policies, including those with respect to water testing.

[101] I find that in law and in fact North Shore Health and the public health inspector are the servants and agents of the Ministry of Health. Even though a health unit is created by statute and assigned certain statutory responsibilities, in terms of the exercise and liability for the exercise of those statutory responsibilities it still remains an integral part of the Ministry of Health. Insofar as liability is concerned, it is not a separate legal entity.

[102] Likewise, the public health engineer, Miller, is an employee of the Ministry. His duties are statutory duties under the Health Act. The Ministry is liable for his negligence, both in endorsing the recommendation that a permit be issued for the sewage disposal system and in failing to exercise his statutory duties in regard to both the sewage disposal system and the water source and supply pertaining to Lots 3 and 4.
 

B. PETER PEART AND PETER PEART GEOTECHNICAL LTD.

[103] It is settled law that engineers who participate in design and construction of a building or system will owe a duty in tort to subsequent purchasers.

[114] During the relevant period of time, the applicable building codes were the codes of Canada and of British Columbia. The National Building Code of Canada, 1990, stipulated:

9.31.3.1. Required Water Supply. Every dwelling unit shall be supplied with potable water.


[130] With regard to the evidence called by the defendants of Mr. Dybvig, the appraiser, his evidence was based on what I find was the totally false assumption that the water and sewage scenario on Lot 3 simply constituted a functioning, lawful, valid and conforming use. That is not true of either the water or the sewage system. Separately and jointly they constitute an unlawful health hazard. Likewise I disregard the appraisal evidence of Mr. Collins since I find on the evidence nothing but a nominal value can be given to a residential property that is bereft of both a lawful source of potable water and a sewage system. I am persuaded that there is no market for such a property, other than at a nominal price.

[131] In the result, I award general damages to the plaintiffs of $165,000 from which must be deducted the holdback of $11,500, for a total of $153,500.

 

 

In the spring of 1974 the petitioner was advised that the Ministry of Highways would require dedication of a strip of 150 feet from the lands. In the fall of 1974, the Central Okanagan Regional District passed Bylaw 124 which restricted subdivision in a vast area, including the applicant's land, to not less than 10 acres per parcel which, if applicable, would prohibit the subdivision. Subsequently, the Ministry of Highways determined the precise location for the road and a revised subdivision plan of the land was resubmitted, but the approving officer, an employee of the Ministry of Highways, refused to approve the plans citing Bylaw 124. The applicant contended that Bylaw 124 was inapplicable because the subdivision was onstream when Bylaw 124 was adopted.

[46] In Seaview Land v. South, supra, the Court of Appeal, considered the power of the approving officer under s. 87 of the Land Title Act and said at p. 620:

There are additional reasons for holding that the words "may refuse" do not give power to the approving officer to approve a subdivision that does not comply with municipal or regional district by-laws. It is presumed that the regional district by-laws fixing the minimum size of lots at five acres were enacted in the public interest and s. 87 of the Land Title Act cannot be construed as giving the approving officer the power to act against the public interest.

The Court of Appeal concluded that s. 87 of the Land Title Act should not be construed as permitting the registration of an unlawful subdivision.

The weight of authority supports the view that the prima facie right of a landowner to do what he will with his land can be defeated by a by-law passed in good faith by a municipal council. The courts have long recognized that inherent in the power to zone and rezone properties is the power to affect rights adversely and to make differing regulations in differing districts or areas within a municipality. It is inevitable that proprietary rights will suffer from time to time and that restrictions will be imposed which fetter the ordinary use of land. This alone, however, will not justify the quashing of a by-law and much less the issue of a mandamus directing municipal officers to act in direct contradiction of a by-law.

[57] In Robertson v. Central Saanich District (1991), 4 M.P.L.R. (2d) 249 (B.C.S.C.), the court considered an application that was beyond the grace period of s. 993. Cohen J. applied Piccadilly Estates v. Delta, supra, and held that at the time of the receipt of the petitioner's new application for subdivision in August, 1990, the approving officer had no jurisdiction to grant subdivision approval regardless of water and sewer issues because the petitioner's proposed subdivision did not comply with the bylaw in effect; The court had no jurisdiction on an appeal under s. 89 of the Land Title Act to direct an approving officer to approve a subdivision plan which at the time of the hearing of the appeal is contrary to the terms of the zoning bylaws in effect within the municipality.

I.e., the bylaws were always in effect, so it follows that the approvals must be set aside on the ground that the approving officer erred in law in treating the bylaws as nullities.

Blue Divider Line

(h) The Final Subdivision Plan must be approved or rejected by the Approving Officer within two months after the date it is tendered for examination and approval.

(i) MoTH Development Approvals reviews the Final Material and ensures that all required works including roads, drainage, wells, community water, and sewers, are in place and prepares a summary entitled "Report on Final Subdivision", identifying the characteristics of the Subdivision Application, indicating whether the requisite supporting documentation is attached and outlining the progress of the Subdivision Application through the approval process.

(j) The MoTH Development Approvals forwards the Final Subdivision Plan, the Report on Final Subdivision, the Preliminary Material and the Final Material to the Approving Officer for examination and approval by the Approving Officer.

(k) The Approving Officer examines and considers all the plans, the Preliminary Material, the Final Material and any public input that may have been received by the Approving Officer through public hearings, or correspondence, and any additional matters relevant to the policy and objects of the relevant enactments and regulations defining the statutory discretion of the Approving Officer.

(l) The Approving Officer considers whether or not the deposit of the Subdivision Plan is against the public interest, and must be rejected.

(m) If the Approving Officer grants approval to the Subdivision Application, the Approving Officer affixes his signature to the Final Subdivision Plan and returns the Final Material to the applicant along with a standard form cover letter ("Notification of Approval").

(n) If the Approving Officer rejects the Final Subdivision Plan, the Approving Officer notifies the Applicant in writing and states briefly the reasons and the requirements underlying the rejection; the material originally submitted by the Applicants returned to the Applicant.

(o) If the Approving Officer rejects the Final Subdivision Plan, the applicant may within one month after receipt of the Approving Officer's rejection make an application in the nature of an appeal to the British Columbia Supreme Court, pursuant to section 89 of the Land Title Act.

[8] The special case then goes on to describe the particular circumstances of each applicant.

[9] I will set out the Thomas subdivision application, No. A953264, and then I will describe, in summary form, the other parties' applications:

Blue Divider Line

The reviewing court should allow the approving officer substantial latitude and should not be quick to find fault with his decision. The only concern of the reviewing court is whether the approving officer based his decision (1) in bad faith, (2) with intent to discriminate against any property owner, and (3) made his refusal on 'specious and totally inadequate factual basis'. The primary obligation of any approving officer is set out in s.85(3) of the Land Title Act. It provides that an approving officer may refuse to approve a subdivision 'if he considers that the deposit of the plan is against the public interest'...."

Section 85 of the Land Title Act provides for reasons; here the Approving Officer gave none at all. The question arises as to whether a municipal official, without any broad factual background, or supporting reasons, is entitled to unilaterally declare what is "the public interest". In accordance with the authorities I am prepared to allow the Approving Officer a very wide discretion indeed, as he is the local officer on the spot. I am not, however, prepared to do this by the mere enunciation of his own personal belief. Something more is required to enable the Court to do other than consider the length of the Chancellor's foot.

Blue Divider Line

It seems to me that the failure of the approving officer to give reasons has led to this costly exercise on the part of the appellant. My inclination is to order that the respondent pay the appellant special costs so that he would be, as nearly as possible, in the same position he was in when the initial decision was made by the approving officer. If counsel wish to make submissions on this aspect of the matter, I will hear them at a convenient time.

Blue Divider Line

Provincial Approving Officers are quasi-judicial officials who act independently to ensure that the subdivision complies with Provincial Acts and Regulations as well as bylaws, and to protect the best interests of the public.

Blue Divider Line

To be updated by email on the latest news regarding this subject and other subjects, please send your email address to

We will let you know when there are updates, so stay informed!

Blue Divider Line

If you have comments good or bad, solutions, concerns or complaints regarding water laws, please fill out the form below to be posted to the internet here on this website.

Blue Divider Line

Comment Form

NAME  
ADDRESS  
COMMUNITY

   *required
(If your community is not listed above, please type it in below and choose "other community" above)
 

PHONE NUMBER  
EMAIL ADDRESS  
 disguise your email address from spam similar to this below
 name "at" hotmail.com
COMMENTS
*required
 

 

 

If you have something you would like to see up here on the internet, please email

Blue Divider Line

If you want to view resident's comments, click here.

Blue Divider Line

BC Laws

Local Services Act November 5, 1970

Local Services Act
Subdivision Regulations
[includes amendments up to B.C. Reg. 555/2004, December 31, 2004]

Transportation Act
[SBC 2004] CHAPTER 44

Local Government Act
[RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 323

Land Title Act
[RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 250

Community Charter
[SBC 2003] CHAPTER 26

Health Act
[RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 179

Municipal Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 42) Second reading.

BILL 14 -- 2000
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2000

Judicial Review Procedure Act
[RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 241

Crown Proceeding Act
[RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 89

Blue Divider Line

Valley of the Sun Ponds and other Photos
Make a Comment

Big Pond ] FOI ] Gold Mine ] Middle Pond ] Minutes ] Pond 1 ] Rate Table ] Shorts Creek ] Single Pond ] Smaller Pond ] Survey ] Vegetation ] VOS Petition ] VOS Photos ] VOS Photos1 ] Well Data ] Wells ] Water System ] Water Systems ]

Blue Divider Line

Valley of the Sun Ponds and other Photos
Read Comments

Budget 09 ] FOI ] Survey ] Water System ]

Blue Divider Line

Water Systems
Make a Comment

1973 Nov 7 OBWB ] 1973 Sep 27 OBWB ] 1970 Feb 16 Mun Aff ] 1970 Feb 9 PUC ] 1969 Sep 26 RDCO ] Advisory Services ] Bylaws ] FOI Act ] History ] [ Judgements ] Land Registry 60 ] Laws ] Letters Patent ] Licence ] Local Services 59 ] Local Service 59/495 ] Local Services 21/60 ] Local Services 70 ] Municipal Act 1960 ] Municipal Amend 69 ] Mun. Enabling ] Mun. Enabling 69 ] Order-In-Council ] Quashing ] RDCO CPA 1 ] Sub. Reg. 262/70 ] Town Planning 25 ] Water Advisories ]

Blue Divider Line

Water Systems
Read Comments

1973 Nov 7 OBWB ] 1973 Sep 27 OBWB ] 1970 Feb 16 Mun Aff ] 1970 Feb 9 PUC ] 1969 Sep 26 RDCO ] Advisory Services ] Bylaws ] FOI Act ] History ] Judgements ] Land Registry 60 ] Laws ] Letters Patent ] Local Services 59 ] Local Service 59/495 ] Local Services 21/60 ] Local Services 70 ] Municipal Act 60 ] Municipal Amend 69 ] Mun. Enabling Act ] Mun. Enabling 69 ] Order-In-Council ] Quashing ] RDCO CPA 1 ] Sub. Reg. 262/70 ] Town Planning 25 ] Water Advisories ]

Blue Divider Line

Westside Road Gossip
Make a Comment

INDEX WR ] INDEX ALL ] Advis. Plan Comm ] Alt Approval ] Ambulance ] Argo Road Maint. ] BC Hydro ] Budget 2010 ] Budget 2011 ] Budget 2012 ] Budget 2013 ] Budget 2014 ] Budget 2015 ] Building Inspect ] Build Laws - BC ] Build Laws - RDCO ] Building Violations ] Bylaw Anon ] COW Elect. 08 ] COW Elect. 11 ] Director Edgson ] Dogs ] Easement Rds ] EDC ] Elect. Boundary ] Environ. Advisory ] ESS ] Finances ] Fintry Develop ] Fintry Park ] Fire Anon ] Fire Boat ] Fire Bylaws ] Fire Dept. ] Fire Dept FOI ] Fire Hydrants ] Fire Minutes ] Fires  House ] FOI Act ] Friends Fintry ] Garbage ] Garbage Area ] Garbage Bylaws ] Garbage Com 08 ] Garbage Contracts ] Garbage Finance ] Garbage FOI ] Garbage FOI ] Garbage LaCasa ] Garbage Locker ] Garbage Minutes ] Garbage NOWESI ] Garbage Ombudsman ] Garbage Prob ] Garbage Secret ] Garbage Solution ] Garbage Survey ] Garbage Traders ] Governance Wide ] Government ] Grants-in-aid ] Helicopters ] History ] Killiney Beach Park ] Killiney Hall ] LaCasa ] Motorized Rec. ] NWCA ] NWCA FOI ] NW OCP ] NW Parks ] OKIB ] OKIB Logging ] OKIB Road ] OKIB Tax ] Peacocks ] Police Tax ] Property Tax ] RDCO ] RDCO Dog Minutes ] RDCO Jokes ] RDCO Policy ] RDCO Regs ] Report Animals ] Residents Network ] Septic Systems ] Subdiv. History ] T. Mnt After Fire ] Terrace Mount. Fire ] Trench Burner ] Vote Boxes ] Water Budget 08 ] Water Budget 09 ] Water Budget 10 ] Water Bylaws ] Water Construct ] Water FOI ] Water Grants ] [ Water Judgement ] Water L Fintry ] Water Laws ] Water Meters ] Water Minutes ] Water Rates ] Water Right-of-Way ] Water Survey ] Water System ] Water Systems ] Water VOS ] Water VOS Pics ] Water Wells ] Water Well Data ] Westshore Playgrnd ] Westshore Sports ] Westside Rd. ] WR Development ] WR Incorporation ] WR Overpass ] WRIC ] Zoning Bylaw 66 ] Zoning Bylaw 81 ] Zoning Bylaw 871 ]

Blue Divider Line

Westside Road Gossip
Read Comments

Adv. Plan Comm. ] Alt. Approval ] Ambulance ] Argo Road ] BC Hydro ] Budget 2010 ] Budget 2011 ] Budget 2012 ] Budget 2013 ] Budget 2014 ] Budget 2015 ] Building Inspection ] Build Laws - BC ] Build Laws - RDCO ] Building Violations ] COW Elect 08 ] COW Elect. 11 ] Director Edgson ] Dogs ] Easement Roads ] EDC ] Elect. Boundary ] Environ. Advisory ] ESS ] Finance ] Fintry Develop ] Fintry Park ] Fire Boat ] Fire Bylaws ] Fire Dept. ] Fire Dept FOI ] Fire Hydrants ] Fire Minutes ] Fires House ] FOI Act ] Friends Fintry ] Garbage ] Garbage Area ] Garbage Bylaws ] Garb Comment 08 ] Garbage Contract ] Garbage Finance ] Garbage FOI ] Garbage FOI ] Garbage La Casa ] Garbage Locker ] Garbage Minutes ] Garbage NOWESI ] Garbage Ombudsman ] Garbage Questionaire ] Garbage Secret ] Garbage Solution ] Garbage Survey ] Garbage Traders ] Governance Wide ] Government ] Helicopters ] History ] Killiney Hall ] Killiney Park ] La Casa ] Motorized Rec. ] NW OCP ] NWCA ] NWCA FOI ] NW Parks ] OKIB ] OKIB Logging ] OKIB Road ] OKIB Tax ] Peacocks ] Police Tax ] Property Tax ] RDCO ] RDCO Dog Minutes ] RDCO Jokes ] RDCO Policy ] RDCO Regs ] Report Animals ] Septic Systems ] Subdiv. History ] T. Mtn After Fire ] Terrace Mnt. Fire ] Trench Burner ] Vote Box ] Water Budget 08 ] Water Budget 09 ] Water Budget 10 ] Water Bylaws ] Water Construct ] Water FOI ] Water Grants ] Water Judgements ] Water Laws ] Water Meters ] Water Minutes ] Water Rates ] Water Right-of-Way ] Water Survey ] Water System ] Water VOS ] Water VOS Pics ] Water Well Data ] Water Wells ] Westside Road ] WR Development ] WR Incorporation ] WR Overpass ] WRIC ] Zoning Bylaw 66 ] Zoning Bylaw 1981 ] Zoning Bylaw 871 ]

Blue Divider Line

Gossip
In Other Towns

INDEX ALL ] Boucherie Rd ] Kaleden ] Kelowna ] Naramata ] Oyama ] Peachland ] Penticton ] Summerland ] Vernon ] West Kelowna ] Westside Road ] Winfield ]

Blue Divider Line

Index

Boucherie Road ] Kaleden ] Kelowna ] Naramata ] Oyama ] Peachland ] Pentiction ] Summerland ] Vernon ] West Kelowna ] Westside Road ] Winfield ]

Blue Divider Line

You will find local North Westside Road BC businesses, services, classifieds, local arts and crafts, vacation waterfront rentals, plus much more located near and around Okanagan Lake BC.  We will be adding to this site, so come back and check it often.

Blue Divider Line

©2006-2015 okanaganlakebc.ca

Central Okanagan BC Sagebrush Mariposa Lily