Haldorson v. Coquitlam (2000), 149 B.C.A.C. 197 (CA);
244 W.A.C. 197
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2001] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MR.049
Elizabeth Haldorson, Jim Nyhus, Bela Sivak, Roger Loubert and Denis Howarth (petitioners/appellants) v. The City of Coquitlam (respondent/respondent) and Greater Vancouver Regional District and Greater Vancouver Housing Corporation (respondents/respondents)
(CA025602; 2000 BCCA 672)
Indexed As: Haldorson et al. v. Coquitlam (City)
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Lambert, Donald and Huddart, JJ.A.
December 6, 2000.
Summary:
The Official Community Plan (OCP) designation for property which housed the City of Coquitlam’s City Hall was for Civic and Major Institutional use. On November 16, 1998, the City amended the OCP to designate the property for Medium Density Apartment use and rezoned the property. The petitioners sought to quash the bylaws which resulted in the rezoning and the change to the OCP alleging, inter alia, bad faith and a lack of procedural fairness. The allegations included that the City amended the OCP and zoning bylaw to ensure the sale of the property and the availability of the funds necessary to construct the new City Hall.
The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported in 2 B.C.T.C. 207, dismissed the application. The petitioners appealed. The appeal was placed on the inactive list. The petitioners applied for leave to proceed with (reinstate) the appeal.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Southin, J.A., in a decision reported in 141 B.C.A.C. 295; 231 W.A.C. 295, dismissed the application. The petitioners applied to review Southin, J.A.’s decision.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the application for review.
Practice – Topic 8907
Appeals – Procedure – Restoring appeal to general list – The appellants appealed a decision pronounced January 26, 1999 – Although the appellants gave notice of appeal on February 24, 1999, nothing was done in the appeal since that time – There was no certificate of readiness, appeal book or factum – The appeal went on the inactive list February 24, 2000 – An appellate judge in Chambers refused to restore the appeal to the active list – The British Columbia Court of Appeal refused to review the Chamber justice’s decision.
Cases Noticed:
Frew v. Roberts (1990), 44 C.P.C.(2d) 34 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].
Stasiuk v. Szabo (1997), 86 B.C.A.C. 253; 142 W.A.C. 253; 29 B.C.L.R.(3d) 49 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].
Boaler v. Brar et al. (1997), 88 B.C.A.C. 243; 144 W.A.C. 243; 9 C.P.C.(4th) 48 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].
Galiano Conservancy Association v. British Columbia (Minister of Transportation and Highways) et al. (1997), 93 B.C.A.C. 149; 151 W.A.C. 149; 40 B.C.L.R.(3d) 171 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].
Rowan v. Dunwoody & Co. et al. (1999), 131 B.C.A.C. 311; 214 W.A.C. 311 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].
Davies v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (1987), 15 B.C.L.R.(2d) 256 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].
Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342; 92 N.R. 110; 75 Sask.R. 82, not appld. [para. 12].
Counsel:
Bela Sivak, appeared in person;
Denis Howarth, appeared in person;
D.R. Bennett, for the respondent, the City of Coquitlam;
R.J. McDonell, for the respondents.
This application was heard before Lambert, Donald and Huddart, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, at Vancouver, British Columbia, on December 6, 2000, when the following decision was delivered orally for the court by Lambert, J.A.
