| |
We are one of the few firms in British Columbia that is dedicated to providing a full range of services in the field of municipal and administrative law. Working as a team, we know our way around bureaucracies and provide comprehensive services in this specialized area.
|
 |
Civic bureaucracy works within a minefield of conflicting rules and regulations. |
| |
|
Municipalities can assert defenses that are not available to other corporations. |
| |
|
Limitation periods may expire in as little as 60 days from the date of an injury. |
| |
|
Hearings before administrative tribunals often follow mysterious procedures. |
| |
|
Municipalities are limited to the powers prescribed by either the
Community Charter, Local Government Act or the Vancouver Charter, but they often exceed their powers. |
| |
|
Zoning powers in British Columbia are unique. |
| |
|
The remedies available against municipalities are complex. |
| |
|
City governments can inspect without warrants. |
| |
|
Municipalities can order businesses to shut down. |
| |
|
Variance Board's wield enormous power; their decisions in most cases are final and can not be appealed. |
|
The right to bare more than arms has been upheld in British Columbia! In Skinnydipper Services Inc. v. City of Surrey 8 Nov 2007 2007 BCSC 1625 Williamson, J. held that nudists should be allowed to rent public swimming pools for private use. The Court implied that the "Good Burghers of Surrey" may have been "annoyed and angered by what they saw and heard, and shocked by what they had neither seen nor heard, but suspected" Jay Spiro, Counsel for the Petitioner.
///////////////////////////In Norgard v Anmore (Village) 2007 BCSC 1571 the Supreme Court struck down various conditions to the approval of a bare land strata subdivision and remitted the matter to the Approving Officer with directions.Counsel: Nathalie Baker, Jonathan Baker////////////
The Court of Appeal has dismissed the appeal of Penelope Street on the grounds that she lacked standing. Having added her name to the Style of Cause of an action did not give her standing. (Richard Niebuhr Enterprises Ltd. v Vancouver Board of Variance and Penelope Street 2007 BCCA 528 October 31, 2007) Counsel Nathalie Baker////////
The Environmental Appeal Board has held that the Greater Vancouver Regional District may not impose conditions in a license upon Greenhouses that use wood fired boilers, where Provincial Regulations deal with the same matter. (Darvonda Nurseries Ltd. v. District Director of Greater Vancouver Regional District July 27, 2007 (2007 - EMA -007(a) (Counsel Nathalie Baker and Jonathan Baker)
//////////////////////////
In Datt v. McDonalds Restaurants of Canada Limited 2007 BCHRT 324 (Jay Spiro, Counsel) an employee of McDonalds received a sizable award for Discrimination, Lost Wages and injury to dignity, feelings and self respect. (Counsel, J. Spiro)
///////////////////////////
In Loucks v. Abbotsford (City) 2007 BCSC 855 Wilson, J refused an application to reconsider brought by the Defendant City. (Counsel Nathalie Baker)
////////////////////////////
In Loucks et al. v. City of Abbotsford et al. (Dec 14, 2006) Wilson, J set aside a section of the Abbotsford official community plan that purported to allow mining within a designated eligible area. The court held that the City unlawfully agreed to amend its bylaws in exchange for a pecuniary benefit conferred by the mining company. The decision to include the properties in the eligible area was also found unlawful because of the City’s failure to disclose to the public the contract and associated documentation prior to the first public hearing.(Counsel, N. Baker)
/////////////////////////
In Niebuhr v Vancouver Board of Variance 2006 BCSC 1425 Goepel, J. held that under Vancouver Charter s. 573(1)(a) third parties have no right to appeal decisions of the Director of Planning. Only persons denied permits have a right of appeal. This was a case in which neighbours, calling themselves "Friends of Salsbury Gardens" asked that the Board of Variance quash a development permit on the grounds that the City should acquire the property. Counsel: Nathalie Baker, Jonathan Baker)
Niebuhr v Vancouver Board of Variance (Sept 2006) (B.C.S.C.) Goepel, J.
|
|
