Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Adequacy of statutorily required written reasons under the Land Title Act assessed using the Vavilov reasonableness framework.

• Whether municipal council’s reliance on a pre-prepared engineering report met standards of justification, transparency, and intelligibility.

• Consideration of Delta’s prior position that the road was “unnecessary” and its impact on the reasonableness of the new resolution.

• Failure of the engineering report to meaningfully address central issues raised in the appellant’s submissions.

• Determination of whether the municipal decision-making process respected procedural fairness obligations.

• Appropriate remedy when council’s reasons do not sufficiently respond to a petitioner’s key concerns.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background facts
The dispute arose between 667895 B.C. Ltd., the owner of industrial property at 8910 River Road in Delta, and the City of Delta. A 4.38-metre strip of land along the property’s eastern border had been dedicated for future highway widening under a road-widening covenant. While a small portion was used in 2007 to widen the northern end of 90 Street, the remainder remained unused. In 2015, Delta considered 90 Street surplus, sought to close it, and attempted to sell it to adjoining landowners, citing its limited utility. The appellant opposed this move, resulting in earlier litigation where the Court of Appeal upheld the bylaw but required procedural fairness. Delta eventually rescinded the closure bylaw.

In 2018, the appellant filed a petition under Part 8 of the Land Title Act to cancel the dedication of the unused strip. The Approving Officer’s report was completed in 2018, but the petition was served on Delta in February 2023. Delta’s engineering department prepared a report in March 2023 (updated in April) recommending retention of the strip for highway purposes, citing potential industrial development, road standard compliance, and utility access. The appellant responded in writing, challenging the report’s conclusions and arguing no material changes had occurred since Delta’s 2015 determination that the road was unnecessary.

Council resolution and judicial review
On April 24, 2023, without discussion, Delta Council unanimously passed a resolution declaring the land required for highway purposes, adopting the engineering report’s reasoning. When the appellant requested written reasons under section 132(4) of the Land Title Act, Delta referred to the engineering report. The appellant sought judicial review, arguing the decision was unreasonable and the written reasons failed to meet Vavilov’s standards. The Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed the application, finding the decision reasonable.

Court of Appeal decision
The British Columbia Court of Appeal reviewed the decision afresh. While acknowledging municipalities can adopt staff reports as reasons, the court stressed that where reasons are statutorily required, they must be responsive to the central issues raised. The court found that the engineering report did not meaningfully address the appellant’s submissions, particularly regarding the physical and legal limitations of 90 Street and the absence of changed circumstances since 2015. This lack of engagement with key concerns meant the reasons failed the Vavilov test for justification, transparency, and intelligibility.

Outcome
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed Delta Council’s April 24, 2023 resolution, and remitted the matter to Council for reconsideration in light of the court’s reasoning. The City’s certificate of opposition to the land title petition was ordered cancelled, subject to re-filing if a new resolution is passed. No damages were awarded, and costs were not addressed in the decision. The winning party was 667895 B.C. Ltd.