Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute over rezoning of a large property in Squamish that prohibited residential uses despite earlier zoning allowing development.

• Petitioners argued unreasonableness, procedural unfairness, and bad faith in the municipality’s decision.

• Central evidentiary conflict between expert flood hazard reports (2012 vs. 2024 studies).

• Questions raised on the applicability of Bill 44 housing legislation to the rezoning.

• Procedural issues regarding the right to a public hearing and opportunity to make oral submissions.

• Court upheld the District’s broad discretion in land use planning and dismissed the petition.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and parties
The petitioners, Tantalus at Paradise Valley Inc. and its parent company Tri-City Properties at Squamish Ltd., owned a 168-acre property in the Paradise Valley area of Squamish. The property had been rezoned in 2012 to a comprehensive development zone (CD-52) that permitted an equestrian centre and residential subdivision. That rezoning had been conditioned on hazard assessments and potential diking requirements due to flood risks from the Cheakamus River.

The District of Squamish subsequently adopted an Integrated Flood Hazard Management Plan in 2017 and a new Official Community Plan in 2018. These documents identified Paradise Valley as a restricted densification area with significant flood hazards, limited infrastructure, and concerns about emergency access. In 2023, as part of a zoning bylaw update project, the District proposed rezoning the property from CD-52 to Resource (RE), which eliminated all residential uses.

Petitioners’ position
The petitioners challenged the rezoning bylaw on three grounds. They argued it was unreasonable because the CD-52 zoning was already aligned with the Official Community Plan and that council’s rationale did not withstand scrutiny. They further alleged inconsistency with Bill 44, provincial housing legislation promoting small-scale multi-family housing. They also contended that council relied on incorrect or incomplete information, failed to properly consider their development applications and flood studies, and denied them procedural fairness by not allowing oral submissions at the council meeting. Finally, they suggested the rezoning was passed in bad faith to frustrate development.

Respondent’s position
The District maintained that the rezoning was consistent with the Official Community Plan, the Integrated Flood Hazard Management Plan, and its policy objectives of limiting densification in high-risk flood areas. It emphasized council’s broad discretion in land use regulation and argued that the petitioners had ample opportunity to submit written materials and meet with councillors. The District further asserted that Bill 44 was not applicable because the rezoning occurred before its operative date and the property was not in a restricted single-family zone.

Court’s analysis
The court applied the reasonableness standard of review, informed by both Catalyst Paper and Vavilov, recognizing the broad discretion afforded to municipal councils in passing bylaws. On the merits, the court found the rezoning was rational and aligned with the municipality’s policy choices concerning growth management, flood hazard mitigation, and infrastructure limitations. It held that Bill 44 did not apply because the bylaw was adopted before June 30, 2024 and the property was not zoned solely for single-family or duplex uses.

On the evidentiary disputes, the court accepted that while there were differences between the petitioners’ 2024 flood report and earlier studies, council was entitled to rely on its own policy documents and staff recommendations. Minor inaccuracies or omissions in staff reports did not undermine the reasonableness of the decision.

With respect to procedural fairness, the court held that no public hearing was required because the rezoning was consistent with the Official Community Plan. Further, the petitioners had no absolute right to make oral submissions; their written submissions and meetings with councillors satisfied any duty of fairness. Finally, the court rejected allegations of bad faith, finding the District acted in the public interest.

Outcome
The court dismissed the petition in its entirety. The District of Squamish was the successful party and was awarded costs at Scale B. No damages were awarded, as this was a judicial review rather than a damages action.