Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Jurisdiction over Stanley Park was held to rest exclusively with the Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation, so City staff lacked authority to enter the first tree-removal supply contract without prior Park Board approval.

• The court treated the challenge to the first supply agreement as technically moot but still issued a declaration on jurisdiction because of the ongoing dispute and the significant public interest in proper authorization for tree-removal work in Stanley Park.

• Public law issues of procedural fairness were central, including whether the Park Board’s notice, public meetings, receipt of reports, and consideration of public input met the duty of fairness owed to the petitioners.

• The court found no breach of procedural fairness, emphasizing that the Park Board held open meetings, circulated materials, received written and oral submissions (including from the petitioners), and actively questioned staff before voting on the impugned resolutions.

• The reasonableness of the July 21, 2025 resolution approving Phase Three of the Tree Removal Project was upheld, with the court accepting that the Park Board weighed competing expert views, safety risks, wildfire concerns, and ecological impacts before selecting the least intrusive mitigation option.

• The primary remedy granted was a declaratory order that the City entered the first supply agreement without jurisdiction; the key Park Board resolutions authorizing later work, including Phase Three, remained valid and in force, with no damages awarded and no specific monetary relief ordered.

Facts and background
The case arises from the City of Vancouver and the Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation’s response to a severe Hemlock Looper Moth infestation that damaged a large portion of the coniferous forest in Stanley Park between 2019 and 2022. Concerned about dead and dying trees posing risks of falling onto visitors and infrastructure and increasing wildfire danger, the Park Board adopted a multi-year “Tree Removal Project” divided into phases. The petitioners were the Stanley Park Preservation Society and four individuals (Michael Robert Caditz, Katherine Rose Caditz, Anita Ahlmann Hansen, and Jillian Margaret Maguire). They disputed the scientific basis and necessity of large-scale tree removal, warning that as many as one-third of all trees in Stanley Park might be cut without a sound scientific and legal foundation. The City contracted with B.A. Blackwell & Associates through supply agreements to carry out tree-removal work in phases. Phase One (approximately 7,000 trees) began under a 2023 sole-source contract entered into by staff without a prior Park Board resolution. A second supply agreement for Phase Two was signed in June 2024, but work under it only commenced after the Park Board formally approved Phase Two on October 8, 2024, based on the Blackwell report and related materials.

Procedural history and issues before the court
Before this judicial review, some of the individual petitioners unsuccessfully sought an interlocutory injunction in a negligence action to halt tree removal, after which the court pointed to public law remedies through judicial review. In this proceeding, the petitioners narrowed their relief to three main questions: first, whether the City had jurisdiction to enter into the first and second supply agreements without proper Park Board authorization; second, whether the Park Board breached its duty of procedural fairness when passing resolutions on October 8, 2024, December 9, 2024, and July 21, 2025; and third, whether the July 21, 2025 resolution approving the balance of Phase Three work was unreasonable. The court also dealt with the admissibility of various affidavits, limiting the record to materials actually before the Park Board and excluding late or non-compliant opinion evidence as expert testimony.

Findings on jurisdiction, mootness, and procedural fairness
On jurisdiction, the court distinguished between the two main supply contracts. It held that Phase Two work under the second supply agreement was validly authorized, because it only proceeded after the Park Board’s October 8, 2024 resolution approving Phase Two and the contract itself contained a cancellation clause if approval had not been granted. By contrast, the City and Park Board staff had no delegated authority to approve the Phase One work unilaterally. Entering the first sole-source contract for over $750,000 without a Park Board resolution exceeded their powers, given the Park Board’s exclusive statutory control over Stanley Park. Although Phase One was completed (raising mootness concerns), the court exercised its discretion to declare the first agreement ultra vires in order to affirm the Park Board’s exclusive jurisdiction and deter repetition of such unauthorized contracting. On procedural fairness, the court found that the Park Board met its obligations. For each impugned resolution, commissioners received reports and presentations in advance, held public meetings, and invited written and oral submissions from interested members of the public, including the petitioners and other opponents of further tree removal. The court saw no evidence of prejudgment, bias, or fettering of discretion, and emphasized that commissioners engaged with the evidence, asked questions, and demonstrated that their minds were open to persuasion.

Reasonableness of the July 21, 2025 resolution and overall outcome
Turning to substantive review, the court applied the reasonableness standard to the July 21, 2025 resolution authorizing the remaining Phase Three work and directing staff to contract with Blackwell. The record showed that the Park Board considered detailed staff reports, extensive correspondence and affidavits from opponents, and competing expert perspectives on wildfire modelling, public safety, ecological impacts, and the behaviour of damaged hemlock trees. Blackwell offered several mitigation options, and the Park Board chose the least intrusive option, one that preserved as many standing dead trees as possible while still addressing identified safety and wildfire risks. The court held that, even though experts disagreed and the petitioners strongly objected, the Park Board’s decision was transparent, intelligible, and justified in light of its mandate to protect public safety and the long-term ecological health of Stanley Park. Overall, the petitioners obtained a limited declaration that the City lacked jurisdiction to enter the first supply agreement without Park Board approval, but they failed in their bid to overturn the Park Board’s core decisions: the court found no breach of procedural fairness and upheld the July 21, 2025 resolution as reasonable. No damages were awarded, and the judgment did not specify any monetary amount in favour of any party.