Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The District of West Vancouver sought a permanent statutory injunction under s. 274(1) of the Community Charter to restrain Dr. Este from contravening Building Bylaw No. 4400, 2004 by carrying out unpermitted construction, obstructing building inspectors, tampering with stop work orders, and occupying the property.

• Dr. Este argued the work was authorized under an expired 2010 building permit and constituted permissible repair and remediation, a position the Court rejected given the permit had been closed after final inspection in 2012 and the work referenced compliance with the 2018 BC Building Code rather than the code version in effect when the 2010 permit was issued.

• Whether the District was obligated to retroactively inspect and regularize Dr. Este's unpermitted work was considered and dismissed, as the authorities support a municipality's power to require demolition and removal of unpermitted construction.

• New evidence from a May 3, 2017 email — in which a District employee allegedly stated the house may not have been more than 75% destroyed above the foundation — was found insufficient to raise a triable issue, since the Demolition Order's reasonableness had already been finally adjudicated through judicial review up to the Supreme Court of Canada.

• An allegation of reasonable apprehension of bias against the judge who granted the interlocutory injunction was acknowledged but deemed irrelevant to the present applications, as the appeal of that order was stayed and proceeding separately.

• Hardship to Dr. Este, including her emotional attachment to the house and financial expenditures on repairs, was found not to constitute the kind of exceptional circumstance warranting denial of a statutory injunction to enforce a public right.

The fire and the property at issue
Dr. Rosa Donna Este and her mother, Mina Esteghamat-Ardakani, are the registered co-owners of a residential property located at 2668 Bellevue Avenue in West Vancouver, British Columbia, legally described as PID 013-216-422, Lot 5, Block 33, District Lot 555, Plan 3058. Dr. Este, a retired dentist, had resided in the house on the property since 2003. In 2015, a fire caused extensive damage to the house, setting in motion a prolonged dispute between Dr. Este, her mother, the District of West Vancouver, and Dr. Este's former spouse, Mehran Taherkhani, over the future of the property. An insurance policy taken out by Dr. Este covered the residence and its contents, with two possible options of insurance benefits: either "extended replacement cost and rebuilding-to-code" coverage valued at $5.6 million, or "verified replacement-cost" coverage valued at $1.6 million, as described in a prior Court of Appeal decision.

Years of litigation and the Demolition Order
Following the fire, Dr. Este initially sought to replace the damaged house with a new structure and provided information to the District supporting the conclusion that the fire damage was so extensive that a Demolition Order should be issued. However, Ms. Esteghamat-Ardakani opposed granting a building permit for a new house on the property, refusing to sign an authorization to secure the appropriate permits. On December 14, 2020, the District passed a Remedial Action Requirement under ss. 72–74 of the Community Charter, S.B.C. 2003, c. 26, declaring the house a "derelict structure" and requiring its demolition. On March 29, 2021, the District affirmed that resolution. The District also decided in 2021 that it would not grant Dr. Este a permit to build a new house on the property, as the bylaw required all registered owners to participate in a permit application, and Ms. Esteghamat-Ardakani had not done so. Dr. Este then reversed course and challenged the Demolition Order, commencing a judicial review proceeding in 2021. That judicial review was dismissed by Justice Burke in Este v. District of West Vancouver, 2022 BCSC 584, who found the permit decision was reasonable and the Demolition Order was both reasonable and procedurally fair. The British Columbia Court of Appeal affirmed that decision in Este v. West Vancouver (District), 2022 BCCA 445, and the Supreme Court of Canada refused leave to appeal.

Parallel disputes and family law proceedings
The property had also been the subject of family law proceedings between Dr. Este and her former spouse, Mr. Taherkhani, who claimed an interest in the property as "family property" under the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25. Mr. Taherkhani filed a Notice of Family Claim on May 22, 2013. The claim was initially resolved by a consent order on May 27, 2014, but Mr. Taherkhani later brought an application to rescind the settlement on the basis that Dr. Este had falsely represented her property ownership. Justice Pearlman granted that application on February 7, 2018, and the family claim was reopened, with a trial set for April 2026. Separately, in litigation between Dr. Este and Ms. Esteghamat-Ardakani, Dr. Este's claim to be the sole beneficial owner of the property was dismissed as an abuse of process by Justice Funt, a finding upheld on appeal. Ms. Esteghamat-Ardakani had filed a counterclaim seeking partition and sale of the property pursuant to the Partition of Property Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 347, which remained outstanding.

Unpermitted repair work and bylaw contraventions
Rather than complying with the Demolition Order, Dr. Este undertook extensive repair and renovation work on the fire-damaged house without obtaining a valid building permit. She maintained that the work was authorized under a 2010 building permit previously issued for renovations, and that the repairs brought the structure into conformity with the 2018 BC Building Code. The Court found this argument problematic, noting that the 2010 permit had long ago expired — permits expire after a maximum of 18 months under s. 13.3 of the Bylaw — and that the permit was closed when final inspection was carried out in 2012. The Court further noted that Dr. Este's own evidence that the work complied with the 2018 Building Code was inconsistent with her claim that the work was merely authorized by the 2010 permit, since the 2018 code was not the version in effect when the earlier renovations were completed and inspected. The District's Manager of Bylaw and Licencing Services, Mr. O'Connor, attended the property on multiple occasions beginning on August 8, 2024, and observed substantial unpermitted construction activity, including six to eight workers on the property, none of whom were retained by the District. He posted stop work orders, which were subsequently removed or covered with a black tarp. Dr. Este refused entry to bylaw officers on multiple occasions, telling them to leave the property and asserting that her human rights were being violated. She also sent emails to District employees threatening self-harm if the Remedial Action Requirement was carried out. Dr. Este explained in her own evidence that for financial reasons, she had to move back into the house while it was being repaired, and in a February 3, 2025 email to the District, she confirmed that she still lives in the house and that she finished work on the fire-damaged portion in November 2024.

The bylaw provisions at issue
The District's Building Bylaw No. 4400, 2004 was central to the proceedings. Section 5.1 prohibits construction of any building or structure "without a Permit being first obtained from the Building Inspector." The Bylaw also prohibits persons from tampering with any notice posted or affixed to any building pursuant to any Bylaw provision, and from obstructing the entry of the Building Inspector acting to enforce the Bylaw. Sections 6.1.4 and 6.1.9 authorize the Building Inspector to suspend a permit where the Bylaw is contravened or to direct that a building or structure not be occupied or be vacated where the Building Inspector opines a hazard exists. Section 14.1 prohibits occupancy contrary to a no-occupancy order issued under section 6.1.9.

The interlocutory injunction and apprehension of bias issue
On December 24, 2024, the District obtained an interlocutory injunction from Justice Marzari restraining Dr. Este from interfering with the Demolition Order and from contravening the Bylaw. Dr. Este applied for leave to appeal that order, raising, among other grounds, a reasonable apprehension of bias. It emerged that Justice Marzari, before her appointment to the bench, had worked at the law firm representing the District and had sent an email on May 3, 2017 to employees of the District advising them on matters related to the possible demolition of Dr. Este's house. During the hearing below, Justice Marzari had stated that she had no concerns about bias and could not recall any involvement through her former law firm, which she had left in December 2017. Justice Butler of the Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal on July 10, 2025, and stayed the interlocutory injunction, finding there was at least an arguable case "regarding the ground of appeal based on a reasonable apprehension of bias." In the present proceedings, Justice McDonald declined to address the bias allegation further, holding it was irrelevant to the issues before the Court, which concerned bylaw contravention and the permanent injunction, not the validity of the earlier interlocutory order.

The "new evidence" and triable issue argument
Dr. Este sought to have the District's petition converted to an action or referred to the trial list on the basis that the May 3, 2017 email constituted new evidence raising a triable issue. The email contained a statement attributed to a District employee, Mr. Yee, advising "that [Mr. Yee] would not necessarily have considered this house to have been more than 75% destroyed above the foundation, but that generally the District will accept engineer's statements." Dr. Este contended that this evidence undermined the factual basis for the Demolition Order and warranted reopening the judicial review. The Court rejected this argument, noting that in 2020, when the District was considering imposing the Remedial Action Requirement, the Council Report had included communications to Mr. Yee from a structural engineer stating the foundations were structurally adequate — meaning conflicting opinions about the extent of fire damage had already been disclosed during the District's consideration process. The Court found no basis for concluding that this conflicting information had been kept from Dr. Este or Council. The reasonableness of the Demolition Order had been finally adjudicated through judicial review, and the alleged new evidence did not raise a triable issue relevant to the current petition, which concerned only whether Dr. Este was contravening the Bylaw.

The ruling and outcome
Justice McDonald found that the District had established, on a balance of probabilities, that Dr. Este contravened the Bylaw in multiple respects: carrying out construction and demolition work without a valid and subsisting permit, removing or otherwise tampering with stop work orders posted on or near the property, obstructing the entry of the District's Building Inspectors and Bylaw Officers, obstructing the entry of District building contractors contrary to the Remedial Action Requirement, and occupying the property for residential purposes contrary to a no-occupancy order. The Court determined there were no exceptional circumstances warranting denial of a permanent statutory injunction, noting that hardship does not constitute the kind of exceptional circumstance that would justify refusing a statutory injunction where a breach has been established. Dr. Este's application to refer the petition to the trial list or convert it to an action was dismissed, as was her application to set aside the interlocutory order — rendered moot by the granting of the permanent injunction — and her November 14, 2024 application to enjoin the District from demolishing the house. The petition was granted in favour of the District of West Vancouver, with a permanent statutory injunction restraining Dr. Este and the respondents from further contraventions of the Bylaw, and costs were ordered payable to the District by the respondent, Rosa Donna Este. The exact amount of costs was not specified in the judgment.