BC Court of Appeal decisions
"......the City goes too far in arguing that, in the absence of a statutory requirement, it had no obligation of fairness with respect to the public hearing."
BC Court of Appeal Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Vancouver (City), 2004 BCCA 192
"Anything less than full disclosure of the relevant information restricts the scope of the analysis and the consequent representation a home owner might otherwise make to Council at the public meeting. Leaving home owners ignorant of pertinent information in the possession of Council frustrates the objective of a public meeting and denies those home owners, whose property is affected by the by-law, a full opportunity to be heard at a fair and impartial public hearing."
BC Court of Appeal Eddington v. Surrey (District), [1985] B.C.J. No. 1925 (C.A.)
Quoted at http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/CA/12/03/2012BCCA0338.htm
BC Court of Appeal Eddington v. Surrey (District), [1985] B.C.J. No. 1925 (C.A.)
Quoted at http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/CA/12/03/2012BCCA0338.htm
"[46] Procedures aimed at ensuring a minimum standard of rationality in the decision-making process are more likely to enhance the quality of the decision and the public’s acceptance of it than decisions based on undisclosed information, or on incomplete or ill-considered facts."
"[47] ...... the perception, if not the fact, of arbitrariness or bias is more likely to arise if the duty to ensure procedural fairness is not observed."
"[64] ..."No-one could be expected to mount an intelligent response at the public meeting without reasonable prior access to the reports..."."
[67] ....the appellant was not required to marshal evidence of what its members or other members of the public might have done had the impact reports and other relevant documents been made available in advance of the public hearing. .... the question that ought to have been asked was whether the timing of the disclosure of the impact reports was adequate to permit members of the public to prepare an intelligent or reasoned response."
[68] ...... the District's failure to provide the impact reports and other relevant documents in advance of the public hearing amounted to a breach of procedural fairness in this case. I would therefore allow the appeal and set aside the land use and zoning bylaws in question."
BC Court of Appeal Pitt Polder Preservation Society v. Pitt Meadows (District) 2000 BCCA 415
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2000/2000bcca415/2000bcca415.html
".... in order to provide the opportunity for informed, thoughtful, and rational presentations in relation to proposed land use and zoning bylaws it is necessary that interested members of the public have the opportunity to examine in advance of a public hearing not only the proposed bylaws but also reports and other documents that are material to the approval, amendment or rejection of the bylaws by local government."
Quoted in BC Court of Appeal Fisher Road Holdings Ltd. v. Cowichan Valley (Regional District), 2012 BCCA 338
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/CA/12/03/2012BCCA0338.htm
"The chambers judge found that the reports of ... [the environmantal review] and the citizen’s advisory committee were material and relevant to the approval, amendment or rejection of the Bylaw and that they should have been disclosed to the public prior to the public hearing so that interested parties could make informed, thoughtful and rational presentations. Given those findings, I conclude that the CVRD did not meet the requirements of procedural fairness in its consideration and passage of the Bylaw, and I would allow the appeal and direct that the Bylaw be quashed."
BC Court of Appeal Fisher Road Holdings Ltd. v. Cowichan Valley (Regional District), 2012 BCCA 338
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/CA/12/03/2012BCCA0338.htm
BC Court of Appeal Fisher Road Holdings Ltd. v. Cowichan Valley (Regional District), 2012 BCCA 338
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/CA/12/03/2012BCCA0338.htm