A Prince George woman's $1 million claim against the city has been thrown out.
B.C. Supreme Court Justice Patrice Abrioux dismissed Colleen Geisser's counterclaim against the city of Prince George, finding that her allegations - including misappropriating a portion of her property, deliberately using zoning bylaws to interfere with her business interests and acting maliciously to cause her distress - against the municipality were without merit.
Geisser's action, which was heard over two trial sessions in February and March at the Prince George Law Courts, was in response to a 2011 order from the city to remove unenclosed shipping or cargo containers from her Pierreroy Road property.
The city had received a complaint about the containers being moved on the property in the summer of 2010. Geisser told the court she intended to rent them out for use by mobile home owners to store belongings not being used on a regular basis.
However the city contends her property was not properly zoned for a commercial warehousing and storage function. Further, in 1991, Geisser signed a restrictive covenant for the property - on behalf of her company Gypsy Holdings - that also excluded warehousing and storage.
Though Geisser complied with the order, she expressed confusion over the complaint. In 1991 there was a structure used for storing cars, tools, boats, etc., put up and in 2008, she moved two 40-foot containers onto the property.
Geisser also testified that the property has been classified for tax purposes by B.C. Assessment as "business other" for many years.
The city's position, which Abrioux backed, was that the previous storage uses on the property were either permitted or "legal non-conforming" uses, and that the addition of the new containers for business purposes was a fundamental change in use - irrespective of a 2007 change in the city's zoning bylaw Geisser said she was unaware of.
"In any event, the revised bylaws did not change the uses which Ms. Geisser could make of the property," Abrioux said.
Abrioux also disagreed with Geisser's assertion the city had used a portion of her property when Lansdowne Road was widened prior to 1995 and that her belief is "based on erroneous conclusions she has reached with respect to the methodology utilized by registered land surveyors."
Geisser's claim that city staff were intentionally trying to cause her grief was also not supported by the judge.
For example, Geisser testified that then-manager of planning Nelson Wight was sending notices about her property to Quesnel instead of to her Prince George address in 2010.
"She stated one of the envelopes had been opened by the time it arrived at the Quesnel address, that her personal affairs were now public and this was an intentional course of conduct perpetrated by the city to cause her distress," Abrioux said.
But on cross-examination, Geisser was referred to a letter from December 2010 from Wight explaining they were obligated to send mail to the address registered with the Land Titles Office, that she should follow up with that office to update her information, and that further correspondence would be sent to her preferred address as a courtesy.
"There is absolutely no evidence, apart from Ms. Geisser's belief, that the city's employees acted improperly or maliciously in her regard," Abrioux said of the claim staff were intentionally trying to interfere with her business prospects.
"Notwithstanding Ms. Geisser's steadfast belief to the contrary, I find that her allegations against the city are without substance," Abrioux wrote in his reasons for judgment. "I have also concluded that the city's employees acted entirely reasonably at all material times."
