Mayors and municipal councils across B.C. sighed in relief Wednesday with the news that a B.C. Supreme Court judge rejected a lawsuit brought against the City of Prince George from a group of residents opposed to the development of the Northern Supportive Recovery Centre in the former Haldi Road elementary school.
The residents argued that city council's decision to approve the project violated the Official Community Plan and was inconsistent with how the city was developing rural properties.
Judge Ron Tindale rejected that argument, saying that the Official Community Plan does not bind future councils from approving development contrary to the plan.
"The OCP is not meant to be a static document but rather is fluid and develops over time," Tindale wrote. "Surely, a municipal council can revise and change its policies and visions to accommodate an ever-changing community."
This has been the core of the argument from the City of Prince George since the very beginning and it's why this case was closely followed in city halls across B.C. The residents of the Haldi Road area may have seen this case as simply opposing an unwanted addition to their neighbourhood but, politically and legally, this case was about power and authority, specifically that of the elected mayor and council.
Tindale's ruling makes it clear, not just to Prince George but to municipalities across the province, that the mayor and council of the day have the latitude to make decisions they feel are in the best interests of the community, regardless of what planning documents and protesting residents tell them.
Mayor Shari Green said the decision is "pretty important for future rulings for municipalities, that council has decisions to make. Some of them are easy, some of them are hard but at the end of the day, we do what we think is best."
Tindale's ruling comes on the heels of a similar decision made late last year from B.C. Supreme Court Justice Terence Schultes, who upheld the vote of Quesnel city council approving a zoning amendment bylaw. Three Quesnel residents challenged the bylaw amendment because it violated the community plan and took the municipality to court.
Schultes was blunt in his decision.
"If that is the petitioners' view, then their remedy, as in the case of all contentious political decisions within a community, is at the ballot box," he wrote. "However unpopular it may be in certain circles, this decision was reasonably open to council to make and in such a case a reviewing court will not invalidate the bylaw that resulted."
In other words, elected officials shouldn't be faced with the prospect of defending each of their decisions in court. That's what elections are for.
With two similar decisions in the last six months, hopefully this puts an end to an issue that stretches back to the former city council, under then-mayor Dan Rogers. That city council, of which Green was a councillor, had also approved of the centre but that decision was overruled in a court challenge, with a judge stating that the proposed facility was not in accord with the community plan. The present city council held a public hearing and then altered the community plan before approving the project for the second time.
The opposing residents have argued that the centre will be bad for their property values, the traffic on their streets and the serenity of their neighbourhood. City council rightfully took a much broader perspective, however, and approved a project that will be good for the city and for the health of area residents, including the ones who live in the immediate vicinity of the building.
Is the former Haldi Road school the ideal location for an addictions recovery centre? Of course not. An ideal location would be one where area residents welcomed its arrival with open arms and support for it was unanimous. It remains, however, an excellent and appropriate location for the facility.
Most importantly, two judges in two separate cases have now ruled that the city council of the day cannot be held hostage by a neighbourhood opposed to development in its midst or by planning documents approved by previous councils.
Going forward, the best outcome for everyone from this divisive issue will be that the operators of the recovery centre prove to the area residents that the deep fear and anger directed to this project was misplaced.
