In Este v District of West Vancouver and others, 2022 BCSC 584, Kyle Thompson, on behalf of one of the respondents, successfully opposed a petition for judicial review. This case relates to the same fire-damaged property that was at issue in the Court of Appeal’s decision in Este v Esteghamat-Ardakani, 2020 BCCA 202, where Ken McEwan, Q.C. and Emily Kirkpatrick were successful in setting aside the mandatory interlocutory injunction requiring the appellant to “co-operate” in the construction of a new residence, as a tenant in common. After that decision, the appellant expressly advised the local municipality she did not consent to the issuance of any permits absent her written agreement.
Subsequently, the other tenant in common applied for building permits, which were refused by the municipality based on the absence of both registered owners’ consent. The other tenant in common then brought a petition to judicially review that decision, among others. Her goal was to compel the municipality to issue the necessary permits for her to rebuild the residence unilaterally. But Justice Burke held that the municipality’s interpretation that the building bylaw required both owners to consent was reasonable, and noted that the petitioner’s continued insistence on managing the property against her co-owner’s wishes undermined the tenancy in common.
The Court also considered the municipal decision to order that the property be demolished and held that it was both reasonable and procedurally fair. The Court further noted a concern that the petition was a collateral attack on the Court of Appeal’s decision in Este v Esteghamat-Ardakani, 2020 BCCA 202. In the final result, the petition was dismissed on all grounds.