Case information

Judgments and orders — Stays — Injunctions — Evidence — Municipal government and board of parks and recreation authorizing tree removal project in prominent park due to damage from insect infestation — Preservation society seeking judicial review of municipality’s and board’s decisions allowing tree removal project to proceed — Preservation society seeking to prevent continuation of tree removal project pending determination of judicial review issues by Court of Appeal — Whether impugned decisions of board of parks and recreation are admissible evidence in stay application — Whether affidavit of board’s Director of Parks constitutes admissible evidence in stay application — Whether court unreasonably refused to allow cross-examination of Director of Parks during stay hearing.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

A hemlock looper moth outbreak damaged trees in Vancouver’s Stanley Park between 2019 and 2022. The respondents — the City of Vancouver and the Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation — subsequently authorized a tree removal project due to concerns that dead or dying trees may threaten public safety and increase the risk of wildfire. The Board has exclusive jurisdiction over the custody, care, and management of Stanley Park, and its budget is funded by the City. The tree removal project began in 2023 and proceeded in three phases. Agreements were concluded with a contractor for the execution of the work in each phase. The Board of Parks and Recreation passed resolutions approving the latter phases of the project before commencement of the work; however, the first-phase work began without the Board’s approval.

The applicants — the Stanley Park Preservation Society and four individuals — sought judicial review of the decisions of the City and of the Board that allowed the project to proceed. The Supreme Court of British Columbia substantially dismissed the petition for judicial review but concluded that the applicants are entitled to a declaration that the City entered into the agreement with the contractor for the first-phase work without jurisdiction. The applicants appealed this decision. Before the Court of Appeal, they applied for an order prohibiting the continuation of work on the third phase of the tree removal project until the determination of its appeal. A judge of the Court of Appeal (in chambers) dismissed the application. The applicants subsequently applied to vary this decision, and a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeal dismissed this application.