Anmore group threatens legal action against village over Anmore South development
The Village of Anmore has been threatened with a legal action over its handling of the contentious Anmore South development, with the Anmore Neighbours Community Association (ANCA) alleging procedural and constitutional violations.
In a May 15 letter
addressed to Mayor John McEwen and council, ANCA's lawyers accuses the village of bias, democratic suppression, and violations of free expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The letter warns that unless the Official Community Plan (OCP) amendment process is halted and corrected, ANCA will petition the B.C. Supreme Court to quash any resulting decision.
'If the village chooses to ignore (these complaints) and forge ahead with the OCP amendment, it can expect a legal proceeding brought by ANCA, and perhaps others, to set the decision aside,' ANCA's lawyers stated.
The Anmore South project, proposed by Icona Properties, aims to transform 151-acres on the municipality's southwest border into a mixed-use development with approximately 2,200 units, commercial space, a community centre, parks, and a connection to Metro Vancouver's wastewater system.
Anmore's population could nearly triple over the next 25 years if council were to approve an amendment to its official community plan changing the designation of the lands from rural to urban.
The Village of Anmore did not respond to a request for comment by press time.
Accusations of bias
ANCA claimed three of the five Anmore councillors – Mayor John McEwen and Couns. Polly Krier, and Kim Trowbridge – have 'prejudged' their decision on the OCP amendment by publicly endorsing the proposed 'preferred plan' before a public hearing has occurred.
Several statements from the councillors are provided. ANCA argued that those statements show their 'minds are made up' regarding the OCP amendment.
'The public hearing itself is pointless – the mayor and these councillors will sit and listen to suggestions, but not whether to vote 'yes' or 'no' on the amendment, which is the vote that will come before them,' the letter stated.
Earlier this year, McEwen said it would be a loss if only single-family homes were built in the area.
'I think the key thing that we have to remember is, this land is going to be developed at some point,' McEwen said at a February meeting. 'I've said very publicly, I certainly don't want it to go RS-1 the way some areas of the other village have.'
Council has discussed development of the Anmore South site since it was designated as a special study area in 2007. More recently,
council discussed three visions for the land, including one pitch for approximately 3,500 units.
ANCA cited several Supreme Court of Canada decisions, arguing the legal standard for disqualifying a member of council from participating in a decision is if they are no longer capable of being persuaded.
It further claims the councillors have shown to prejudge the amendment decision by rushing the process through despite late completion of a consultant reports, an incomplete neighbourhood plan, and treating the first and second reading of the bylaw as routine 'housekeeping' steps.
The letter urged all three representatives to recuse themselves from further deliberations, warning that if they do not, any vote on the OCP amendment will be legally tainted.
Because this recusal would leave council without quorum, ANCA suggested the village seek direction from the court to allow the decision to proceed with a modified quorum. ANCA stated it would expect Mayor McEwen's participation to be conditional on a court order requiring him to consider public input 'with as open a mind as possible.'
Accusations of Charter breaches
The municipality is also being accused of suppressing political dissent regarding Anmore South by unreasonably limiting free expression at council meetings and through local signage restrictions.
ANCA highlighted recent
changes to the village's procedure bylaw
, which bar comments on any topic that may be the subject of a future public hearing.
They state this 'broadly drafted' clause is unconstitutional because it stifles political expression on pending issues before they are formally up for debate.
The bylaw was invoked during the May 6 council meeting, when residents were barred from raising questions about Anmore South during question period, while the developer and two opposing delegations were permitted to speak about the project during the same meeting.
ANCA contended this inconsistent application shows the bylaw is being enforced in a discriminatory manner and suppressing community opposition while giving the developer a platform.
Icona CEO Greg Moore defended the consultation process, noting that 28 public engagement events have been held since 2021.
The ANCA letter also raised concerns about a zoning bylaw which restricts residential signage to only certain types such as real estate or home business signs. Political signage is not permitted, even on private property.
While the bylaw is in place to limit visual pollution, ANCA claimed it is being used as a way to prohibit 'political expression on a matter of fundamental importance to the community.'
According to the letter, ANCA has received reports that village staff have removed signs opposing Anmore South, while leaving up other signs that also contravene the bylaw.
ANCA argued this suggests 'discretionary unfairness' and points to an active effort by the village to suppress opposition to Anmore South.
The letter is calling on council to delay the public hearing and OCP amendment decision by 'at minimum several months' until both the procedure bylaw and zoning bylaw are amended to comply with Charter protections. Only after residents are given a 'reasonable period' for unrestricted political expression, should the amendment return to council for a vote, ANCA stated.
The letter follows several months of escalating tension around the Anmore South proposal, with groups like ANCA and the Anmore Residents Association describing the process as
'developer-dominated,' and calling for a referendum to decide the project's fate.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
B.C. man who got $8M says he'll be penniless if made to pay sex assault damages
VANCOUVER — A British Columbia man who was awarded $8 million after being wrongfully convicted of sexual assault and spending 27 years in prison says he'll be left "homeless and penniless" if forced to pay civil damages to victims who won a lawsuit against him. The B.C. Court of Appeal ruled this week that five women who were awarded $375,000 each in January against Ivan Henry can't go after his home or vehicles pending his appeal, but ordered him to pay $232,000 into a trust account. "The value of the (January) judgment exceeds my net worth," Henry said in an affidavit. "I would be homeless and have no means to support myself." Henry was convicted of 10 counts of sexual assault in 1983, but was released after an appeal determined he was wrongfully convicted and he was acquitted in 2010. The appeal ruling says Henry was awarded more than $8 million in 2018 for breaches of his Charter rights after suing the province and others for wrongful conviction, but five women sued him in 2017, alleging he sexually assaulted them in their Vancouver homes in the early 1980s. The B.C. Supreme Court sided with the women in the civil case but the appeal ruling says Henry has not taken any steps to pay them and both he and the plaintiffs have filed appeals. The five women are appealing the court's refusal to award punitive damages in the case of $1 million each. This week's ruling says Henry applied to "stay execution" of the damages award and he told the court he spent millions defending the lawsuit, gave away more than $2 million, and now lives in a mortgage-free home on a monthly stipend from old-age security and the Canada Pension Plan. Henry filed an affidavit in the Court of Appeal this month that outlines his current living situation, his finances and the history of the case. It says he has had "significant health issues" since his release from prison, undergoing quintuple bypass heart surgery in 2016. Henry, now 78, said he lives alone at his home in Hope, B.C., with an assessed value of $650,000, and he owns two vehicles worth a combined $40,000. Henry said his Charter damages were paid out in instalments. He said he "gifted" more than $2 million to family members and a former partner, and also made donations. "These gifts were unconditional gifts with no expectation of repayment," said Henry, who estimated his annual living expenses at around $40,000. He said the rest of the money went toward living expense and legal expenses fighting the civil lawsuit. Henry said he continues to have "anxiety and other long-term effects" from his time behind bars, and asked the court to allow him to remain in his home until the appeal is decided. "My home provides me with a consistent and secure environment that supports my ability to manage these challenges. It is a place where I feel safe and can maintain a routine." The Court of Appeal found discrepancies in Henry's claims, finding his evidence leaves $1.8 million "unaccounted for," while he couldn't explain where "large sums" flowing in and out of his account went between 2018 and 2023. The ruling says Henry's affidavit is "not consistent" with what he said in an examination by the plaintiffs a week before he filed the document. He had said on May 5 that he gave away an estimated $3 million by 2017. He also said he had about $2 million and a house in 2024, but lost millions defending the civil action. Justice Nitya Iyer found that it is possible Henry doesn't have the money to pay the award and may lose his home, but "inconsistencies" in his affidavit and the examination "raise real questions about whether Mr. Henry has access to more funds than he claims." The ruling says the appeal will likely be heard this fall, with a decision in the spring of 2026. Lawyers for Henry and the complainants did not immediately respond to a requests for comment. The women who sued Henry described sexual assaults in their ground-floor or basement suites between May 1981 and June 1982. The judge in January's civil ruling found Henry liable, saying "it is more likely than not that he was their attacker and performed the sexual assaults … on a balance of probabilities." This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 30, 2025. Darryl Greer, The Canadian Press
Hamilton Spectator
6 days ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Google, Competition Bureau battle over possible constitutional challenge in case
TORONTO - Canada's competition watchdog says it will fight a constitutional challenge from Google in a case alleging the tech giant abused its dominant position in the online advertising market. New filings made in the case say the Competition Bureau will ask the Competition Tribunal to strike Google's proposed motion to proceed with a constitutional challenge because the commissioner feels it is premature and without merit. Constitutional challenges question acts that could violate someone's rights or freedoms and often end up being precedent-setting. Google's challenge takes aim at the monetary penalty the bureau is asking the tech company pay, if it is found to have abused its dominant position in online advertising. The company says the penalty could wind up costing it billions, dwarfing the profits it generates in Canada and amounting to a total that is disproportionate to the allegations Google is facing. It argues the penalties would also breach the company's entitlements under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, necessitating a constitutional challenge. This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 28, 2025.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Yahoo
Google, Competition Bureau battle over possible constitutional challenge in case
TORONTO — Canada's competition watchdog says it will fight a constitutional challenge from Google in a case alleging the tech giant abused its dominant position in the online advertising market. New filings made in the case say the Competition Bureau will ask the Competition Tribunal to strike Google's proposed motion to proceed with a constitutional challenge because the commissioner feels it is premature and without merit. Constitutional challenges question acts that could violate someone's rights or freedoms and often end up being precedent-setting. Google's challenge takes aim at the monetary penalty the bureau is asking the tech company pay, if it is found to have abused its dominant position in online advertising. The company says the penalty could wind up costing it billions, dwarfing the profits it generates in Canada and amounting to a total that is disproportionate to the allegations Google is facing. It argues the penalties would also breach the company's entitlements under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, necessitating a constitutional challenge. This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 28, 2025. Tara Deschamps, The Canadian Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
