Latest news with #NorthVancouver
CBC
4 hours ago
- CBC
Officials hope to deter Lynn Canyon cliff jumping with new signs aimed at youth
Social Sharing "Spoiler alert: Your viral jump ends in the hospital," reads a new sign in the District of North Vancouver's Lynn Canyon Park aimed at informing a younger audience about the dangers of cliff jumping. "Your friends might cheer. First responders won't," reads another. They are both part of a new campaign by the district aimed at raising awareness about cliff jumping at the popular park, which has seen 40 such deaths over the past 50 years and taxed local responders. North Vancouver RCMP said the park gets more than 500,000 visits each year. It's about a 15-kilometre drive from downtown Vancouver and features a suspension bridge across the canyon, boardwalks, and stairs that hug fenced-off, at times steep drop-offs, where people often jump into pools of cold water below. Those drop-offs can be 10 metres or higher. "Although much of the cliff access is fenced off with warning signs, people still go out of bounds, over the fences to cliff jump," said District of North Vancouver Fire Chief Mike Danks. The new signs are in addition to ones already in place that show the stark statistics of injuries and deaths. "We installed bold new signs designed to resonate with younger visitors and reinforce the dangers of cliff jumping," the district said in a news release. "Cliff jumping might look cool, but it's seriously dangerous — and sometimes deadly." Cliff jumping in Lynn Canyon Park is not a criminal offence, "but we strongly advise against it," said Cpl. Mansoor Sahak in a recent video posted by the force to its social media channels. Consuming alcohol is prohibited in the park, but officials say it is often used by people cliff jumping. Patrollers can issue fines to people caught drinking in the park under B.C.'s Liquor Control and Licensing Act. Beyond the risks of drinking in precarious places, officials say there is the danger of a cliff jumper slipping and falling or hitting a rock face on their way down. And, there's the icy temperature of the water, which Danks and Sahak say can shock jumpers and cause hypothermia within minutes. "The water is very, very cold, a lot of people don't realize this," said Danks. Sahak said peer pressure to jump has played a role in some of the jumping deaths at Lynn Canyon Park with the majority of victims being young people. "So we're asking you, don't peer pressure any of your friends into doing something dangerous that could cost them their life." The district says it has increased the number of patrols conducted by park rangers to help educate park visitors.
CBC
10 hours ago
- Climate
- CBC
District of North Vancouver doubles down on cliff jumping dangers with new signs
The District of North Vancouver has put up new signs in Lynn Canyon Park to discourage dangerous cliff jumping. As Kier Junos reports, visitors are cautioned that water levels and conditions can change rapidly, and the canyon cliffs can be steep, slippery and, in some cases, unstable.
CTV News
2 days ago
- Sport
- CTV News
Three-year-old astonishes parents by completing the Grouse Grind with them
Vinu Wesley and Subhashree Kannan pose with their son Valluvan atop the Grouse Grind on July 20, 2025. Outdoor enthusiasts Vinu Wesley and Subhashree Kannan were excited to introduce their three-year-old son Valluvan to the Grouse Grind, a gruelling 2.9-kilometre uphill hike in North Vancouver comprised of 2,830 steps. Valluvan is an energetic and determined little boy who loves the outdoors, so they thought he would enjoy the challenge. But they didn't expect the pint-sized climber would make it very far when they started the trek on Sunday. 'We just thought, just head up and do 25 per cent of the Grind – one quarter – and then bring him back,' said Wesley. But when they got to the quarter marker, Valluvan wanted to keep going. His mom was skeptical, but the family continued to climb. 'We thought let's go to the half mark and check, and probably we come back. By the time he was half mark, he didn't even want to sit. I was so astonished seeing that,' Kannan said. Wesley sat his son down at the halfway marker, explained how hard it would be to continue all the way to the top of Grouse Mountain, and offered him a choice: Go back down, or keep climbing. Valluvan didn't hesitate. He was all in. Soon other climbers started to take notice. 'A lot of people were very impressed, they were all stopping by giving him high fives,' said Wesley. 'He saw people coming and everyone was motivating him – 'Good job, go ahead.' He's like, 'Oh yeah, let's go, let's go,'' said Kannan. They took the second half of the climb very slowly, and the family finished the Grind in just over two hours. 'He pushed himself, and we just actually tagged along with him,' said Valluvan's mom. 'It was an amazing experience, I couldn't describe it. We were so proud as parents,' said his dad. He looked online to see if Grouse kept records of the youngest climbers, but he couldn't find any information. 'Possibly he's the youngest to do it, I don't know,' Wesley said. Valluvan's parents know most three-year-olds aren't cut out for the Grouse Grind, and they were prepared to end the climb at any point. 'One thing I would say is trust your kid,' said Kannan. 'Trust your kid, and try to explore options what you have not done.' 'We think kids can't do much, but that's not true. They are very resilient, they are very focused, and they can push their limits,' said Wesley. Valluvan turns four next month, and is eager to keep climbing. 'I think our aim is to do Garibaldi at some point, but again we want to take him at his own pace, see how he does,' said Wesley. Valluvan's mom believes if you don't have preconceived notions of what a child can do, 'You never know, something amazing can turn out like this.'
CTV News
2 days ago
- Business
- CTV News
Buyers of B.C. rental property not on the hook for $65K payment to evicted tenants: judge
A B.C. landlord who sold a rental property failed to convince a judge the buyers – who never moved into the home – should be on the hook for compensating wrongfully evicted tenants, according to a recent decision. Justice Anita Chan ruled on the dispute Friday, upholding a decision of B.C.'s Residential Tenancy Branch awarding $65,000 in compensation to the former renters. In 2022, Mohan Sull, the landlord, was renting the North Vancouver home to Thomas and Rozette Trevitt for $5,650 a month, the court heard. Sull entered into an agreement to sell the property and served the tenants with a two-month notice of eviction because 'the buyers intended to occupy the property,' according to the decision. But the buyers never moved in. 'The buyers undertook extensive renovations. The city in March 2023 issued a stop-work order. The buyers did not obtain the proper permits until May 2024. I understand the property is still fully gutted with no one residing there currently,' the judge wrote. The ousted renters successfully challenged their eviction on the grounds that the 'stated purpose of the notice to end tenancy was not accomplished,' the decision said. Buyers were not 'purchasers;' sale was conditional Sull was seeking a judicial review of the arbitrator's decision on a number of grounds, including that it was the buyers – not him – who should have to pay. 'The buyers had possession of the property and did not occupy it. The landlord argues he has no control over the property and he ought not to be held liable,' Chan wrote, summarizing the crux of Sull's submission on that point. The judge's decision explained that the arbitrator had already considered and dismissed this argument, finding that the buyers did not 'meet the definition of purchasers' in the Residential Tenancy Act. The legislation defines a purchaser as someone who has agreed to purchase 'at least half of the full reversionary interest in the property' and the arbitrator found that criteria was not met in this case, according to the judgment. That was because the deal was a five-year 'option to purchase' agreement. The buyers put down $100,000 and agreed to pay a monthly interest fee of $5,800 for the next five years or until they decided to complete the purchase of the property. 'If there was an agreement to terminate the contract, the down payment and any additional payments were to be returned to the buyers,' the decision explained. Even if the buyers were 'purchasers,' the arbitrator found the landlord was not legally entitled to evict the tenants. A landlord who has sold a property can end a tenancy but only if 'all the conditions on which the sale depends have been satisfied,' the decision explained. Because of the nature of the agreement, the sale of the property was 'at its core' a conditional sale unless and until the option to purchase was exercised. 'The arbitrator emphasized that the wrongful act was not that the buyers had not occupied the property, but rather that the tenants ought not to have had their tenancy terminated in the first place,' the decision said. The judge agreed on this point. 'The landlord was not entitled to provide the two-month notice to end tenancy, as there was no unconditional sale of the property,' Chan wrote. Unenforceable clause Sull also argued to the arbitrator and again to the judge that the eviction was legal and justified because of a clause written into the lease that read 'tenant and owner both agree to give two full calendar months written notice, when they plan to end the lease.' The problem with that argument, the judge noted, was that it was an 'impermissible opting out of the mandatory provisions of the (Residential Tenancy Act) because 'a landlord cannot end a tenancy by providing two months' written notice for any reason.' The legislation lays out specific circumstances in which a landlord can end a tenancy and leases which 'attempt to avoid or contract out' of those legal obligations are 'of no effect,' according to the decision. 'The arbitrator found that (the) clause was an attempt by the parties to increase the circumstances by which the landlord can end the tenancy,' the decision said. The judge agreed with this assessment and found the arbitrator's decision, as a whole, was reasonable in the circumstances. Wrongfully evicted tenants in circumstances like these are generally entitled to compensation equivalent to 12 months of rent. In this case, that worked out to $67,800 but the judge noted an award of $65,000 as the maximum allowable for a dispute settled by the Residential Tenancy Branch.
CTV News
2 days ago
- Business
- CTV News
B.C. landlord must pay evicted tenants $65K, court rules
A B.C. landlord who sold a rental property failed to convince a judge the buyers – who never moved into the home – should be on the hook for compensating wrongfully evicted tenants, according to a recent decision. Justice Anita Chan ruled on the dispute Friday, upholding a decision of B.C.'s Residential Tenancy Branch awarding $65,000 in compensation to the former renters. In 2022, Mohan Sull, the landlord, was renting the North Vancouver home to Thomas and Rozette Trevitt for $5,650 a month, the court heard. Sull entered into an agreement to sell the property and served the tenants with a two-month notice of eviction because 'the buyers intended to occupy the property,' according to the decision. But the buyers never moved in. 'The buyers undertook extensive renovations. The city in March 2023 issued a stop-work order. The buyers did not obtain the proper permits until May 2024. I understand the property is still fully gutted with no one residing there currently,' the judge wrote. The ousted renters successfully challenged their eviction on the grounds that the 'stated purpose of the notice to end tenancy was not accomplished,' the decision said. Buyers were not 'purchasers;' sale was conditional Sull was seeking a judicial review of the arbitrator's decision on a number of grounds, including that it was the buyers – not him – who should have to pay. 'The buyers had possession of the property and did not occupy it. The landlord argues he has no control over the property and he ought not to be held liable,' Chan wrote, summarizing the crux of Sull's submission on that point. The judge's decision explained that the arbitrator had already considered and dismissed this argument, finding that the buyers did not 'meet the definition of purchasers' in the Residential Tenancy Act. The legislation defines a purchaser as someone who has agreed to purchase 'at least half of the full reversionary interest in the property' and the arbitrator found that criteria was not met in this case, according to the judgment. That was because the deal was a five-year 'option to purchase' agreement. The buyers put down $100,000 and agreed to pay a monthly interest fee of $5,800 for the next five years or until they decided to complete the purchase of the property. 'If there was an agreement to terminate the contract, the down payment and any additional payments were to be returned to the buyers,' the decision explained. Even if the buyers were 'purchasers,' the arbitrator found the landlord was not legally entitled to evict the tenants. A landlord who has sold a property can end a tenancy but only if 'all the conditions on which the sale depends have been satisfied,' the decision explained. Because of the nature of the agreement, the sale of the property was 'at its core' a conditional sale unless and until the option to purchase was exercised. 'The arbitrator emphasized that the wrongful act was not that the buyers had not occupied the property, but rather that the tenants ought not to have had their tenancy terminated in the first place,' the decision said. The judge agreed on this point. 'The landlord was not entitled to provide the two-month notice to end tenancy, as there was no unconditional sale of the property,' Chan wrote. Unenforceable clause Sull also argued to the arbitrator and again to the judge that the eviction was legal and justified because of a clause written into the lease that read 'tenant and owner both agree to give two full calendar months written notice, when they plan to end the lease.' The problem with that argument, the judge noted, was that it was an 'impermissible opting out of the mandatory provisions of the (Residential Tenancy Act) because 'a landlord cannot end a tenancy by providing two months' written notice for any reason.' The legislation lays out specific circumstances in which a landlord can end a tenancy and leases which 'attempt to avoid or contract out' of those legal obligations are 'of no effect,' according to the decision. 'The arbitrator found that (the) clause was an attempt by the parties to increase the circumstances by which the landlord can end the tenancy,' the decision said. The judge agreed with this assessment and found the arbitrator's decision, as a whole, was reasonable in the circumstances. Wrongfully evicted tenants in circumstances like these are generally entitled to compensation equivalent to 12 months of rent. In this case, that worked out to $67,800 but the judge noted an award of $65,000 as the maximum allowable for a dispute settled by the Residential Tenancy Branch.
