British Columbia: Public-tribal land illegally sold as real estate is allowed by judge
Local bylaws designed to block development of private land released
from Vancouver Island tree farm licences have been struck down by a
B.C. Supreme Court judge. Judge Robert Metzger rejected the Capital
Regional District bylaws on technical grounds. He found that directors
from neighbouring municipalities Central Saanich and Metchosin had
opted out of regional planning for the area and weren’t entitled to
vote on the bylaws because errors in a cost sharing agreement made it
invalid. The restrictive bylaws were rushed into place after the B.C.
government in January 2007 permitted the release of 28,000 hectares of
forest land held in Vancouver Island tree farm licences along with
Crown forest land. The release included about 2,500 hectares of land
owned by Western Forest Products in the Jordan River and Port Renfrew
area of southwestern Vancouver Island.
The bylaws created a new “Rural
B” zone for forest land with a minimum lot size of 120 hectares,
effectively preventing development plans proposed by a developer who
had optioned some of the Western Forest Products land. Western Forest
Products and a group of area landowners went to court to protest the
downzoning and its effect on their property values. The decision by
then-forests minister Rich Coleman has been controversial from the
start, and was the subject of a critical report by B.C.
Auditor-General John Doyle. He found that Coleman didn’t adequately
protect the public interest in the land release, and further enraged
the B.C. Liberal government by referring to campaign donations from
Western and other forest companies and the employment of Coleman’s
brother by Western. Neither was found to have had any effect on the
land use decision, which left the Western free to pursue development
and still holding the Crown timber rights that were part of the
original tree farm licence.
http://www.bclocalnews.com/news/36856609.html
— Posted to http://forestpolicyresearch.com via gmail to posterous and
also to forestpolicyresearch@yahoogroups.com
Posted via email from Deane’s posterous
I think it is important that Justice Metzger becomes aware of the failure of our justice system to provide justice. If his ruling is technically correct, then the system fails to provide justice for all!
I am disappointed that Justice Metzger failed to look beyond the technicality of the law and felt relieved from his responsibilities to provide justice , by hiding behind a technicality. Certainly the issue put before him was not to judge the CRD bylaw for its “technical weaknesses”, but to make a judgement on justice in the issue of handing over public assets for purely private interests, with consequences that are intended to violate public interests (i.e. the intended planned development of the area, as well as a breach of an agreement that served the public interest at the time).
We pay judges to maintain their independence in delivering justice as defined by society, unfortunately sometimes through imperfect legislation (baby and bath water). If judges fail to address justice, we should pay them as “technicians of the law”, which puts them on par with lawyers and para-legals who are merely responsible for providing the best possible defense for their clients. Was there reasonable doubt about the client’s rights vs the public interest? No, the intent of all was clear! Did the judge challenge the public’s right to justice in favour of an individuals apparent opportunity? That appears to be the outcome of the decision!
Certain areas of law appear to be designed to limit the ability to deliver justice! Typically, and for clear reasons, these areas set clear bounds on the jurisdiction of the enforcement agency and dictate the possible actions of enforcement. This may mean that penalties are not proportionate to the magnitude of an infraction, or that adequate enforcement actions are not available to the enforcer.
If the judge was limited in his decisions because of such rules of law we, the public, expect that a mechanism be created for a judge to elevate the decision to an appropriate level of justice or even the legislature without rendering a decision under the existing rule of law.
With this decision, justice Metzger served neither justice, nor the public interest, nor the rights of an individual, but encouraged the greed of those seeking to profit from imperfections in the system.
If you can, I would appreciate it if you can forward these thoughts to Justice Metzger, to be pondered by those who should!