A Gibsons resident asked us a couple of years ago what it would take to stop The George Hotel and Residences project from becoming a reality.
At that point, we told her, it looked like nothing could stop The George – or at least nothing short of a full-blown meltdown of the global economy.
“I hope there’s a full-blown meltdown of the global economy,” the woman seethed.
We share this anecdote because it captures the touch of irrationality present in some of The George’s staunchest opponents.
The project survived another attack this week when BC Supreme Court Justice Robin Baird dismissed the legal action brought against the Town of Gibsons and George Gibsons Development Ltd. by the Gibsons Alliance of Business and Community Society (GABC).
GABC was petitioning the court to quash three development permits issued last year by the Town, prevent the Town from reissuing them and prevent the developer from acting on them. It was also seeking costs.
“All three permits address the issue of soil contamination on the site,” Justice Baird wrote, with one permit in particular requiring “the developer to undertake any environmental remediation required by provincial and federal authorities and to provide the Town with confirmation of compliance.”
So, in effect, GABC was trying to stop the cleanup of a contaminated site in Gibsons Harbour. The judge rejected the group’s claims, saying the Town had acted lawfully in issuing the permits and the developer is working cooperatively with provincial authorities to remediate the site.
Both the Town and the developer held that the proceeding was an “abuse of process.” On that question, the judge found the petition was “unnecessary” because the dispute belongs before the Environmental Appeal Board (EAB), which will hear an appeal from GABC later this year. But the judge goes further. He confirms that GABC’s positions in the two separate challenges contradict each other, arguing to the appeal board that a Ministry of Environment official issued a notice of remediation and arguing in the court case that he did not. “The petitioner took a firm position … before the EAB while pleading the opposite in this court.”
The judge quotes a Court of Appeal ruling that “in some instances relying upon inconsistent pleadings may amount to an abuse of process [but] there must be something more giving rise to an injustice.”
“In my view,” Justice Baird writes, “the ‘something more’ in the present case comes from putting the developer to the time and expense of responding to contradictory arguments advanced simultaneously in two different forums. The court system has always been vigilant to discourage this sort of thing, and not only because it is vexatious and burdensome for individual litigants. It can also lead to the mischief of inconsistent results from different arbiters on the same issue with resulting damage to the reputation of the justice system.”
Developer Klaus Fuerniss said Wednesday it was “very gratifying” to read that part of the judge’s decision. “The judge said it very well. This has indeed been vexatious and burdensome, but more than that – it has cost me as developer large sums in legal fees… It has also cost the Town substantially for legal fees, and lost tax revenue through delay of the project.”
Town officials expect it will take two months for site cleanup and another two months for foundation improvements before actual construction of The George begins. Construction is expected to take 24 to 30 months – barring, of course, a full-blown meltdown of the global economy.
