Lawsuit may not be the next step in VIMC vs. North Cowichan spat

Lawsuit may not be the next step in VIMC vs. North Cowichan spat

VIMC/GAIN will have their solicitors ask for a “writ of Mandamus”

Lawsuit may not be the next step in VIMC vs. North Cowichan spat

Regarding the VIMC (Vancouver Island Motorsport Circuit) and the MNC (Municipality of North Cowichan) ongoing debate/issue…

Sooo…I have sequestered my comment on the VIMC epic battle, standing on the sidelines, watching the saga unfold. Soap opera in nature and character(s) as it is. But on certain matters I sense it is time to now say what needs saying.

That said, confusion reigns on the ground about just what the legalities and their natures that are before one and all may well be — that is, as I see it, as I know it. Basically, a lack of knowledge and understandings by the common folk of what “off to the courts” may entail seems to be the soup of the day. Could be wrong here, but I do think not.

My points(s), as Yogi Berra said, “when you come to a fork in the road take it”! And we certainly have, a resumed public hearing with an enhanced platter of amenities, before a court of public opinion, and a looming court of law engagement, before the B.C. Supreme Court judiciary.

I would like to pause and emphasize that MNC has a very high end counsel with Lawyer Sukh Manhas giving them guidance. Manhas is among a handful of recognized authorities in B.C. on municipal structure and related law. His equal peers are not that many. Just for everyone’s comfort, MNC is well counselled.

Wandering into speculation, at my own peril, I would not be surprised if VIMC/GAIN were to abandon the rezoning effort before the next resumption of public hearing. Just saying. But if not, if the MNC denies the rezoning, after further public hearings, then the other fork in the road is imminent. And here the confusion emerges.

All the dialogue I hear and see is about a $60 million lawsuit possibility of being brought by VIMC/GAIN for indemnity and damages, against MNC.

That is not what will happen, at least not first off. VIMC/GAIN will have their solicitors ask for a “writ of Mandamus”, an order from the courts directing MNC to issue the requested development permit, and IMHO they are likely, or most probable to get such a Mandamus. That is, if VIMC/GAIN can first establish that the I2 zoning is to their favour, as MNC has stated, in written form a couple of times now.

How so? Why so? Good question. And here I wander far past my expertise, but someone needs to say something on just what’s actually happening, or most probably going to happen.

First on this matter, precedent, case law mined from across Canada, is pertinent and applicable, much of it historic, but as well recent and emerging judgements.

VIMC will rest their pleadings for a writ of Mandamus upon past law precedent(s) (and that could be many) as there are many in case law.

I will list two that I know are of consequence, and IMHO and experiences, most applicable, and most likely to be referenced. That is because both resulted in Mandamus being given.

One, is Rocky Point Metalcraft v. Cowichan Valley Regional District, (Part 1 and Part 2), a judgement built substantially upon the precedent of Yearsley v. White Rock (City of), 2009 BCSC 719.

Much about the ultimate order of Mandamus given in favour of Yearsley(s) is similar in many manners to the VIMC-MNC development permit scenario, in my layperson’s judgement. I encourage you to Google and read the judgements for yourself.

There, that said. And without prejudice. Google: “writ of Mandamus”

Yearsley v. White Rock(City of) 2009 BCSC 719

https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2009/2009bcsc719/2009bcsc719.html

Rocky Point Metalcraft v. Cowichan Valley Regional District

2011 BCSC 441 (Part1)

https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2011/2011bcsc441/2011bcsc441.html

Rocky Point Metalcraft v. Cowichan Valley Regional District

2012 BCSC 756 (Part 2)

https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2012/2012bcsc756/2012bcsc756.html

Loren Duncan

Sahtlam