Municipal decisions are not moot where ongoing adversarial context and public interest engaged

Municipal decisions are not moot where ongoing adversarial context and public interest engaged.

Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Municipal boards – Planning and zoning – Park land; Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Mootness.

Stanley Park Preservation Society v. Vancouver (City) Board of Parks and Recreation, [2025] B.C.J. No. 2506, British Columbia Supreme Court, December 17, 2025, J.S. Basran J.

The petitioners, the Stanley Park Preservation City and individuals, sought judicial review of decisions made by the City of Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation (the “Park Board”) in relation to tree removal in Stanley Park.

The City is incorporated pursuant to the Vancouver Charter, S.B.C. 1953, c. 55. Under the Vancouver Charter, the Park Board has exclusive jurisdiction over the custody, care, and management of Stanley Park. The Park Board Procurement Policy requires that the Park Board approve all contracts worth over $750,000.

In 2023, the City authorized removal of trees in Stanley Park in response to a moth infestation that impacted the forest between 2019-2022, raising a concern that dead or dying trees threatened public safety and increased the risk of wildfire. The petitioners specifically challenged two supply contracts in relation to the removal of trees, on the basis they were not properly authorized by the Park Board. The City’s position on judicial review was that the dispute was moot, because there was no longer an active controversy between the parties with respect to the supply contracts because the work contemplated under those contracts had been completed.

The Court distinguished between the first supply contract and the second supply contract. For the first supply contract, there was no Park Board resolution authorizing the work under that contract. The Court found that while the work under the first supply contract had been completed, the issue was not moot, for two reasons. First, there was an ongoing adversarial context between the petitioners and the respondents in respect of how the moth infestation in Stanely Park should be addressed. Second, it is an important matter of public interest that a declaration be made affirming that neither the City, through its Council or staff, nor the Park Board staff, have the authority to authorize tree removal and other mitigation measures in Stanely Park. The practical effect of making the declaration sought by the petitioners was to emphasize the importance of the Park Board’s jurisdiction and its obligation to exercise it.

On that basis, the Court exercised its discretion to grant a declaration that the City entered into the first contract without jurisdiction because it did not have the required approval of the Park Board.

This case was digested by Joel A. Morris of Harper Grey LLP.  If you would like to discuss this case further, please feel free to contact him directly at [email protected].