This morning, in Courtroom 20, in the British Columbia Supreme Court building at 800 Smithe Street, in the city of Vancouver, during the course of a 45-minute video tele-conference address, Mr. Justice Robert J. Bauman ruled decisively against the recently deposed members of Vancouver’s beleaguered Board of Variance. Okay, let’s be honest: with one devastating body blow after another, he slammed them to the ground, and crushed their cheery little faces into the dirt multiple times. But who’s counting?
Justice Bauman ruled that the decision by Vancouver City Council to rescind the appointments of all five members of the Board of Variance constituted “an institutional change,” ruling that Vancouver City Council — as the legislative authority — had the “unfettered right” to fire the Board of Variance, and were not compelled either to give reasons for their decision, nor were they to be concerned about any possible damage to the personal and professional reputations of the deposed Board of Variance members.
Tuesday afternoon at 5 p.m., Council appointed a ‘new‘ Board of Variance, made up of Alex “Sleepy” Lam, Francesca “I used to be an NDPer, but I seen the light, and now I’m a Liberal” Zumpano, Marguerite “I don’t know why some people think I’m scary” Ford, and (“what must they have been thinking, jumping into this mess?“), former 1993 – 1999 Board of Variance member Parveen Adrakar, and newcomer, Jagdev Dhillon.
The best part of this whole fiasco? VanRamblings is now free to write any (responsible) thing it wishes on this blog about Council, without fear of retribution by Mayor Sam Sullivan and cohorts. That’s the good news.
The bad news: the terrible loss that the 350 families — and all of the other members of the community who approach the Board of Variance, each year, for an appeal of the Director of Planning involving a development decision in their neighbourhood — who will almost certainly suffer an untoward experience at the hands of a Board of Variance whose determinations must surely be seen to be tainted by the recent action of Council to fire the previous Board, in a decision taken with no just and reasonable cause.
In respect of Mr. Justice Robert Bauman, and in fairness to the fulsomeness of his ruling, given the impeccable and compelling presentation of counsel for the City, Mr. George Macintosh QC, to Mr. Justice Bauman’s court, there was very little room left for Justice Bauman to rule other than he did (although, one supposes, the door would always be open to a broader interpretation of the matters placed before a Supreme Court Justice).
Mr. Justice Robert Bauman ruled as he felt he must. VanRamblings believes in the rule of law, and all those who believe in civil society must stand by the rightness of a decision of the Court, whatever the negative personal consequences one might experience as a result. That an appeal of Justice Bauman’s ruling is under consideration speaks only to points in law counsel for the Board feels may not have been fully explored.
Still and all, VanRamblings would ask: Was it absolutely necessary for Justice Robert Bauman to award costs to the City, risking bankruptcy for the good-hearted, principled volunteer members of the Board of Variance who have worked so hard and well, and so ethically, this past year?

After three long, miserable weeks of psychic, emotional and other pain for the author of this blog, notice was given Friday afternoon that Justice Robert Bauman, of the BC Supreme Court, will hand down his decision this coming Tuesday morning, at 9 a.m., July 25th, as to whether Vancouver will maintain an independent Board of Variance, or have its members replaced with individuals friendlier to development interests, and the interests of the NPA, the municipal political party currently governing Vancouver City Hall.
For those of you who have not been following the torrid and often heartrending saga of the sacking of Vancouver’s Board of Variance (of which VanRamblings is one of the deposed members), there’s been a great deal reported in the press on the issue, as there might well have been given the import of the issue for the average Vancouver citizen, and for all of us.
Allen Garr, of the Vancouver Courier, has proved particularly dogged in his coverage of what he has suggested “may be the biggest story of the year,” beginning with his July 7th column, Board firing bad for citizenry, continuing on to July 12th with Board firing stretches credulity, July 15th’s PR plan followed board firing, and yet another column published this past Wednesday, which (inexplicably) The Courier has yet to post to the ‘Net.
The Vancouver Sun’s Barbara Yaffe, who in appealing on behalf of her neighbourhood to the Board of Variance in the autumn of 2005, lost in her bid to have overturned what she and her neighbours felt was a “wholly unsuitable” duplex development, has taken a surprising, yet ethical and principled stand in support of an independent Board of Variance.
On July 5th, Ms. Yaffe, in a column titled Citizens need a Board to stand between them and city hall (pdf), and again on July 12th in a column titled, Variance board our last hope to rein in a city hall run amok provided insight and much needed coverage of an issue which should have grabbed the attention of all Vancouver citizens.
So, this coming Tuesday morning, stay tuned to your local radio station for news from the BC Supreme Court.
Justice Robert Bauman has a very difficult ruling to make, given the able presentations of both legal counsels, Derek Creighton for the Petitioner (the fired Board of Variance members), and George Macintosh for the Respondent, the City of Vancouver / Province of British Columbia.