 |
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?
