May 27, 2026

As noted in previous newsletters, the Lorval Developments Ltd. v. Langley (Township) Supreme Court of BC decision regarding the Township’s Community Amenity Contributions (CAC) Policy was released last June. Lorval sought “… to quash or set aside the CAC Policy or alternatively the June 10, 2024, amendment to the CAC Policy, for being beyond Langley’s statutory authority (i.e. ultra vires).”    

The Hon. Justice Coval ruled in favour of Lorval, stating that “… the CAC Policy as a whole … does represent a mandatory amenity payment regime in exchange for certain, specified rezonings. As a matter of law, such a regime cannot be imposed without the appropriate statutory authority which does not exist. The CAC Policy is therefore set aside as invalid.”   

In a recent Housing Advisory Bulletin, the Planning Institute of BC highlights the importance of the decision: 

• “Good planning objectives are not enough on their own—local governments must rely on legislated tools, not negotiated pressure.” 
• “The key lesson from Lorval Case is not that growth should not help pay for infrastructure and amenities, but that it must do so through clear, legislated, and transparent mechanisms. British Columbia's current DCC and ACC framework is best understood as being consistent with this ruling." 

The Township appealed the decision to the B.C. Court of Appeal. However, on May 11th, after all of the factums (with the legal arguments) had been filed, and only a month before the hearing of the appeal, Langley abandoned its appeal. UDI is assessing the implications, and will be providing further updates to members. 

July 2, 2025

On June 20th, the Lorval Developments Ltd. v. Langley (Township) Supreme Court of BC decision was released. Lorval sought “… to quash or set aside the CAC Policy or alternatively the June 10, 2024 amendment to the CAC Policy, for being beyond Langley’s statutory authority (i.e. ultra vires).”  

The Hon. Justice Coval ruled in favour of Lorval, stating that “… the CAC Policy as a whole … does represent a mandatory amenity payment regime in exchange for certain, specified rezonings. As a matter of law, such a regime cannot be imposed without the appropriate statutory authority which does not exist. The CAC Policy is therefore set aside as invalid.”  

UDI is still reviewing the case and its potential broader implications. In addition, the decision may be appealed. The case will be discussed at UDI’s annual Fall Tax & Legal Update.