June 15, 2026

Kenward Development Law Corporation (KDL) has now published a detailed Legal Commentary regarding CACs and the Lorval case entitled “Community Amenity Contributions and the Lorval case: Implications for local governments, applicants, and the rule of law”.  KDL’s website advises that its purpose in doing so is to add to people’s understanding of issues related to local government regulation, and why those issues matter, and ideally lead to better outcomes in the broader public interest.  

In this case the Commentary speaks to, among other things:

• what community amenity contributions (“CACs”) are, and the controversies that have arisen regarding them,
• the statutory regime under which local governments operate, including its provisions related to zoning, amenities and development charges,  
• the public policy impact of CACs, in terms of housing affordability, economic viability and jobs,
• the uneven track record of municipalities in moving from CACs to the Amenity Cost Charge regime that became part of the Local Government Act in November 2023,  
• the legal challenge to Langley’s CAC Policy that proceeded through the Court system from September 2024 through May 2026,   
• the legal issues and lines of case law pertinent to CACs that were at the heart of Lorval’s legal challenge, and why they matter, and   
• the implications for local governments, applicants, the rule of law and how our communities evolve

A copy of the CAC Legal Commentary can be found on KDL’s publications page at https://www.kenwarddevelopmentlaw.com/publications. 

UDI’s members may recall Peter Kenward as a member of the Board of Directors of UDI Pacific from 2002 to 2012.  KDL was lead counsel for the Petitioners who successfully challenged the Township of Langley’s CAC Policy.    

If members wish to follow up with questions or comments regarding CACs, amenity cost charges, or the Lorval case, UDI will provide further updates in due course.

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.