July 6, 2026

Here's an overview of the issue by Jeff Fisher, VP and Senior Policy Advisor:

In late May, the Township of Langley abandoned its appeal of the June 2025 BC Supreme Court decision in the Lorval Developments Ltd v Langley (Township) case regarding Community Amenity Contributions (CACs). The Court had decided that the Township’s “... 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.”  

The fact that the Township abandoned its appeal means the BC Supreme Court decision is now the law in British Columbia.  

Peter Kenward, who acted for Lorval in the case and who is a former Urban Development Institute (UDI) Director, has posted on the publications page of the Kenward Development Law (KDL) website at https://www.kenwarddevelopmentlaw.com/publications a Commentary, dated June 3, 2026, that speaks in detail to the lawfulness of Community Amenity Contribution policies.   

As outlined in detail in the Commentary, there are four lines of cases that can establish solid grounds for a successful argument that other municipal CAC policies are unlawful, provided appropriate care is taken in considering, preparing and presenting the matter.  The Commentary also reviews additional case law further to which a municipality could be ordered to pay back CACs, depending on the facts.   

The implications of the Lorval matter for CACs are profound, and UDI accordingly strongly recommends that the KDL Commentary be reviewed by all of UDI’s members and, if pertinent to a dispute or negotiation, by their legal counsel.  The Commentary reviews: 

• what Community Amenity Contributions (“CACs”) are, and the controversies surrounding them,  
• the statutory regime under which local governments operate, including its provisions related to zoning, amenities and development charges.  As part of that, the Commentary notes that CACs are not mentioned in any statute, and that the Local Government Act (LGA) prohibits the imposition of additional charges as a condition of rezoning beyond administrative fees,  
• the contrasting impact of CACs and Amenity Cost Charges (ACCs) in terms of housing affordability, economic viability, and jobs.  In doing so, the Commentary speaks to connection between those policy objectives and what the legislation provides;  
• the slow and uneven track record of municipalities in moving from CACs to ACCs, including the extent to which many municipalities are still carrying on with CAC policies, either generally or to in effect sidestep the grandparenting requirements the LGA sets relative to ACC Bylaws;   
• 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 lawfulness challenge under the statutory regime, and why they matter, including  
• cases holding policies to be unlawful where they are ‘regulatory in nature’,   
• cases to the effect that an authority cannot extract a ‘cut’ of the financial benefit of a regulatory approval unless the statute specifically provides for it; and   
• cases to the effect that administrative action is not lawful where it is not “consistent with the text, purpose and context of the enabling statute”   
• a fourth line of cases under which a CAC Policy could also be held to be invalid on the basis that Council acted without meeting the ‘judicial review’ requirements of “justification, transparency and intelligibility”; and    
• specific implications for local governments, applicants, the rule of law, and how our communities evolve.   

The Kenward Development Law Commentary also speaks to why the Langley litigation cannot fairly be characterized as an effort to enable applicants to avoid responsibility for the impact of applications.  Rather it sought to ensure that: 

• local governments respect the rule of law, and  
• do so through the implementation of a statutory scheme that has been crafted to ensure that development pays its fair share, without being exposed to extractions through ‘policy’ mechanisms (including ‘lift-based’ contribution policies) that damage housing affordability and the viability of local employment opportunities.    

The broad significance of the Lorval case as outlined in the KDL Commentary is also reflected in the following comment in the November 2025 update to the British Columbia Planning Law and Practice text: 

“During the 1990s local governments, beginning with those in the Lower Mainland, implemented the concept of obtaining community amenities when rezoning applications were approved, by establishing a formal cash contribution regime reminiscent of the “excess servicing cost” levies of the 1970s (see §19.2). These regimes generally require a rezoning applicant to make a cash contribution, prior to their application being approved by way of a zoning bylaw amendment, based primarily or exclusively on the magnitude and value of the development opportunity afforded by the rezoning. The funds are then set aside to pay for local community amenities, to be provided by the local government at its discretion…. 

The legality of community amenity contribution regimes would eventually be addressed in a 2025 case in which a developer asserted that a CAC policy that a municipality characterized in the litigation as mere administrative guidance was, in law, a mandatory fee regime. The evidence was that developers in Langley Township (as in many other B.C. municipalities) were under practical compulsion to enter into agreements to pay CACs in order to obtain approval of their rezoning applications. Under the applicable case law, including the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in the Pacific National Investments case cited in §8.40, this amounted to the imposition of a fee for which there was no statutory authority.” 

It is further underscored by the following statements made by the Planning Institute of British Columbia in one of its recent Housing Advisory Bulletins: 

“In June 2025, in a decision arising from Lorval v. Township of Langley, the BC Supreme Court confirmed that local governments can only require developers to provide money or amenities if they have clear authority in provincial legislation. Even when acting through rezoning, local governments cannot impose contributions that function like mandatory charges unless the law expressly allows it. 

The Court found that so-called “voluntary” amenity contributions are not lawful if, in practice, a rezoning will not proceed without them. 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.”  

In keeping with the comments set out in both the text and the PIBC Bulletin, the implications the KDL Commentary sets out include that local governments who have CAC policies of whatever scope in place would be well advised to carefully consider the risks described in the Commentary, and the cost vs benefit of continuing with those policies relative to raising funds for amenities by way of an Amenity Cost Charge Bylaw established in compliance with the provisions of the Local Government Act.  

It is important to note that the difference between CACs and ACCs is not simply a matter of form (i.e. – whether amenity charges take the form of CACs or ACCs).  As the KDL Commentary notes, the ACC provisions of the statute require for example that ACCs must “be similar for all developments that are expected to result in a similar increase in the population of residents or workers,” and that: 

•  “... amenity cost charges must be paid into a statutory reserve fund;”  
•  “the capital costs of any amenity funded by an amenity cost charge must be recovered only once;” and  
• local governments “... must make available to the public, on request, the considerations, information and calculations used to determine the schedule ...,” of charges to be imposed and must publish an annual report regarding ACCs, which sets out information specified in the statute.   

The KDL Commentary also indicates that the CAC Policy rates in the Langley CAC Policy that was held unlawful were such as would raise $150 million more from new development than the total cost of the amenities for which funds were being raised, and $378 million more than what Langley’s calculations said was the ‘new development’ share of the cost of those amenities (i.e. - after accounting for the use of the new amenities by Langley’s existing citizens).   Indeed, the ACC Bylaw that Langley adopted in light of the constraints in the statute and the ACC Best Practices Guide set the rates charged to industrial development at $2.40 per square foot and commercial development at $6.10 per square foot, as compared to the CAC Policy that was set aside, which set those rates at the greater of $17 and $19 per square foot or $500,000 and $550,000 per acre.  Overall residential rates also dropped.    

I for one will be pleased to see CAC regimes go. They have seriously undermined housing affordability in B.C. by: 

• directly adding substantial and growing fees to the cost of new homes; 
• making projects unviable – which indirectly increases the cost of housing by reducing the number of new homes for British Columbians to rent/purchase, and the overall housing supply; 
• significantly slowing down the processing of housing applications and delivery of housing, as zoning applicants and builders lose months and even years having to ‘negotiate’ what the land lifts of rezonings are and the corresponding CACs; and  
• adding risks (and costs) to housing projects because of those delays and the uncertainty and arbitrariness inherent in a policy approach, which risks can only be borne by increasing the return profile, which in turn again increases costs and injures project viability.    

As the KDL Commentary notes, and as was apparent from the facts reviewed in the Lorval decision, the same can also be said of the impact of CACs in undermining commercial and industrial projects that are important to local employment and local economies.   

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.