in the supreme court of british columbia - savary island committee
in the supreme court of british columbia - savary island committee
in the supreme court of british columbia - savary island committee
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
2010 BCSC 318 Sahl<strong>in</strong> v. The Nature Trust <strong>of</strong> British Columbia, Inc. http://www.<strong>court</strong>s.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/10/03/2010BCSC0318.htm<br />
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA<br />
Citation:<br />
Sahl<strong>in</strong> v. The Nature Trust <strong>of</strong> British<br />
Columbia, Inc.,<br />
2010 BCSC 318<br />
Date: 20100312<br />
Docket: S088152<br />
Registry: Vancouver<br />
In <strong>the</strong> Matter <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Partition <strong>of</strong> Property Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 347<br />
And<br />
In <strong>the</strong> Matter <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Lands and Premises known and described as<br />
PID: 015-935-876, District Lot 1375 Group 1 New Westm<strong>in</strong>ster District<br />
Between:<br />
And<br />
Roger Sahl<strong>in</strong>, Gerryanne Sahl<strong>in</strong>, Carl Roger Sahl<strong>in</strong> Jr., Christopher Lane Sahl<strong>in</strong> and<br />
Sigrid Anne Sahl<strong>in</strong> (Hoag)<br />
Petitioners<br />
The Nature Trust <strong>of</strong> British Columbia, Inc.<br />
Respondent<br />
Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Rice<br />
Reasons for Judgment<br />
(In Chambers)<br />
Counsel for <strong>the</strong> Petitioners:<br />
Counsel for <strong>the</strong> Respondent:<br />
Place and Date <strong>of</strong> Hear<strong>in</strong>g:<br />
Place and Date <strong>of</strong> Judgment:<br />
Bill Kaplan, Q.C. and<br />
Jeffrey L. Oliver<br />
Herman Van Ommen<br />
Vancouver, B.C.<br />
February 3, 2010<br />
Vancouver, B.C.<br />
March 12, 2010<br />
1 <strong>of</strong> 11 3/21/10 7:31 PM
2010 BCSC 318 Sahl<strong>in</strong> v. The Nature Trust <strong>of</strong> British Columbia, Inc. http://www.<strong>court</strong>s.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/10/03/2010BCSC0318.htm<br />
[1] This is a proceed<strong>in</strong>g pursuant to <strong>the</strong> Partition <strong>of</strong> Property Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 347<br />
(<strong>the</strong> “Act”) for partition <strong>of</strong> a parcel <strong>of</strong> 330 acres <strong>of</strong> land (<strong>the</strong> “Savary Land”) on Savary Island,<br />
British Columbia. The parties own <strong>the</strong> property toge<strong>the</strong>r, each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m hold<strong>in</strong>g a one-half<br />
undivided <strong>in</strong>terest jo<strong>in</strong>tly or <strong>in</strong> common with <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r.<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
[2] Mr. Kaplan for <strong>the</strong> petitioners seeks a partition <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Savary Lands <strong>in</strong>to four parcels <strong>of</strong><br />
which each party would take two accord<strong>in</strong>g to a plan, “Map 1”. If <strong>the</strong> Prov<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>of</strong> British<br />
Columbia should realign <strong>the</strong> ma<strong>in</strong> road so that it crosses <strong>the</strong> Savary Lands ,bisect<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> four<br />
new parcels, Each party would cooperate to extend <strong>the</strong> partition to divide each new parcel <strong>in</strong>to<br />
two parcels thus creat<strong>in</strong>g four new parcels each<br />
[3] Mr. Van Ommen for <strong>the</strong> respondent submits that <strong>in</strong>stead <strong>of</strong> partition, <strong>the</strong> whole <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Savary Lands should be sold on <strong>the</strong> open market, where his client would hope to purchase it.<br />
If a sale is not approved <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> respondent is agreeable to a subdivision pursuant to ano<strong>the</strong>r<br />
plan submitted by <strong>the</strong> petitioner known as Map 3.<br />
[4] The petitioners submit that <strong>the</strong>re is no jurisdictional impediment to subdivision <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Savary Lands <strong>in</strong>to more than two parcels. The Partition Act is silent on <strong>the</strong> question, but its<br />
word<strong>in</strong>g clearly allows for <strong>the</strong> broader <strong>in</strong>terpretation. Hence, I declare that this <strong>court</strong> has<br />
jurisdiction to grant <strong>the</strong> partition <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Savary Lands <strong>in</strong>to two or more parcels, as provided <strong>in</strong><br />
ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> petitioner’s Map1 and Map 3 plans for partition.<br />
[5] The petitioners are <strong>the</strong> members <strong>of</strong> a family based <strong>in</strong> Wash<strong>in</strong>gton State and <strong>the</strong><br />
Respondent, The Nature Trust <strong>of</strong> British Columbia, Inc., is an extra-prov<strong>in</strong>cial society<br />
<strong>in</strong>corporated pursuant to <strong>the</strong> laws <strong>of</strong> Canada. Its members purport to follow as a mission <strong>the</strong><br />
acquisition and conversation <strong>of</strong> land where, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir view, it has some bio-diversity value. The<br />
Sahl<strong>in</strong>s, although <strong>the</strong>y have no direct connection with <strong>the</strong> respondents, <strong>the</strong>y pr<strong>of</strong>ess to share<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir desire to partition <strong>in</strong> an environmentally sensitive manner.<br />
[6] However, environmental issues are not considered by <strong>the</strong> parties as determ<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g factors<br />
on this application for partition or sale. This <strong>court</strong> has made no environmental f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>of</strong> fact.<br />
The mechanisms <strong>in</strong> deal<strong>in</strong>g with those issues are available with<strong>in</strong> subdivision process and<br />
efficient community plan.<br />
[7] However, this <strong>court</strong> will reta<strong>in</strong> jurisdiction to decide all matters aris<strong>in</strong>g between <strong>the</strong><br />
parties concern<strong>in</strong>g this partition <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Savary Lands<br />
2 <strong>of</strong> 11 3/21/10 7:31 PM
2010 BCSC 318 Sahl<strong>in</strong> v. The Nature Trust <strong>of</strong> British Columbia, Inc. http://www.<strong>court</strong>s.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/10/03/2010BCSC0318.htm<br />
SAVARY LANDS<br />
[8] The property <strong>of</strong>fers ocean frontage along both sides <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Island, that is, about 5915<br />
feet along <strong>the</strong> north shore and 6317 feet along <strong>the</strong> south shore. The north shore has deep and<br />
densely forested embankments overlook<strong>in</strong>g a sandy beach. It has poor sun exposure, and<br />
mud flats that <strong>of</strong>ten give <strong>of</strong>f unpleasant smells <strong>of</strong> decay<strong>in</strong>g material. It is damp and cool, and<br />
not conducive to comfortable walk<strong>in</strong>g on <strong>the</strong> beach at high tide.<br />
[9] The <strong>of</strong>ficial community plan for <strong>the</strong> area requires <strong>the</strong> build<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> set-backs <strong>of</strong> 50 to 150<br />
feet along <strong>the</strong> north shore due to <strong>the</strong> high bank erosion. The Duck Bank area along <strong>the</strong> south<br />
coast has a more gently slop<strong>in</strong>g terra<strong>in</strong> with <strong>in</strong>termittent grasslands on <strong>the</strong> beach. Toward <strong>the</strong><br />
west portion around Beacon Po<strong>in</strong>t, <strong>the</strong> land rises aga<strong>in</strong> to form high sand bluffs above <strong>the</strong><br />
beach. The south coast has stronger w<strong>in</strong>ter storms, but <strong>of</strong>fers excellent panoramic views<br />
toward Vancouver Island and Beaufort Mounta<strong>in</strong> Range. It is much sunnier than <strong>the</strong> north<br />
shore, and allows for waterfront beach access and has less dense foliage.<br />
[10] A road called “Vancouver Boulevard” dissects <strong>the</strong> Savary Lands. The parties <strong>in</strong>itially<br />
expected that this road would be closed and relocated to <strong>the</strong> south, but recent communications<br />
suggest that <strong>in</strong>stead, <strong>the</strong> M<strong>in</strong>istry will require Vancouver Boulevard to rema<strong>in</strong> where it is.<br />
Savary Island Road <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> north may be extended across <strong>the</strong> property.<br />
[11] There are three general areas on <strong>the</strong> Savary Lands which both parties agree are<br />
environmentally sensitive. They are:<br />
a. The Meadow Duck area located near <strong>the</strong> southwest shore <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Land, an area<br />
<strong>of</strong> approximately 2.33 acres. It is said to conta<strong>in</strong> unique and sensitive plant life.<br />
b. A live foredune area on <strong>the</strong> south shore on <strong>the</strong> easterly portion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Savary<br />
Land at Duck Bay. This is <strong>the</strong> most sensitive area on <strong>the</strong> Savary Land. It is a<br />
live foredune complex and also conta<strong>in</strong>s unique and sensitive plant life. Its area<br />
is about 3.7 acres <strong>in</strong> size. The dunes <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> east sensitive area are called live”<br />
dunes, and to <strong>the</strong> west a large portion (44.38 acres) is described as <strong>the</strong> “Inland<br />
Relict Dunes<br />
c. A 3.10 acre area <strong>of</strong> bracken fern and o<strong>the</strong>r flora and fauna located at <strong>the</strong> south<br />
west corner near <strong>the</strong> Beacon Po<strong>in</strong>t area. The respondent has been frequently<br />
<strong>in</strong>formed by <strong>the</strong> petitioners <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> need to set up protective measures required to<br />
prevent a heavily <strong>in</strong>vasive plant species from overcom<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> exist<strong>in</strong>g vegetation<br />
<strong>in</strong> that area.<br />
CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP<br />
[12] On or about March 12, 2002, <strong>the</strong> Sahl<strong>in</strong>s' co-owner Mr. Syre transferred his 50%<br />
3 <strong>of</strong> 11 3/21/10 7:31 PM
2010 BCSC 318 Sahl<strong>in</strong> v. The Nature Trust <strong>of</strong> British Columbia, Inc. http://www.<strong>court</strong>s.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/10/03/2010BCSC0318.htm<br />
<strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Savary Land to <strong>the</strong> respondent without notice to <strong>the</strong> Sahl<strong>in</strong> Family. Roger<br />
Sahl<strong>in</strong> learned <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> transfer through a press release. S<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>the</strong>n, <strong>the</strong> petitioners have made<br />
numerous <strong>of</strong>fers to <strong>the</strong> respondent <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> hope that <strong>the</strong> parties could co-operatively separate<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir <strong>in</strong>terests <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> property.<br />
[13] Roger Sahl<strong>in</strong> always considered <strong>the</strong> Beacon Po<strong>in</strong>t area <strong>of</strong> Savary Land to be <strong>the</strong> most<br />
desirable and attractive area on <strong>the</strong> Savary Land, if not <strong>the</strong> entire <strong>island</strong>. The Sahl<strong>in</strong> Family<br />
had hoped to build summer three homes for family members <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Beacon Po<strong>in</strong>t Area,<br />
subject <strong>of</strong> course to reta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g expert assistance to obta<strong>in</strong> permits to build on ecologically<br />
appropriate sites. The Sahl<strong>in</strong>s say that <strong>the</strong>y have attempted to work out a consensual partition<br />
through compromise, but so far without any success.<br />
LEGAL PRINCIPLES<br />
[14] Section 2 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Partition <strong>of</strong> Property Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 347 [Partition Act], grants<br />
<strong>the</strong> Court <strong>the</strong> power to compel a partition or sale <strong>of</strong> jo<strong>in</strong>tly held property:<br />
2(1) All jo<strong>in</strong>t tenants, tenants <strong>in</strong> common, coparceners, mortgagees or o<strong>the</strong>r creditors<br />
who have liens on, and all parties <strong>in</strong>terested <strong>in</strong> any land may be compelled to partition or<br />
sell <strong>the</strong> land, or a part <strong>of</strong> it as provided <strong>in</strong> this Act.<br />
(2) Subsection (1) applies whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> estate is legal or equitable or equitable only.<br />
[15] Co-owners have a prima facie right to <strong>the</strong> partition or sale <strong>of</strong> land unless “justice<br />
requires that such an order should not be made”. See Harmel<strong>in</strong>g v. Harmel<strong>in</strong>g, [1978] 5<br />
W.W.R. 688, (B.C.C.A.) [Harmel<strong>in</strong>g] at para. 10. The petitioner submits that this pr<strong>in</strong>ciple is<br />
fundamental to <strong>the</strong> Court’s adjudication <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Partition Act.<br />
[16] The petitioners submit that <strong>the</strong> respondent knew that it was purchas<strong>in</strong>g a one-half<br />
undivided <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Savary Lands and knew that it must share a control equally with <strong>the</strong><br />
Sahl<strong>in</strong>s. Not hav<strong>in</strong>g consulted <strong>the</strong> Sahl<strong>in</strong>s beforehand, <strong>the</strong> respondent must be deemed to<br />
have anticipated disagreement, and a potential that an application such as this would be made<br />
<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> foreseeable future.<br />
[17] In a partition, perfect fairness is not always possible, and so <strong>in</strong> decid<strong>in</strong>g between<br />
compet<strong>in</strong>g proposals for partition, <strong>the</strong> Court must strive to effect <strong>the</strong> most beneficial course for<br />
all parties with regard to <strong>the</strong>ir legitimate <strong>in</strong>terests. See Jabs Constructions Ltd. v. Callahan,<br />
[1991] B.C.J. No. 3396 (S.C.) and Davies v. Quaggan, [2002] B.C.J. No. 2729 (S.C.).<br />
[18] Section 6 gives <strong>the</strong> Court a discretion to order or not to order a sale <strong>of</strong> jo<strong>in</strong>tly held lands<br />
as an alternative to partition.<br />
4 <strong>of</strong> 11 3/21/10 7:31 PM
2010 BCSC 318 Sahl<strong>in</strong> v. The Nature Trust <strong>of</strong> British Columbia, Inc. http://www.<strong>court</strong>s.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/10/03/2010BCSC0318.htm<br />
6. In a proceed<strong>in</strong>g for partition where, if this Act had not been passed, an order for<br />
partition might have been made, and if <strong>the</strong> party or parties <strong>in</strong>terested, <strong>in</strong>dividually or<br />
collectively, to <strong>the</strong> extent <strong>of</strong> 1/2 or upwards <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> property <strong>in</strong>volved request <strong>the</strong> Court to<br />
direct a sale <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> property and a distribution <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> proceeds <strong>in</strong>stead <strong>of</strong> a division <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
property, <strong>the</strong> Court must, unless it sees good reason to <strong>the</strong> contrary, order a sale <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
property and may give directions.<br />
[19] I f<strong>in</strong>d noth<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> evidence <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> evidence before me that would preclude subdivision<br />
<strong>in</strong>to four lots under ei<strong>the</strong>r plan.<br />
GOOD REASON<br />
[20] The petitioners <strong>in</strong>sist that “good reason” exists <strong>in</strong> this case on <strong>the</strong> evidence.<br />
[21] In Bradwell v. Scott (2000), 81 B.C.L.R. (3d) 210 (C.A.) [Bradwell], <strong>the</strong> British Columbia<br />
Court <strong>of</strong> Appeal stated at para. 35:<br />
There is no requirement under s. 6 ei<strong>the</strong>r as a condition precedent to jurisdiction or<br />
o<strong>the</strong>rwise for <strong>the</strong> Petitioner to prove that he comes to Court with “clean hands” and is<br />
o<strong>the</strong>rwise entitled to equitable relief. The section says that <strong>the</strong> Court “must order sale <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> property”.. .unless it sees good reason as to <strong>the</strong> contrary. This language is neutral <strong>in</strong><br />
terms <strong>of</strong> onus. It is for <strong>the</strong> Court to assess <strong>the</strong> evidence and to determ<strong>in</strong>e whe<strong>the</strong>r justice<br />
requires that such an order be denied. In practical terms, it would be for those oppos<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>the</strong> application to put before <strong>the</strong> Court evidence attempt<strong>in</strong>g to establish a good reason<br />
for refus<strong>in</strong>g it. In any event, I can see noth<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> statute or <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> cases decided<br />
under it to support <strong>the</strong> Scott’s submissions. [emphasis added]<br />
[22] The pr<strong>in</strong>ciple was followed by this Court <strong>in</strong> Hayes v. Schimpf, 2004 BCSC 1408 at para.<br />
53.<br />
[23] Accord<strong>in</strong>gly, <strong>the</strong> petitioners have emphasized that <strong>the</strong> so-called “onus” on it, is not a<br />
legal onus <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> usual sense.<br />
[24] It is more <strong>of</strong> a practical burden <strong>of</strong> submitt<strong>in</strong>g some evidence upon which <strong>the</strong> Court may,<br />
<strong>in</strong> exercis<strong>in</strong>g its discretion, determ<strong>in</strong>e whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>re is good reason to order partition ra<strong>the</strong>r<br />
than a sale.<br />
[25] The petitioners submit that <strong>the</strong> evidence shows good reasons for refus<strong>in</strong>g to order a<br />
sale, and that a partition is to be preferred. The evidence <strong>in</strong> support comes from <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g<br />
sources:<br />
• <strong>the</strong> history <strong>of</strong> ownership <strong>of</strong> each party;<br />
• <strong>the</strong> use objectives <strong>of</strong> both parties;<br />
• <strong>the</strong> ecological benefit <strong>of</strong> ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g ownership <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Savary Land with <strong>the</strong>se<br />
5 <strong>of</strong> 11 3/21/10 7:31 PM
2010 BCSC 318 Sahl<strong>in</strong> v. The Nature Trust <strong>of</strong> British Columbia, Inc. http://www.<strong>court</strong>s.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/10/03/2010BCSC0318.htm<br />
parties (which is evidence <strong>the</strong> respondent could not refute);<br />
• <strong>the</strong> f<strong>in</strong>ancial circumstances <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> parties;<br />
• <strong>the</strong> f<strong>in</strong>ancial realities fac<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> parties and <strong>the</strong> Savary Lands if a public sale is<br />
ordered;<br />
• <strong>the</strong> ease <strong>of</strong> a partition, and<br />
• <strong>the</strong> equities respected by <strong>the</strong> petitioners throughout.<br />
[26] The petitioners submit that <strong>the</strong> respondent <strong>of</strong>fers no evidence as to why a sale would be<br />
preferred to a partition, o<strong>the</strong>r than by implication from its undisguised objective <strong>of</strong> acquir<strong>in</strong>g all<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Savary Lands if it can for conservation purposes, an objective which, accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong><br />
petitioners, is illegitimate <strong>in</strong> a partition action. The Court <strong>in</strong> Bradwell also addressed this issue.<br />
[27] The respondent <strong>in</strong> Bradwell argued that <strong>the</strong> trial judge erred by decid<strong>in</strong>g that <strong>the</strong> sale <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> property would not occasion “serious hardship” upon <strong>the</strong> respondent, and that <strong>the</strong>refore<br />
<strong>the</strong>re would be “no good reason” not to grant an order for sale. The respondent argued that<br />
<strong>the</strong> discretion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Court not to grant an order for sale was not restricted to <strong>in</strong>stances <strong>of</strong><br />
“serious hardship”. F<strong>in</strong>ch J.A. agreed with <strong>the</strong> submission while dismiss<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> appeal on<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r grounds.<br />
[28] From this, <strong>the</strong> petitioners submit that “good reason” means good reason “<strong>of</strong> whatever<br />
sort”. In o<strong>the</strong>r words, <strong>the</strong> discretion is broad and unfettered. The petitioners <strong>of</strong>fer three<br />
pr<strong>in</strong>ciples on <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> authorities. They are:<br />
a. firstly, that <strong>the</strong> Act may not be utilized and must not condone <strong>the</strong> compulsory<br />
tak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> land <strong>of</strong> one owner by ano<strong>the</strong>r co-owner;<br />
b. secondly, both parties should be entitled to <strong>the</strong> full protection <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir ownership<br />
rights as can be provided by <strong>the</strong> Court <strong>in</strong> a context <strong>of</strong> any application;<br />
c. thirdly, <strong>the</strong>re must be a compell<strong>in</strong>g and irrefutable “good reason” to avoid a sale if<br />
<strong>the</strong> facts demonstrate that <strong>the</strong> land is capable <strong>of</strong> be<strong>in</strong>g partitioned on an<br />
equitable basis <strong>in</strong> consideration <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> parties actual legal rights <strong>in</strong> and to <strong>the</strong><br />
lands.<br />
[29] The petitioners say that <strong>the</strong> respondent’s strategy to press for a sale <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> whole <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Savary Lands, hop<strong>in</strong>g to be able to out-bid o<strong>the</strong>r <strong>in</strong>terested buyers, is reckless. While it may<br />
be that <strong>the</strong> respondent <strong>in</strong>tensely desires <strong>the</strong> chance to bid on <strong>the</strong> whole property, it rema<strong>in</strong>s to<br />
be seen whe<strong>the</strong>r it can raise <strong>the</strong> funds, and <strong>the</strong> likely scenario if it cannot, could be a<br />
disappo<strong>in</strong>tment, and possibly a disaster.<br />
6 <strong>of</strong> 11 3/21/10 7:31 PM
2010 BCSC 318 Sahl<strong>in</strong> v. The Nature Trust <strong>of</strong> British Columbia, Inc. http://www.<strong>court</strong>s.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/10/03/2010BCSC0318.htm<br />
[30] An open market buyer might have none <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> values and objectives now shared by <strong>the</strong><br />
respondent and <strong>the</strong> petitioners for land use and ownership. In short, an order for sale <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Savary Land as one parcel will present a material prejudice to both parties.<br />
[31] The respondent has given notice that it has now been authorized to <strong>of</strong>fer to purchase<br />
<strong>the</strong> petitioners’ <strong>in</strong>terest for $5 million, which, <strong>the</strong>y ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>, is <strong>the</strong> market value. The <strong>of</strong>fer<br />
<strong>in</strong>cludes also a provision for a lease back or dedication <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> whole <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Savary Lands to <strong>the</strong><br />
Prov<strong>in</strong>cial Government to create a wildlife park. However, <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>fer has yet to be presented,<br />
and <strong>the</strong>refore, <strong>the</strong>re is no reason to consider it , and <strong>in</strong> fact, Mr. Kaplan for <strong>the</strong> petitioners calls<br />
<strong>the</strong> gesture mischievous and illegitimate, cit<strong>in</strong>g Hersog v. Hersog (1978), 5 B.C.L.R. 354 (S.C.)<br />
and Lougheed Enterprises Ltd. v. Armbruster (1992), 73 B.C.L.R. (2d) 353 (B.C.C.A.) at para.<br />
17.<br />
THE SAHLIN FAMILY PROPOSALS<br />
[32] The petitioners desire strongly not to have to sell <strong>the</strong>ir <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Savary Lands.<br />
They wish to build summer cottages for various members to enjoy <strong>the</strong>ir time <strong>the</strong>re. There is no<br />
evidence <strong>of</strong> any <strong>in</strong>tention to despoil <strong>the</strong> environment <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> process.<br />
[33] Map 1 provides an equal division <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> north shore and south shore and an equal<br />
division <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> western segment and eastern segments <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Savary Land. It gives <strong>the</strong><br />
respondent <strong>the</strong> “Beacon Po<strong>in</strong>t” area (which is <strong>the</strong> area most desired <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Sahl<strong>in</strong> Family). It<br />
allocates to <strong>the</strong> Sahl<strong>in</strong>s as well 62.1% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Inlet Relict Dunes, almost all <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> BGA Area<br />
and, and <strong>the</strong> east sensitive area.<br />
[34] Specifically it would provide 2,959 feet each <strong>of</strong> shorel<strong>in</strong>e on <strong>the</strong> north shore, 3,165 each<br />
on <strong>the</strong> shorel<strong>in</strong>e <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> south shore and approximately 165 acres each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Savary Land.<br />
[35] Initially, Mr. Wilson conducted an appraisal <strong>of</strong> Map 1 on <strong>the</strong> basis that Vancouver<br />
Boulevard was relocated, and <strong>the</strong>n separately on <strong>the</strong> basis that it was not. Assum<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> road<br />
was not relocated, it was valued at $8,000,050 for <strong>the</strong> petitioners and $7,000,940 for <strong>the</strong><br />
respondent. With <strong>the</strong> Boulevard relocated, <strong>the</strong> partitioned property was worth $8,550,000 to<br />
<strong>the</strong> petitioners and $8,390.000 to <strong>the</strong> respondent.<br />
[36] In his December 21, 2009 appraisal, Mr. Wilson considered <strong>the</strong> effect <strong>of</strong> dedicat<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Vancouver Boulevard. He found that with respect to Map 1, and assum<strong>in</strong>g that Vancouver<br />
Boulevard was dedicated <strong>in</strong> its exist<strong>in</strong>g alignment, <strong>the</strong> value accru<strong>in</strong>g to each party, <strong>in</strong> his<br />
op<strong>in</strong>ion, was $7,922,000 to <strong>the</strong> petitioners and $7,980,013 to <strong>the</strong> respondent. The new<br />
appraisal was conducted on <strong>the</strong> basis that <strong>the</strong> portion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> south shore that was cut <strong>of</strong>f by <strong>the</strong><br />
road dedication should be valued as north shore high bank waterfront ra<strong>the</strong>r than walk-on<br />
7 <strong>of</strong> 11 3/21/10 7:31 PM
2010 BCSC 318 Sahl<strong>in</strong> v. The Nature Trust <strong>of</strong> British Columbia, Inc. http://www.<strong>court</strong>s.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/10/03/2010BCSC0318.htm<br />
waterfront. It was determ<strong>in</strong>ed that such dedication would reduce <strong>the</strong> frontage <strong>of</strong> each party’s<br />
parcel by approximately 35 metres each. As that was equally borne by <strong>the</strong> parties, <strong>the</strong>re was<br />
no value adjustment required even though it was found that <strong>the</strong> dedication <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Duck Bay<br />
public access would have some impact on <strong>the</strong> immediately adjo<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g lands with respect to<br />
decreased privacy and <strong>in</strong>creased public traffic.<br />
[37] Assum<strong>in</strong>g both <strong>the</strong> dedication <strong>of</strong> Vancouver Boulevard and <strong>the</strong> extension <strong>of</strong> Savary<br />
Island Road, <strong>the</strong> conclusion was that <strong>the</strong> two most south easterly parcels <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Savary Land<br />
would be most heavily impacted, but this impact would be more or less equal. Therefore, it<br />
was concluded that <strong>the</strong> value estimates under this scenario would be <strong>the</strong> same as <strong>the</strong> value<br />
estimates noted above with respect to <strong>the</strong> dedication <strong>of</strong> Vancouver Boulevard.<br />
[38] The petitioners submit, <strong>the</strong>refore, that Map No. 1 provides <strong>the</strong> parties with <strong>the</strong> best<br />
choice <strong>of</strong> partition alternatives. It provides equal acreages and shorel<strong>in</strong>es, it divides <strong>the</strong><br />
premium south west corner <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Savary Land, and each result<strong>in</strong>g parcel is practically equal<br />
<strong>in</strong> value. The discrepancy <strong>in</strong> value between <strong>the</strong> parcels is only $114,000 <strong>in</strong> favour <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
petitioners.<br />
[39] Mr. Van Ommen drew particular attention to <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>ter-connectedness and sensitivity <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> Savary Island eco-system <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Inland Relict Dunes. Observ<strong>in</strong>g that all <strong>of</strong> those dunes<br />
would lie with<strong>in</strong> one contiguous parcel, as would <strong>the</strong> east and west sensitive areas, and <strong>the</strong> B<br />
and G areas. Mr. Kaplan challenged <strong>the</strong> assumption that keep<strong>in</strong>g a sensitive area with<strong>in</strong> one<br />
parcel provides better protection. There was no evidence to support <strong>the</strong> assumption, <strong>in</strong> my<br />
view.<br />
[40] Map 3 provides <strong>the</strong> petitioners with Beacon Po<strong>in</strong>t, <strong>the</strong> north east portion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Savary<br />
Lands, and Whalebone Po<strong>in</strong>t. It provides that <strong>the</strong> respondent with <strong>the</strong> northwest portion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Savary Land and <strong>the</strong> majority <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> south shore walk-on waterfront.<br />
[41] The division <strong>of</strong> lands pursuant to Map 3 is as follows:<br />
a. Nature Trust 165 acres with north shore frontage <strong>of</strong> 2,957 feet and south shore<br />
frontage <strong>of</strong> 2,919 feet.<br />
b. The Sahl<strong>in</strong>s would receive 165 acres <strong>of</strong> which 2,958 feet would be north shore<br />
frontage and 3,403 feet would be south shore frontage, <strong>of</strong> which 820 feet would<br />
be high bank.<br />
[42] The petitioners obta<strong>in</strong>ed two appraisals <strong>of</strong> Map No. 3, <strong>the</strong> first dated September 21,<br />
2009. Assum<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> exist<strong>in</strong>g Vancouver Boulevard would be closed and relocated to <strong>the</strong><br />
north, <strong>the</strong> appraisal determ<strong>in</strong>ed values to each party <strong>of</strong> $4,870,000 to <strong>the</strong> petitioners and<br />
8 <strong>of</strong> 11 3/21/10 7:31 PM
2010 BCSC 318 Sahl<strong>in</strong> v. The Nature Trust <strong>of</strong> British Columbia, Inc. http://www.<strong>court</strong>s.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/10/03/2010BCSC0318.htm<br />
$4,600,000 to <strong>the</strong> respondent. On December 21, 2009, Map No. 3 was revisited with <strong>the</strong><br />
assumption that Vancouver Boulevard would not be closed and that a secondary access route<br />
would be dedicated through an extension <strong>of</strong> Savary Island Road. In both scenarios it was<br />
concluded that a value attributable to <strong>the</strong> parcels would be $4,358,000 to <strong>the</strong> respondent and<br />
$4,518,000 to <strong>the</strong> petitioners, <strong>the</strong> difference be<strong>in</strong>g $160,000 <strong>in</strong> favour <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> respondent.<br />
[43] It was determ<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> arriv<strong>in</strong>g at those values, <strong>the</strong> dedication <strong>of</strong> Vancouver Boulevard<br />
would impact parcels owned by both petitioners and respondent <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> south easterly portion <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> Savary Lands through a reduction <strong>in</strong> privacy and enjoyment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> unobstructed<br />
waterfront. Due to <strong>the</strong> set-backs and road location, portions <strong>of</strong> both <strong>of</strong> those parcels are<br />
unlikely to have build<strong>in</strong>g sites on <strong>the</strong> waterside <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> road allowance. Specifically, it was<br />
determ<strong>in</strong>ed that approximately 200 acres <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> respondent’s parcel <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> south east portion<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Savary Land would be affected, and <strong>the</strong> entire area frontage <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> petitioners’ south<br />
east parcel would be affected. Even if those areas would o<strong>the</strong>rwise be walk-on beachfront, it<br />
was determ<strong>in</strong>ed that <strong>the</strong>y should be treated as high bank waterfront property for valuation<br />
purposes.<br />
[44] With respect to <strong>the</strong> Duck Bay public access dedication, as it appeared that <strong>the</strong><br />
dedication was equally split between <strong>the</strong> parties’ parcels, Mr. Wilson determ<strong>in</strong>ed that <strong>the</strong>re was<br />
no value adjustment required.<br />
[45] Both parties have also tendered environmental evidence with respect to Map 3.<br />
Pursuant to an October 1, 2009 Order <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Court, <strong>the</strong> Respondent was to deliver any reply<br />
evidence to <strong>the</strong> Petitioner’s Map 3 appraisal by December 1, 2009. Fur<strong>the</strong>r to that Order, <strong>the</strong><br />
Respondent delivered <strong>the</strong> November 26, 2009 Affidavit <strong>of</strong> Carmen Cadr<strong>in</strong>, who is a vegetation<br />
ecologist with <strong>the</strong> M<strong>in</strong>istry <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Environment. Ms. Cadr<strong>in</strong> raises a number <strong>of</strong> issues with<br />
respect to <strong>the</strong> alleged ecological sensitivity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Beacon Po<strong>in</strong>t area.<br />
Ms. Cadr<strong>in</strong> noted that <strong>the</strong> old forest located on Beacon Po<strong>in</strong>t has ecological and biodiversity<br />
value as compared to <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r younger forests on <strong>the</strong> Island. She noted that a variety <strong>of</strong><br />
Even<strong>in</strong>g Primrose grows over a large area <strong>of</strong> Beacon Po<strong>in</strong>t, Whalebone Po<strong>in</strong>t and Duck Bay.<br />
On <strong>the</strong> contrary, <strong>the</strong> petitioners’ expert deposes that most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> old growth forest lies <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Beacon Po<strong>in</strong>t area, a distance <strong>of</strong> about 1,700 metres. He deposed that <strong>the</strong> Even<strong>in</strong>g Primrose<br />
does not grow on Beacon Po<strong>in</strong>t. However, <strong>the</strong>y exist and are located on <strong>the</strong> right-<strong>of</strong>-way<br />
belong<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> M<strong>in</strong>istry around Duck Bay.<br />
CONCLUSION<br />
[46] I f<strong>in</strong>d that <strong>the</strong>re is good reason not to order a sale. I share <strong>the</strong> concern that a sale could<br />
take <strong>the</strong> property out <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> control <strong>of</strong> both <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se responsible owners and <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> hands <strong>of</strong> a<br />
9 <strong>of</strong> 11 3/21/10 7:31 PM
2010 BCSC 318 Sahl<strong>in</strong> v. The Nature Trust <strong>of</strong> British Columbia, Inc. http://www.<strong>court</strong>s.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/10/03/2010BCSC0318.htm<br />
purchaser shar<strong>in</strong>g none <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ecological sensitivities <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> parties. Fur<strong>the</strong>r I accept <strong>the</strong><br />
petitioners’ submission that such a process would force a sale <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> petitioners’ property, a<br />
step not to be lightly considered <strong>in</strong>asmuch as it bears resemblance to an expropriation.<br />
[47] Nei<strong>the</strong>r proposal is essentially unfair, but I f<strong>in</strong>d that <strong>the</strong> Map1 proposal is <strong>the</strong> fairest and<br />
<strong>the</strong> more equitable <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> two. Its configurations provide a closer to equal aggregate value and<br />
a better shar<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> whole <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> lands. Map 3 provides <strong>the</strong> respondent with much more <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> south shore and <strong>the</strong> petitioner with much more <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> high bank north shore, which is<br />
disadvantageous and not as fair to <strong>the</strong> petitioner.<br />
[48] Map 1 divides <strong>the</strong> premium southwest corner between <strong>the</strong> two parties, and <strong>the</strong><br />
petitioners have expressed a will<strong>in</strong>gness to allow <strong>the</strong> registration <strong>of</strong> two covenants to protect<br />
conservation <strong>of</strong> those parts <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sensitive areas located on <strong>the</strong>ir area as shown on Map 1.<br />
[49] Mr. Van Ommen, for <strong>the</strong> respondent urges upon <strong>the</strong> Court that <strong>the</strong>re is significant<br />
advantage <strong>in</strong> Map 3 because, it keeps all <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Inland Relic Dune system and both <strong>the</strong> East<br />
and West Sensitive areas with<strong>in</strong> one contiguous parcel.<br />
[50] Mr. Kaplan, for <strong>the</strong> petitioners challenges <strong>the</strong> respondent’s assumption that hav<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong><br />
sensitive areas <strong>in</strong> one parcel would protect <strong>the</strong>m better from depredation, I agree that <strong>the</strong><br />
evidence does not establish <strong>the</strong> basis for <strong>the</strong> assumption.<br />
[51] The reason for <strong>the</strong> lower aggregate land value under Map 3 as compared to Map 1 is<br />
that <strong>the</strong> fur<strong>the</strong>r subdivision <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> land <strong>in</strong>to eight parcels under Map 1 causes <strong>the</strong> land values<br />
to rise. However, arguably this does not reflect correspond<strong>in</strong>g and environmental cost<br />
associated with a partition accord<strong>in</strong>g to Map 1.<br />
[52] The petitioners ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> that a Map 3 configuration would attract more opposition from<br />
<strong>the</strong> respondent <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> event <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> petitioners later apply<strong>in</strong>g for build<strong>in</strong>g permits and<br />
environmental approvals, particularly on <strong>the</strong> Beacon Po<strong>in</strong>t Area. If <strong>the</strong> Court approves Map 3,<br />
say <strong>the</strong> petitioners, it will result <strong>in</strong> fewer <strong>court</strong> battles. The respondent answers by say<strong>in</strong>g that<br />
<strong>the</strong>re is plenty <strong>of</strong> room as well for <strong>court</strong> battles over attempts to fur<strong>the</strong>r subdivide Map 1. With<br />
no more than conjecture <strong>of</strong> counsel to guide me, I would call <strong>the</strong> argument on that last po<strong>in</strong>t a<br />
tie.<br />
[53] I order that <strong>the</strong> Savary Lands be partitioned <strong>in</strong>to four separate parcels pursuant to <strong>the</strong><br />
Map 1 plan submitted by <strong>the</strong> petitioner, or eight parcels if road realignment across <strong>the</strong> result<strong>in</strong>g<br />
new parcels necessitates it.<br />
[54] The parties will share <strong>the</strong> costs <strong>of</strong> sub-division <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g all preparation <strong>of</strong> documents<br />
and plans, approvals, and fil<strong>in</strong>gs, but not <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> costs <strong>of</strong> this proceed<strong>in</strong>g, which will be<br />
10 <strong>of</strong> 11 3/21/10 7:31 PM
2010 BCSC 318 Sahl<strong>in</strong> v. The Nature Trust <strong>of</strong> British Columbia, Inc. http://www.<strong>court</strong>s.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/10/03/2010BCSC0318.htm<br />
determ<strong>in</strong>ed on application, and fail<strong>in</strong>g application with<strong>in</strong> one month <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> date <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se<br />
reasons <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong>y too will be borne equally by <strong>the</strong> parties.<br />
“The Honourable Mr. Justice Rice”<br />
11 <strong>of</strong> 11 3/21/10 7:31 PM