BC Supreme Court: Langley Township's CAC policy is invalid

A landmark decision that may be appealed

Film studio wins lawsuit with Langley Township over millions in fees. Matthew Claxton, Langley Advance Times, June 2025.

As the MacPhail Report explains, it’s common practice in BC for municipal governments to use pretend zoning to restrict how land can legally be used, resulting in the land selling for a deep discount. Then when they update the law to allow the land to be used as their own plans say (“spot rezoning”), they charge 70-80% of that discount. They’re taking away your right to build, and then selling it back to you. This means that they have a strong incentive to keep housing scarce and expensive, so that the value of this discount (“land lift”) will be high.

There’s a lot of money here. Over the 10 years from 2011 to 2020, the city of Vancouver collected $2.5 billion in supposedly-voluntary “Community Amenity Contributions.” The key thing to remember is that there’s no free lunch. Like any other cost, it ratchets up the floor on prices and rents. In other words, that $2.5 billion is being paid by homebuyers and renters.

Moreover, it’s a leaky bucket, because this affects prices and rents for existing housing as well as new housing, since they compete with each other.

Lorval vs. Langley (Township)

A developer sued Langley Township, asking the courts to rule that Langley is basically charging a tax without having that authority in provincial legislation. The BC Supreme Court just ruled that this is indeed correct. (Langley may still appeal the decision.)

From the statement of facts laid out in the decision:

Martini Lands

[14] From 2018-2020, Lorval purchased the Martini Lands for approximately $190 million. This is a land assembly of over 70 acres in the Williams Neighbourhood Plan area of Langley. Lorval plans to develop the assembly into a business park, including a large-scale office, warehouse and film studio project.

[15] The existing zoning is “Suburban Residential - SR2”, which is a low-density area comprising mainly large hobby-farm lots. The Official Community Plan designation is “Business Park”. Thus, its development requires rezoning but no amendment of the OCP.

[16] In 2021, Lorval obtained third reading of its rezoning bylaw amendment. Fourth reading is not yet achieved. By late 2023, it had paid approximately $8 million in security to Langley and spent $26 million on site preparation.

[17] Lorval alleges that two steps taken by Langley in 2023-2024 rendered the contemplated development unfeasible. Both steps have been subsequently rescinded by Langley to some extent.

[18] First, by a neighbourhood plan amendment in December 2023, Langley converted 38% of the area to the Township’s own use as a works-yard. On June 10, 2024, that amendment was revised, such that the works-yard’s location was to be determined later but would not be placed on developments such as the Martini Lands which had already achieved third reading.

[19] Second, Langley’s June 10, 2024 amendment to the CAC Policy substantially increased the amenity contributions for rezoning of the Martini lands, by adding a $550,000/acre target contribution for the Williams and Smith Neighbourhood Plan areas. Lorval’s evidence is that this added $32-39 million in new costs for its project.

[20] On October 7, 2024, in what Lorval says was a tactical response to this petition having been filed in September, Langley removed the $550,000 target contribution for the Williams Neighbourhood and directed staff to conduct additional public and property-owner consultation to reconsider the CAC Policy in that area.

Gloucester Lands

[21] The Gloucester Lands total just under 13 acres in the Gloucester Community Plan area. Lorval is a minority owner of this assembly, the majority share being owned by an arm’s length business partner.

[22] In 2008, the owners applied to remove the lands from the Agricultural Land Reserve to facilitate industrial development. In May 2022, Langley’s Council gave third reading to the official community plan and zoning bylaw amendments.

[23] In December 2022, Langley’s Council (a) passed a CAC Policy amendment that introduced a CAC for agricultural and other conversions, and (b) reversed third reading of the Gloucester rezoning and directed staff to have discussions with the applicant to “ensure” that the community amenity contributions were proportionate to the value being created.

[24] Lorval’s evidence is that the owners rejected these changes because the price for the land was established before the CAC Policy amendment, and the proposed CAC of over $16 million reduced its return on investment to 3% thereby undermining financing of the project.

[25] On February 18, 2023, Langley responded to the owners’ rejection of the increased CACs by advising in writing that the rezoning application “can just sit if they are not interested in a community-oriented thought process”. Langley then made compliance with the CAC Policy a condition of fourth reading of the rezoning bylaw.

[26] In 2024, Langley added 7% ($1,321,428) to the CACs to be paid.

After a detailed analysis and comparison to similar cases, the judge concluded that the CAC policy is indeed a mandatory fee, which Langley Township doesn’t have the legislative authority to impose.

In my view, the 2024 CAC Policy indicates the intention that developers must pay the amenity charges in exchange for rezonings. Thus, as in Prairie Communities, the effect is to “coerce developers to make payment of unauthorized levies as a condition of the development process”. Contrary to the prohibition in Pacific National, it is to zone in exchange for amenities without specific statutory authority.

Eric Woodward, the mayor of the Township of Langley, downplayed the decision, saying that negotiated CACs are being replaced with fixed Amenity Contribution Charges (ACCs) anyway. He also said that they may appeal.

Provincial guidelines from 2014

The decision refers to a provincial guidelines document from 2014, which I hadn’t seen before.

The amount of the CAC requested is paramount. If the value of CACs adds a relatively small amount to the cost of a project, the CACs may push the price of land down slightly and/or the developer might take slightly less profit, but the CAC amount is unlikely to prevent the project from proceeding. Alternatively, when the value of CACs is significant, it is more likely that the project would not proceed, and that the result will be upwards pressure on housing prices.

And:

There are currently three typical strategies used to seek amenities. These are:

1. Including density bonus provisions in a zoning bylaw (using the authority in LGA, s.904);

2. Setting preferred CAC amounts for properties being rezoned, typically on a per unit or an area basis; and,

3. Seeking CACs based on the expected increase ("lift") in the value of the land that would result from the rezoning, typically as a percentage of the lift.

Overall, it is recommended that local governments make density bonus zoning their starting point when seeking amenities and affordable housing. Allowing modest levels of density bonus, tied to modest contributions, strikes a good balance between ensuring new development contributes to a community while minimizing the risk that these contributions hurt housing affordability.

Where "pre-zoning" land with a density bonus may not be practical, local governments are encouraged to set targets for CACs, and be open to negotiation at time of rezoning. Again, the target contributions should be modest to minimize the impact on housing affordability.

Negotiating CACs based on a "lift" approach is inconsistent with the principles set out in this Guide. These principles support an approach that clearly identifies community needs and the impacts associated with new development, and links the CAC not to the "lift" in land value, but rather to the cost of providing a package of amenities that makes sense given the development being proposed.

The MacPhail Report, published in 2021, observed that it’s common practice to negotiate CACs as a percentage of the “lift.”

More

• Previously: CAC explainer.

• Text of the decision: Lorval Developments Ltd. v. Langley (Township), 2025 BCSC 1148.

• Community Amenity Contributions: Balancing Community Planning, Public Benefits and Housing Affordability. Guidelines from the provincial Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, March 2014.

• Film studio sues Langley Township in wrangle over municipal fees. Matthew Claxton, Langley Advance Times, September 2024.

• No quick decision in landmark court case against Langley Township, May 2025.