The day before the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision to not hear an appeal of a BC Supreme Court decision filed by owners of seven Seawatch properties, those individuals filed a new action with BC Supreme Court.
In their April 6 filing, the owners are seeking damages and costs from Sechelt and the province, over a lack of access to their ill-fated properties located in a municipally closed subdivision. The respondents have 21 days from the date of service of that claim to file a response.
Public roads, including Seawatch Lane and a section of Gale Avenue North have been closed since Feb. 15, 2019 when Sechelt place the area under a State of Local Emergency (SOLE). In addition, the area was enclosed with a permanent chain link fence in efforts to prevent access and an evacuation order was issued. The municipality took those actions following the appearance of sinkholes and subsurface instability within the subdivision.
At Sechelt’s request, the province provided funding for fencing and renewed the SOLE on a weekly basis until Feb 21, 2022. The province declined the municipality’s request to extend it past Feb 22. That decision followed a BC Supreme Court ruling granted in favour of two property owners, Carole Rosewall and the Latham’s. Those individuals are not involved with the April 6 filing.
In that decision, the province was required to pay damages to those owners based on a finding that continued renewal of the SOLE for almost three years without new evidence or a plan to address the situation was unwarranted. In a later ruling on costs in that matter, the court order the province pay double, given that it had rejected the owners earlier offer to settle their claims out of court.
The most recently filed notice of civil claim sees owners Joanna Moradian, Jin Shun Pan, Harjit Singh Rai, as well as the Goy, Held, Pickell and Pednaud families claiming they have been unrightfully barred from their homes, as once the SOLE expired, Sechelt has not reopened the roads or removed the fence. They also claim that a Council resolution passed on Feb. 6 to keep the roads and area closed to the public “is of no legal effect or force as it was not enacted in way of a bylaw.”
During inquiry sessions following the Feb. 16 and March 2 regular council meetings, Coast Reporter asked for clarification regarding the situation with the roads accessing the Seawatch subdivision. In both instances, comment from council was not provided, with the acting Mayor and Mayor stating the matter remained before the courts.
Lawyer for the owners, Jeff Scouten told Coast Reporter on Feb. 17, that his clients are a “determined group”. They are also awaiting a decision on claims for compensation under BC’s Emergencies Act, related to having been removed from their homes.
.jpg;w=120;h=80;mode=crop)
