The British Columbia Court of Appeal’s decision in Westcoast Association for Property Rights v. British Columbia provides important guidance on the limits of court intervention when new legislation affects property rights and commercial activity. The case arose in the wake of the provincial government’s sweeping reforms to short-term rental regulation, raising fundamental questions about access to the courts, declaratory relief, and the proper timing of legal challenges.

At its core, the appeal inquired whether property owners and businesses affected by the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act could seek early judicial clarification of their rights before any enforcement action was taken against them. The Court of Appeal’s answer was clear: absent a concrete dispute grounded in specific facts or administrative action, courts will not issue advisory opinions on how legislation might apply.

This decision has implications well beyond short-term rentals. It highlights how and when individuals, businesses, and associations can challenge provincial legislation, particularly when alleged economic harm, regulatory change, or potential expropriation is at issue.

British Columbia’s Short-Term Rental Reforms

The dispute arose from the enactment of the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act (STRAA), which took effect on May 1, 2024. The legislation represented a significant shift in how short-term rentals are regulated across the province. Its stated objective was to address housing affordability by returning residential units from the short-term rental market to long-term housing use.

The STRAA introduced a general prohibition on short-term rentals of less than 90 days unless the rental property is the owner’s principal residence, subject to limited exceptions. It also removed the long-standing “non-conforming use” protections that had allowed some property owners to continue operating short-term rentals even after municipal zoning changes prohibited that use.

In practical terms, the STRAA signalled the end of many pre-existing short-term rental operations that had previously been lawful under municipal bylaws or had been grandfathered under zoning protections. The legislation also established a comprehensive compliance and enforcement framework, including administrative penalties, compliance orders, and judicial injunctions.

Challenge Brought by the Westcoast Association for Property Rights

The appellants were the Westcoast Association for Property Rights (the Association), an organization representing hundreds of property owners involved in short-term rentals, as well as individual property owners and related service businesses. They argued that the STRAA fundamentally altered their legal rights and business interests.

Their concerns extended beyond regulatory inconvenience. The Association alleged that the STRAA:

• Eliminated vested rights to continue lawful land use;
• Interfered with existing contracts and business relationships;
• Caused substantial economic loss to property owners and service providers; and
• Potentially amounted to a constructive taking or expropriation without compensation.

Rather than waiting for enforcement proceedings, penalties, or compliance orders, the Association sought early judicial clarification through a petition for declaratory relief.

Property Owners’ Association Asked Court to Make Declarations About STRAA

The petition requested a series of declarations concerning the interpretation and legal effect of the STRAA. Among other things, the Association asked the court to declare that:

• The STRAA did not operate retrospectively to eliminate pre-existing short-term rental uses;
• The removal of non-conforming use protections did not lawfully extinguish their rights;
• If rights were extinguished, the legislation amounted to an expropriation or constructive taking; and
• Compensation was required before the legislation could be enforced against them.

Notably, the petition was not tied to any specific enforcement action. None of the Association members had been subject to compliance orders, penalties, or injunctions under the STRAA at the time the petition was filed.

Petition Struck as Premature, No Grounds for Declaratory Relief

The Supreme Court of British Columbia struck the petition at an early stage. The chambers judge concluded that the proceeding was premature and constituted an abuse of process because no statutory power had yet been exercised under the STRAA.

The judge also found that declaratory relief was not available under the Judicial Review Procedure Act, as there had been no exercise (or even a proposed exercise) of administrative decision-making authority. In effect, the petition sought a generalized interpretation of legislation rather than judicial review of a specific decision.

The Association accepted that declaratory relief was unavailable under the Judicial Review Procedure Act but argued that the court could nonetheless grant declarations under its inherent jurisdiction. That argument formed the basis of the appeal.

Can Courts Issue Early Declarations?

On appeal, the Court of Appeal was asked to determine whether the chambers judge erred in refusing to consider declaratory relief outside the confines of judicial review. The Association argued that courts possess broad inherent jurisdiction to issue declarations and that denying early access to declaratory relief undermines access to justice.

The Province responded that the Association was effectively seeking an advisory opinion on hypothetical facts, something courts have consistently refused to provide.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the Province.

Declaratory Relief Is Broad, But Not Unlimited

The Court reaffirmed that declaratory relief is a discretionary remedy with a long history in Canadian law. Courts may issue declarations even where no further relief is sought, provided certain conditions are met. These conditions include:

• Jurisdiction over the subject matter;
• A real and not merely theoretical dispute;
• A genuine interest in resolving the dispute; and
• Practical utility in resolving the parties’ rights.

However, the Court emphasized that these principles are not mere formalities. Declaratory relief is not available simply because legislation affects someone’s interests. There must be a concrete dispute that places the legal issues in a meaningful factual context.

STRAA Dispute Was Hypothetical

A central reason the appeal failed was the Court’s conclusion that the issues raised were hypothetical. Although the Association was undoubtedly affected by the legislation, the Court found that the petition lacked the factual specificity required to ground declaratory relief.

The Association represented a large and diverse group of property owners and service providers, operating in different municipalities, under different zoning regimes, and subject to different potential exemptions. The STRAA itself includes multiple regulatory carve-outs and discretionary mechanisms that could apply differently to different properties.

Without a specific enforcement decision or administrative action, the Court held that it was impossible to determine how the legislation would actually affect any particular member of the Association. In that context, issuing declarations about the interpretation of the Act would amount to an advisory opinion of general application.

Courts Will Not Interpret Legislation in a Vacuum

The Court stressed that judicial interpretation is context-dependent. While courts routinely interpret legislation, they do so in the context of actual disputes, whether through judicial review, constitutional challenges, or civil actions grounded in specific facts.

Here, the Association was asking the Court to determine how complex legislation would operate across an entire sector of the economy, without the benefit of concrete factual scenarios or administrative decisions to guide its interpretation. The Court concluded that such an exercise fell outside the proper role of the judiciary.

This reflects a broader principle in Canadian public law: courts do not supervise legislatures in the abstract. Absent a constitutional challenge, courts generally defer to legislative authority unless and until legislation is applied in a way that gives rise to a justiciable dispute.

The Constructive Taking Argument Remains Open

Importantly, the Court of Appeal did not decide whether the STRAA could give rise to a valid claim for constructive taking or expropriation without compensation. Instead, it held that such claims were not properly brought by petition and could not be adjudicated in the absence of a factual foundation.

The Court expressly noted that the dismissal of the petition did not prevent the Association from bringing future proceedings in appropriate circumstances. A claim for compensation based on constructive taking would need to be advanced through an action, supported by evidence of how the legislation affected specific property rights.

This distinction is critical. the decision does not preclude substantive property rights challenges. Instead, it simply confirms that such challenges must be brought in the correct procedural form and at the appropriate time.

What the Decision Means for Property Owners and Businesses

For property owners, developers, and businesses affected by regulatory change, the decision offers a critical procedural lesson. Courts are reluctant to intervene pre-emptively where legislation establishes a regulatory scheme that has not yet been applied.

While early clarification may be desirable from a business-planning perspective, the courts’ role is not to provide advance legal advice on how legislation might operate. Instead, parties must typically wait until their rights are concretely engaged through enforcement, administrative decisions, or demonstrable loss.

Contact Meridian Law Group in Vancouver for Dynamic Property Law Solutions

Regulatory changes can significantly affect property rights, commercial operations, and long-term planning, but challenging new legislation requires careful timing and the right procedural approach. If you are a property owner, developer, or business facing land-use restrictions or regulatory reform in British Columbia, Meridian Law Group can help you assess your options, preserve your rights, and determine when a court challenge may be appropriate. Our skilled property lawyers assist with strategic planning, regulatory disputes, and property-related litigation. To book a consultation, please contact us online or call (604) 687-2277.