Supreme Court: Mount Newton Neighborhood Association(MNNA) versus

District of Central Saanich, et.al (Denford / Knott / Towler / Berrang)
by MNNA
In his initial decision yesterday, Justice Parrett "reluctantly" adjourned the Supreme Court case for a short duration (TBD), stating that he would "seize himself with the matter" and will not let this issue "fall off without being heard in a timely manner."

 

Meanwhile, Parrett told  the District of Central Saanich to go back to the Council table and complete the repeal of Bylaw #1625 which received only two readings on August 25th, 2009, and requires provincial Ministerial consent for repeal. In the event that the District will not repeal the bylaw - for any reason - Justice Parrett advised District of Central Saanich legal counsel Alyssa Bradley to advise him "immediately" and he would schedule a hearing forthwith.

Gordon Denford's request for District's detailed design documents for the water main project as a condition of the adjournment was denied. http://www.senanus.net/2009-08-28-Aff-GDenford2-SeeksDesignDocs.pdf Denford - one of the primary water main proponents - had recently submitted a bid for the contract to construct the proposed water main which would service his household. http://www.senanus.net/2009-02-27-Let-Denford2CSCouncil.pdf

Meanwhile, Supreme Court Justice Parrett will consider the issues of standing for the Mount Newton Neighborhood Association (MNNA) who brought the case against the District of Central Saanich, and whether the MNNA will be required to post a bond of nearly $20,000.00 to cover the District's costs in the event of a cost award to the District. He will bring these decisions forward in two weeks. Justice Parrett expressed his frustration with these eleventh hour tactics on the part of the District (of requiring posting of a bond and questioning the standing of the neighborhood organization), calling them an "ambush" against bringing a case to court.

These tactics he said, are "frustrating, when you can't get issues to court to deal with them, and then the court is blamed for the process."  District lawyer Alyssa Bradley stated that "it was not the District's intention to "ambush" the process."

The bylaw in question created the local service area for the Senanus water main in April of 2009, more than two years after the District applied to the C-BC-MRIF Federal-Provincial Grant program, stating that this bylaw was already in place. According to the District's application, the local service area represented the source of funds for the Districts 1/3 share of the Federal - Provincial - grant monies. With this bylaw and the funds gone - arguably, the District's grant application should fail - on these grounds and because of numerous other non-factual statements in the District's grant application.

The District, during the grant process, ignored Western Economic Diversification Canada documents stating that they must consult with Tsartlip First Nation. 

 

The press release on the MRIF website states that this grant is "conditional upon an Environmental Assessment" - which would have included First Nations consultation.


The MNNA has repeatedly called for Environmental Assessments, however no assessments have occurred. The District's award of the Design contract for the project states that environmental assessment is "optional."  District's claims that the project has been "exempted" are largely due to the fact that the District did not disclose factual information related to the proposed catchment, on its CBCMRIF application. The District omitted to include required environmental information such as First Nations dominion, known archaeological sites, heritage sites, riparian areas, protected Garry Oaks and other protected species.

The District also tried to get out of other environmental aspects of the application, and according to email obtained through FOI, the District engineer was "not optimistic" that the District would "get away with it."

MNNA continues to call for local, environmentally-friendly evidence-based solutions to any legitimate problems on Senanus drive. Solutions have been repeatedly recommended in District reports, however none have been implemented:

 

Instead, Senanus watermain developer proponents continue to argue against local solutions, calling for a pipeline, and refusing data collection which would allow creation of an appropriate evidence-based solution.
http://senanus.net/1999-04-Let-CSWVA-CSCouncil.pdf  |
http://senanus.net/2000-09-Let-CSWVA-2CScouncil-NoMoreStudy.pdf

Councillor Kubek stated in the July 17th Council meeting that a pipeline was "necessary for the development of the area". One Council meeting later, Kubek proposed urban servicing for fire, agriculture and health to the entire "Northwest Quadrant" of the District, due to a new petition Council received at that meeting. The new, non-legal petition was apparently written by the owner of a prominent Victoria garden sprinkler company, but referred to a map which the District planner stated was created by Councillor Kubek.

The servicing arrangement as proposed is far outside urban containment areas and clearly contrary to the District's OCP and the CRD Regional Growth Strategy. The newly proposed area to be serviced includes Mount Newton, or LAU WEL NEW, the sacred mountain of Tsartlip First Nation, as well as Senanus point - another area of known archaeological sites.   

 

 

 

More information on this issue is available at www.senanus.net, and it's related to the Vantreight article you published recently - many of the same players are involved. Driven seemingly only by greed - laws and policies, social justice and aboriginal rights appear to be meaningless to these people.
Thanks,
Best,
Lori Waters,
Member, Mount Newton Neighborhood Association