In June 2025, Mr. Justice Coval found that the Township of Langley’s Community Amenity Contributions (CAC) Policy constituted an improper mandatory amenity payment regime, which meant the CAC Policy was invalid and set aside. The decision is published as Lorval Developments Ltd. v. Langley (Township), 2025 BCSC 1148.

The LGA allows local governments to impose development cost charges (DCCs) for certain off-site services; namely, water, sewer, drainage and roads and park land. But, over the past decade, local governments increasingly relied upon the rezoning process to negotiate and secure CACs such as affordable housing and contributions towards recreation facilities and other community amenities that cannot be funded through DCCs.

A common misperception, however, is that local governments have the authority to require CACs as a condition of rezoning. In fact, there is no authority to impose such conditions on a rezoning applicant; any contributions must either be at the initiative of the applicant/developer or emerge from rezoning negotiations between the applicant/developer and the local government. In addition to DCCs, the Local Government Act (the LGA) contains the following three sets of provisions enabling local governments to charge for amenities and raise amenity funds, which do not include CACs:

• Density bonus bylaws (ss. 482 to 482.6);
• Phased development agreements (ss. 515 to 522); and
• Amenity cost charge bylaws, added in November 2023 (ss. 570.1 to 570.95).

The LGA otherwise expressly prohibits the imposition of additional charges as a condition of rezoning.

The stated intention of the Township of Langley’s CAC Policy was “to obtain contributions to civic infrastructure and amenities from new development that involves rezoning”. If CACs were not paid, the CAC Policy stated that “it is not necessarily in the public interest for the local government to support a rezoning”. Contributions were not conditional upon the developer seeking a density bonus or phased development agreement but instead applied to rezonings, generally, with some limited exceptions.  The CAC Policy included various “lift”-based target contributions proportionate to the value created by the rezoning in question. 

The plaintiff developer argued that it is unlawful for a local government to require, as a condition of its rezoning approval, substantial payments in the millions of dollars without express statutory authority. Further, it said the LGA contains alternative, detailed regimes for requiring such charges, in the provisions for density bonuses, phased development agreements, and, as of November 2023, via Amenity Cost Charges (ACC) bylaws.

The Township submitted it was in the process of moving to an ACC bylaw, but its CAC Policy would continue to apply to pre-ACC rezoning applications.

The Court framed the outcome of the case as relying upon the proper characterization of the Township’s CAC Policy: “Is it a guide to the non-binding contributions to be discussed and negotiated between the Township and developers on a case-by-case basis? Or a detailed scheme intended to dictate the presumptive mandatory contributions?”

Mr. Justice Coval stated that, in his view, the CAC Policy was more than administrative guidance because it suggested the specified contributions would generally be required as a condition of rezoning approval. Given that rezoning approval lies in the hands of the Township, the Court found that this scheme constituted mandatory amenity payments to obtain approval, which was therefore invalid given municipalities lack the requisite statutory authority for such a regime.

The takeaway for local governments is to ensure that any CAC policies act as a guide to non-binding contributions to be discussed and negotiated between the local government and developers, and that the policies not rise to the level of being a mandatory payment regime in exchange for rezoning approvals. Further, local governments can investigate making use of the relatively recent alternative of using their ACC bylaw authority.

Josh Krusell

Josh Krusell is the Managing Partner of Litigation with SMS. He regularly acts on behalf of local governments in complex liability actions, construction and insurance claims, contractual and regulatory disputes, administrative proceedings, and land use and injunction-related matters.