On December 2, 2025, the Supreme Court of British Columbia set aside the Township of Langley’s decision to refuse a site-specific zoning amendment for West Creek Farms Ltd (“West Creek”). The Honourable Justice Marzari found Council’s reasons for the zoning amendment denial were not adequately grounded in the record of the decision, and as such violated the deferential standard of “reasonableness” as formulated in Vavilov. The decision is indexed as, West Creek Farms Ltd. v Langley (Township), 2025 BCSC 2385, and reminds local governments that they must base discretionary land‑use decisions on information which is on the record and available to all of Council. In addition, when making decisions, councillors and board members should explain their reasoning coherently and avoid relying on personal information which is detached from the public hearing process and which brings in information not available on the record.

Facts and Findings

Since 1986, West Creek has operated on a 10‑acre section of property in an Agricultural Land Reserve in the Township of Langley. The company’s primary industry is supplying soilless growing media to commercial greenhouses. Up until 2016, BC Assessment had classified the West Creek’s facility as a farm. In 2016 that classification was assessed instead as “light industry”, putting the company’s operations in violation of the Township’s zoning for the location. In response, West Creek sought and received permission for an agriculturally‑related processing use from the Agricultural Land Commission, which was granted in January 2023. The company then applied to Council for a site‑specific zoning amendment to expressly permit the processing and distribution of its product. In response to the application, Council held public hearings in 2023 and after requesting further information again in June 2024.

After the second hearing, the zoning amendment was narrowly defeated during its third reading. Several Councillors who voted against the amendment explained that their vote was based on concerns about an “uneven playing field” for other possible competitor businesses, suggesting that approval would unfairly advantage West Creek relative to other soil or growing‑media producers. Critically, during the hearing, a Councillor posed a question to the Executive Director of the British Columbia Landscape and Nursery Association asking how many other manufacturers in the lower mainland offered a similar product. The Director responded that there were only two other producers in BC, and the Councillor who asked the question replied he had, “looked it up, and there’s a couple around including two in Surrey that he knew of” (at para 9).

Justice Marzari ultimately concluded that at least two councillors relied on factual assertions not contained in the record before Council—specifically, unverified claims about the number and location of competitor businesses and the fairness implications of approving West Creek’s application. The Mayor and the Councillor who proclaimed to have “looked it up” did not state any reasons for their vote on the record. Because those assertions were determinative for their vote and were not disclosed to the proponent or the rest of Council for response, the reasons given did not form an intelligible, record‑based chain of analysis. The Court found the decision fell outside the range of acceptable outcomes of the deferential reasonableness standard and remitted the matter back to council for a new public hearing.

The Court stressed that during the reasonableness analysis, they do not need to agree with a decision of Council, but they “do need to be able to understand those reasons, and they need to have some foundation in the record before Council” (at para 16). As Justice Marzari writes,

[47]      The Township points to the many comments made during the public hearing that clearly do relate to land use issues, including concerns about environmental impacts, noise, traffic, odours and dust caused by the Facility, which might have provided the basis from Council’s Decision. However, where members of Council actually express their reasons, those reasons must be the starting point for the reasonableness review under Vavilov. I cannot impute to Council reasons for rejecting the Zoning Application where the Council members who provided their reasons expressed entirely different reasons.

[48]      Although the bar that Council must pass in its reasons to meet the standard of reasonableness for a decision on a discretionary decision like a zoning change is not high, the reasons, to the extent that they can be garnered from the record, must still be internally coherent, provide a rational chain of analysis that is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker, and be based in the record before it.

Though the Court found the decision not to grant a site-specific zoning amendment unreasonable, the Court declined to grant other relief sought by West Creek, including a declaration that the facility was a permitted agricultural use under the zoning bylaw and that one of the Councillors who voted had a conflict of interest. The Court also refused the Township’s request for an injunction to stop the facility’s operations while the zoning issue is reconsidered.

Key Takeaways for Local Governments

The decision reinforces that local governments must ground their administrative decisions on information on the available record. Councillors may bring personal knowledge to deliberations, but where a councillor’s vote turns on specific factual claims—especially those that could be determinative—those facts must be placed before Council, disclosed to the proponent, and open to response. Relying on undisclosed or external information risks rendering a decision unreasonable. The following are points of guidance which flow from this case:

• Document the record: Local governments should ensure that any factual bases for decisions are introduced into the record and that proponents have an opportunity to respond.  

• Explain reasons clearly: Even under a deferential standard, reasons must be intelligible and justified by the evidence before the council or board.  

• Be cautious with external information: Councillors and board members relying on outside research or anecdotal sources should disclose that material and allow it to be tested at the hearing.  

West Creek Farms Ltd. v. Langley is a good reminder that municipal land‑use decisions must be both procedurally fair and substantively reasonable. The Court did not substitute its own view of the merits; rather, it required that council’s decision be traceable to the record and legally defensible. The matter will return to council for a fresh hearing, giving the Township another opportunity to consider the zoning amendment on a record that contains all information Council relies on when casting their vote.