Last week the City of Langford’s (the “City”) multiyear bylaw investigation and enforcement against an unlawful curbside car sales operation at a residential property (the “Curbing Operation”) culminated in an injunction order granted by the Honourable Justice LeBlanc of the BC Supreme Court.  

The decision is reported as City of Langford v Fynn Joseph Montgomery Price Leppan, Jayddren Appleyard, Gary Isacson, and Darcy Jovic (2026 BCSC 213).

Background

The Curbing Operation was conducted out of a residential property in the Florence Lake neighbourhood of Langford (the “Property”), owned by an individual (the “Owner”) whose affairs are managed by the Public Guardian and Trustee (the “PGT”). The Owner’s son, Darcy Jovic, was one of four individuals associated with the Curbing Operation (the “Respondents”). Although he lives abroad, Mr. Jovic returned to Canada to care for his parent, and has resided at the Property over the past two years while doing so.

The Property is zoned under the City’s zoning bylaw as R2 – One-and-Two Family Residential, which does not permit the use of the Property for vehicle sales or repair, or the storage of more than one unregistered vehicle outside of an enclosed structure, as a home occupation or otherwise. It is an offence under the City’s zoning bylaw if an “owner or occupier of land” … “causes or permits any act or thing to be done in contravention or violation of any provisions” of the City’s zoning bylaw.

Of the four Respondents, three (Mr. Leppan, Mr. Isacson and Mr. Appleyard) admitted to their involvement in the Curbing Operation and breach of the City’s zoning and business bylaws (they were operating with no business licence), and signed consent orders prior to the end of the injunction hearing. Mr. Jovic did not sign a consent order and continued to deny any knowledge or involvement with the Curbing Operation, which meant that the City had to prove at the hearing that Mr. Jovic had breached one or more of the City’s bylaws in order to obtain the injunction order sought.

Attendances and Inspections

The City’s Bylaw Enforcement Officers (“BEOs”) spent nearly two years responding to complaints, attending at the Property for inspections, seeking voluntary compliance from the Respondents, and collecting extensive evidence of the Curbing Operation.

LeBlanc J accepted and relied on the following facts and evidence obtained by the City during the City’s investigation:

1. On January 2, 2024, there were 14 vehicles parked beside and behind the dwelling on the Property. One of the vehicles was on wheel blocks, and two had no licence plates.
   
2. On February 2, 2024, there were 12 vehicles on the Property, some with no licence plates. Facebook Marketplace showed listings corresponding to 6 of the 12 vehicles. According to ICBC records, many of the vehicles had the wrong licence plates affixed and some were registered to unknown third parties.
   
3. On April 2, 2024, the City’s BEOs attended in response to public complaints and observed 14 vehicles, many of them without licence plates and registered to unknown third parties. Facebook Marketplace showed listings corresponding to 3 of the vehicles, all posted by Mr. Leppan.
   
4. On October 30, 2024, a City BEO responded to a complaint about a car battery being disposed of in a creek located offsite of the Property. The BEO attended at the creek, observed a blue vehicle with an incorrect licence plate, and engaged with Mr. Leppan who was present. Mr. Leppan told the BEO that he was selling the blue vehicle, and that other vehicles were being repaired at and sold from the Property. An unrelated individual later informed that City that he had purchased the blue vehicle from Mr. Leppan at the Property.
   
5. On November 5, 2024, the City’s BEOs engaged with Mr. Jovic, Mr. Leppan, Mr. Isacson and Mr. Appleyard, who were all at the Property, and observed 10 vehicles, including many without licence plates. Mr. Jovic told the City’s BEOs that the Curbing Operation would cease only if he was instructed to do so by the PGT.
   
6. On November 21, 2024, the City’s BEOs provided Mr. Leppan with a written warning regarding violations of the zoning bylaw and other bylaw infractions.
   
7. On December 9, 2024, the City’s BEOs observed 9 vehicles, 5 of which were listed for sale on Facebook Marketplace, and 4 had no licence plates.
   
8. On January 6, 2025, the City’s BEOs observed 15 vehicles, 8 of which were listed for sale on Facebook Marketplace, and again many had no licence plates.
   
9. On January 20, 2025, Mr. Leppan and Mr. Isacson interfered with the City’s bylaw inspection by covering up vehicle identification numbers and licence plates.
   
10. An individual who purchased a vehicle from Mr. Leppan at the Property on January 20, 2025 later informed the City about the transaction.
    
11. On September 7, 2025, the City’s BEOs responded to multiple complaints about a red car being test driven without licence plates. The car was later determined by the City’s BEOs to be located at the Property and advertised for sale on Facebook Marketplace.
    
12. Additionally, the City relied on and the Court viewed a video posted to YouTube which showed Mr. Isacson at the Property attempting to sell a vehicle to a third party.

Mr. Jovic denied having any knowledge of or involvement with the Curbing Operation, despite residing at the Property, admitting only to occasional sales of his personal vehicles. Mr. Jovic’s explanation to the Court for the vehicles observed and located on the Property was that they belonged to visitors, car club members, charity operations, or unauthorized parkers. In his submissions, he told the Court that if vehicle sales were occurring on the Property, it was Mr. Appleyard acting without Mr. Jovic’s knowledge, and that such sales were not a commercial operation. However, Justice LeBlanc noted that during the November 5, 2024, inspection, the City’s BEOs raised their concerns about the Curbing Operation with Mr. Jovic and that Mr. Jovic’s response was that automobile sales would cease only if the PGT told him to do so. Mr. Jovic repeated this assertion at the hearing, and stated that the City should have directed the Petition to the PGT and not him.

The City clarified it was not concerned with Mr. Jovic occasionally selling personal vehicles, which could arguably be a permissible use of the land as an accessory to residing at the Property. Rather, the City was seeking an injunction against the storage of unlicensed vehicles and sales of third-party vehicles which the Court agreed were “clearly not” permitted uses in the R2 Zone.

The Court’s Decision

Although LeBlanc J agreed that the City’s evidence showed an ongoing pattern of the Property being used for the storage and sale of third-party vehicles, she found that the evidence failed to show Mr. Jovic was personally involved in the Curbing Operation (which would have constituted Mr. Jovic acting in contravention of the City’s business bylaw).

The Court went on to consider whether an injunction could issue against Mr. Jovic on the basis that he was permitting the Curbing Operation to continue at the Property in contravention of the City’s zoning bylaw.

LeBlanc J found Mr. Jovic’s explanations for the multiple vehicles that were present or observed on the Property to be implausible given

1. the consistent presence of unlicensed vehicles,
   
2. concealment of vehicle identification numbers and licence plates during City bylaw inspections, and
   
3. Mr. Jovic’s uncontested acknowledgment during a bylaw inspection that vehicle sales at the Property would only stop if the PGT directed him to do so.

She commented further that it would be “illogical” for casual visitors to remove their licence plates during a visit to the Property.

The City concluded – and the Court accepted – that Mr. Jovic as an occupant of the Property knowingly permitted ongoing vehicle sales and storage of multiple unlicensed vehicles on the Property, all contrary to the City’s zoning bylaw.

The Court granted a statutory injunction to stop Mr. Jovic from allowing the Property to be used for the Curbing Operation, and awarded legal costs in the City’s favour, against Mr. Jovic.

Takeaways for Local Government

Compared to proving other bylaw infractions, such as construction activities undertaken without municipal permits, proving a contravention of a zoning bylaw can be onerous for local governments. This case was no exception.

The City of Langford had to show that:

1. The Curbing Operation exceeded the limited scope of vehicle storage and sales permitted at the Property by the City’s zoning bylaw;
   
2. Mr. Jovic was an occupant of the Property; and
   
3. Mr. Jovic was knowingly permitting the Curbing Operation to continue.

There is no doubt that the extensive and meticulous evidence collection by the City’s Bylaw Enforcement Officers over an extended period of time was key to the City’s success in this proceeding.

Mel van Fram

Amelia (Mel) van Fram is an associate with SMS Law. Prior to law school, Mel worked for eight years for a large BC municipality, and she brings her commitment to serving local government and the public interest to her current legal practice.