In Wunderlich v. Kamloops (City), 2025 BCSC 555 (“Wunderlich”), the Honourable Justice Groves dismissed a petition challenging two significant loan authorization bylaws adopted by the City of Kamloops. The case centered on the City’s use of the alternative approval process (“AAP”) under section 86 of the Community Charter, SBC 2003, c. 26 (“CC“), as a substitute for a referendum to authorize borrowing for major city projects.

The petitioner, Ms. Wunderlich, argued that the City failed to meet the statutory notice requirements after transitioning from newspaper publication to digital notice via its website—a change prompted by the closure of the local newspaper Kamloops This Week. The Court ultimately upheld the City’s actions, finding them both procedurally compliant and substantively reasonable under the deferential standard articulated in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 (“Vavilov“).

In September 2024, Kamloops Council adopted Bylaw 57-1-2024 (Kamloops Centre for the Arts Loan Authorization Bylaw) and Bylaw 57-2-2024 (Arena Multiplex and Future Development Loan Authorization Bylaw) which authorized significant loans for the construction of a public facility. Rather than a referendum, Council invoked the AAP which entailed a 31-day period during which at least 10 percent of electors (8,713 signatures) were required to object to block the borrowing. The objections to the bylaws were ultimately unsuccessful.

The petitioner sought to impugn the City’s use of the AAP on the basis that it did not meet the notice requirements under section 94 of the CC. Specifically, on November 8, 2023, Council resolved to post all statutory notices on the City website in lieu of newspaper publication by amending Bylaw 59 and designating the City website and the City Hall notice board as statutory “posting places.” The basis for the decision was that the previously used newspaper, Kamloops This Week, ceased operations shortly before and eliminated the opportunity for newsprint public notices.

The Court found that the AAP notices met all the statutory requirements. The Court then applied the deferential reasonableness standard from Vavilov to assess whether the City’s amendment to the notice bylaws bore the hallmarks of reasonableness, justification, transparency, and intelligibility. The Court found the City’s decision to publish notice on its website to be reasonable, citing affidavit evidence that showed Council had canvassed other B.C. Municipalities use of their websites for public notice and relied on Statistics Canada data showing 96.6 percent internet access province wide. Furthermore, the City’s process satisfied s. 94 and s. 94.2 of the CC in respect of timing and frequency, thus preserving the equivalency to newspaper publication. There was also no statutory bar to the website serving as both a public notice posting place and an alternative publication method.

Having found the decision to designate the City’s website as a “posting place” reasonable under the Vavilov framework, the Court ultimately dismissed the petition. However, despite the failure of the petitioner to make out their case, the Court nevertheless declined to award costs to Kamloops, stating: 

I do not know a lot about Ms. Wunderlich’s financial circumstances, but the City is a large government body within British Columbia and it can more reasonably bear its own costs. Here a citizen, Ms. Wunderlich, brought an application before the court to challenge City Council’s seemingly controversial decision to follow an untested approval process after a failed referendum. There was a basis for the challenge, but it was not ultimately successful…In my view, a petitioner who brought before the court a reasonable concern and acted throughout the litigation in a reasonable manner, when acting against a large government organization such as the City of Kamloops, should not bear the costs of that large municipality (Wunderlich, at paras 70-71).

The Court’s refusal to award costs to the City arose from the Justice’s reasoning that citizen-led legal challenges, especially those raising reasonable concerns about governance, should not be financially penalized when brought against well-resourced public bodies. Justice Groves further emphasized the distinction between legal and political accountability, underscoring that courts are not arbiters of political wisdom but are tasked solely with assessing legality and reasonableness. The decision affirms that municipalities may adopt alternative publication methods—such as digital notices—when traditional media outlets become unavailable, provided they comply with statutory requirements and act transparently. Politically, however, the Court acknowledged that Kamloops’ decision to invoke the AAP after a failed referendum was controversial and potentially alienating to constituents. This signals a cautionary note to municipalities: even legally sound decisions may carry political costs if perceived as circumventing democratic engagement.