Background
Rosa Donna Este and her mother owned a West Vancouver property whose house was damaged by fire in 2015. The District issued a demolition order in 2021 after Este had represented that the house was extensively and irreparably damaged. Este later opposed demolition, but her judicial review challenge failed, the Court of Appeal affirmed that result, and the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal.
Este subsequently carried out work on the house without a permit. In March 2026, the British Columbia Supreme Court found that she had contravened the District’s building bylaw and granted a permanent statutory injunction restraining further work and interference with the demolition order. Este appealed and sought a stay, relying on evidence that she said showed the house had sustained much less damage than previously asserted and was now structurally sound.
The Court’s Holding
Justice MacNaughton, sitting in chambers, dismissed the stay application. Este had not raised a serious question concerning the injunction under appeal because her arguments principally attacked the separate demolition order, which had already been finally adjudicated. Attempting to relitigate that order through the injunction appeal was an abuse of process, and Este’s proposed fresh evidence did not alter the analysis.
Este also failed to establish irreparable harm caused by the injunction. The District’s authority to demolish arose from the demolition order, not the injunction, so staying the injunction would not prevent the alleged harm. The balance of convenience likewise favored enforcement: the public interest in compliance with municipal bylaws outweighed Este’s hardship, particularly because she knew the demolition order was final and proceeded with unpermitted work anyway.
Key Takeaways
- A stay pending appeal requires a serious question to be tried, irreparable harm connected to the order under appeal, and a favorable balance of convenience.
- An appeal from a statutory injunction cannot be used to collaterally attack a separate demolition order that has already been finally adjudicated.
- For municipal bylaw enforcement, the public interest in having the law obeyed may outweigh hardship arising from a property owner’s knowing resort to unpermitted self-help.
Why It Matters
The decision emphasizes that the alleged harm supporting a stay must flow from the particular order under appeal. Even potentially irreversible demolition did not justify relief where staying the injunction would leave the independently valid demolition order in force.
It also reinforces the finality of municipal enforcement litigation. Litigants cannot revive a concluded challenge by advancing inconsistent positions or presenting new evidence through an appeal concerning a different enforcement order.