L’Observatoire international des droits linguistiques

This petition was heard at the same time as Greater Vancouver Regional District v. The Corporation of the Township of Langley and Alan Hendricks, No. S136194. Both petitions are brought pursuant to the Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 241 and the Local Government Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 323 ("Act") and challenge bylaws enacted by the Corporation of the Township of Langley ("Langley"). The planning documents and statutory provisions at issue in these petitions are the same but the facts and bylaws are different.

[...]

This argument relies on interpreting the regional context statement as "incorporating by reference" s.5.5.3 of the Rural Plan and, by implication, that the incorporated clauses can never be altered without the GVRD approving an amendment to the regional context statement. The GVRD refers to Reference re Manitoba Language Rights, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 212, in support of this interpretation. That case was a follow up to the landmark decision that all Manitoba laws enacted only in English were invalid: Reference re Manitoba Language Rights, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721. The 1992 decision addressed whether specific documents referenced in the legislation had to be translated and distinguished a document that is "simply mentioned" and one that is subject to "true incorporation". At para. 33:

... Some documents are simply mentioned in legislative instruments; they need not be consulted before the operation of the instrument in question can be understood. Others are "incorporated by reference" in the sense that they are an integral part of the primary instrument as if reproduced therein. It is this latter type of incorporation that can be termed "true incorporation" ...

I find that the minimum lots sizes in the Rural Plan are "simply mentioned" in the regional context statement. The regional context statement can be understood without referring to the Rural Plan. The sentence, "setting minimum lot sizes to preserve a land base for agricultural production" is capable of being understood on its own: it establishes a goal – preserving a land base for agricultural production – and a means to achieve it – setting minimum lot sizes. If the intent was to guarantee the 8.0 hectare minimum lot size from s. 5.5.3 of the Rural Plan, this could have been made explicit: "setting a minimum lot size of 8.0 hectares to preserve a land base for agricultural production."