A group challenging the province’s short-term rental restrictions lost its appeal in B.C. court on Dec. 30, with a three-judge panel upholding a lower court’s finding that the case was brought prematurely and constituted an “abuse of process.”
A B.C. Supreme Court judge initially found that the suit was speculative because it was filed weeks before the law actually took effect on May 1, 2024.
All three appellate justices agreed that the case did not qualify for judicial review, nor would it be appropriate for the judges to provide an advisory opinion based on a “hypothetical” action.
The suit was brought by a group of owners represented by the West Coast Association for Property Rights and Victoria business owner Angela Mason. They wanted an exception to short-term rental restrictions, or, failing that, compensation for lost earnings.
B.C.’s Short-Term Rental Accommodation Act aimed to reintroduce units to the long-term rental market by prohibiting property owners in most markets from renting out units for fewer than 30 days, except for their primary residence or a secondary suite on that property.
The law also took away the power from local governments to offer exceptions, though it allows for restrictions to be lifted once a municipality maintains its vacancy rate above three per cent for two years.
Kelowna has reached that threshold, and talks are underway to lift some restrictions. Other areas, such as Vancouver and Victoria, have only had vacancy rates exceed three per cent in 2025.
Mason owned a rental unit and a business that provided services for other people’s rental properties. The property rights association claimed to represent approximately 200 property owners, and, at the time the suit was filed, had raised more than $200,000 from roughly 1,000 donors for legal fees.
Because the case was filed in April 2024, with the law yet to take effect, none of these property owners had broken any rules, been fined, or told to stop renting out their properties. They argued the law still impacted them by forcing the closure of businesses and shuttering of rentals, interfering with legal contracts and forcing workers to be laid off.
But the appellate court still upheld every aspect of B.C. Supreme Court Justice Jasmin Ahmad’s decision, finding that it is not the court’s role to intervene in legislation in this way. Because no government official had made a decision that harmed the property owners in some way — such as an order to stop renting out a property — they had nothing to challenge except the law itself.
“She concluded the appellants’ real issue was with the legislation itself (not a statutory decision maker) and absent a constitutional challenge, the court was required to defer to the legislature’s exclusive authority to enact the laws it sees fit,” Appeals Court Justice Barbara Fisher wrote.
Fisher did not close the door on the case entirely, allowing that it could be amended and refiled, should the plaintiffs choose to fight on.
“There is good reason why these matters do not form a ground of appeal,” Fisher wrote. “Although a judge may consider if a pleading could be cured by amendment or possibly conversion to an action, neither possibility was raised before the chambers judge, and she did not address them.”
Black Press Media has reached out to the property rights association to find out the group’s intentions, but did not receive a response by publication.