The Greater Vancouver Regional District has lost in the latest round of its three-year legal dispute with the provincial government and the Musqueam Indian Band over parkland.

The battle stemmed from the 2008 expropriation by the province of two parcels of land from Pacific Spirit Regional Park, which Metro Vancouver owns. The properties were handed over to the Musqueam as part of a settlement agreement between the two parties.

In a ruling released on August 15, the B.C. Court of Appeal tossed out Metro Vancouver’s petition to declare the province violated the Local Government Act because it failed to consult the district about the removal of the lots.

A three-judge appeal court panel also threw out the district’s argument that such an omission rendered void the transfer of the lands under the Musqueam Reconciliation, Settlement and Benefits Agreement Implementation Act.

“I do not see how declaratory relief of the kind now sought by the GVRD could affect a legal interest, determine any ‘right’ or ‘entitlement’ of the District, or even move this proceeding along,” Justice Mary Newbury wrote in the decision. “No legal purpose would be served by such a declaration.”

The ruling, which was concurred in by Justices Risa Levine and Elizabeth Bennett, was based on the determination that Section 3 of the Local Government Act didn’t create any obligation on the part of the province to consult regional districts even in matters that directly affect the latter’s interests.

The same finding was made by the B.C. Supreme Court in a ruling issued on April 24, 2009, which was eventually appealed by Metro Vancouver.

The appeal court’s decision recalled that the two parcels of land in question were sold by the province to Metro Vancouver in 1989. The district wasn’t compensated when these properties were removed 19 years later from Pacific Spirit Regional Park and given to the Musqueam.

According to principles for government relations defined under the Local Government Act, notice and consultation are “needed for Provincial actions that directly affect regional district interests”.

Although the appeal court agreed with the chambers judge that this statement of principle doesn’t create a “legally enforceable obligation on the part of the Province”, it found “unusual” that the province itself argues that this tenet is merely aspirational.

According to the court, it is “regrettable that the Province chose to state the ‘principles’ it did in s. 3(c) if it did not intend them to have any legal effect”.

“It may be that one or more regional districts have taken some comfort from s. 3(c), or have even relied on it to their detriment,” the court continued. “Such a turn of events would be unfortunate and can do little to help develop a positive relationship between the Province and regional districts.”

It also suggested: “Perhaps the technique of including aspirational goals in statutes should be reconsidered, and statements of this kind should return to preambles where they are clearly differentiated from substantive and enforceable statutory obligations.”