Menu

Topics

Connect

Comments

Want to discuss? Please read our Commenting Policy first.

Battle over West Vancouver seawalk heats up

Mon, Jun 12: The battle between CN Rail and West Vancouver over a seawall is heating up, with the city now warning people they’re using it at their own risk. Geoff Hastings explains why – Jun 12, 2017

The battle between Canadian National Railway and the District of West Vancouver over the Centennial Seawalk is heating up, with the district now warning people they’re using the popular walkway at their own risk.

Story continues below advertisement

A sign posted by the district lays out its side in a legal dispute with CN Rail over access to the seawalk, a scenic path that runs alongside a railway corridor.

“CN Acquisition Limited has commenced legal proceedings against the District claiming the use of the Centennial Seawalk constitutes illegal trespass,” the sign reads in part.

“Members of the public are cautioned that their legal right to use the Seawalk is in dispute.”

The daily email you need for 's top news stories.

A lawsuit filed in B.C. Supreme court by CN Rail looks to limit use of the 1.7-kilometre seawalk. The company also wants the district to pay $3.7-million a year for access.

The seawalk runs next to a rail line leased by CN. The rail company leased the railway right-of-way on a long-term basis from the B.C. government as part of a BC Rail sale more than a decade ago.

Story continues below advertisement

The district has built up the area over the years, making improvements and maintaining the land around the line while paying a little rent. The district has proposed paying $12,500 in rent per year, a fraction of the millions CN is asking for.

A statement from the rail company reads:

“CN has offered mediation to the District in an effort to find a reasonable solution. We continue to believe a negotiated resolution is preferable to a litigated one. The residents of West Vancouver will continue to enjoy the Seawalk throughout this process.”

The district has been advised not to comment on the merits of the dispute while it’s before the courts.

— With files from Geoff Hastings

Advertisement

You are viewing an Accelerated Mobile Webpage.

View Original Article