When Pearly and Clara Brissenden died nearly 30 years ago, they left their 2.4-acre property to the District of West Vancouver, with instructions that it be transformed into a public park.
Now, the district is facing a lawsuit claiming that it hasn’t lived up to its end of the bargain, and has in fact profited from the property.
The suit claims the property, located at 2519 and 2539 Rosebery Avenue, was to be held by the district in a trust and developed into a park, an agreement it claims civic officials agreed to.
The suit quotes the following language from Clara Brissenden’s will:
“I devise my said dwelling house and premises to the Corporation of the District of West Vancouver free of all duties, estate taxes and probate fees to be used and maintained by it for public park purposes and I express the wish that in developing the said amended lots as a public park the trees and natural growth be preserved as far as may be practical.”
According to BC Assessment’s 2019 valuation, the lands together are valued at $8.43 million, down from about $14.3 million the year before.
The lands currently resemble a residential property, complete with a detached home, and the suit alleges the district rented it out from at least 2001 to 2018, collecting just under $500,000 in rent, which it claims the district “treated as its own money and not as trust money of the Park Trust.”
The suit also claims that West Vancouver is now seeking to split off 43 per cent of the land, subdividing the bottom portion (furthest from the Upper Levels Highway) into three lots, which it wants to sell.
It claims the district wants to take the money from that and use it to acquire or improve other parklands in West Vancouver, including acquiring four properties on Argyle Avenue that would be dubbed “Brissenden Waterfront Park.”
The remaining, upper, portions of the disputed lands would have walking trails added, to act as a “buffer between the Upper Levels Highway and the three subdivided lots,” the suit claims.
That’s despite the fact that “the lower portion of the property is as well-suited, if not better suited, as the remainder of the property to public park use,” the suit claims.
It further claims the district has repeatedly refused to pass financial accounts linked to the property to the Attorney General’s office.
The District of West Vancouver said the issue is being mis-characterized.
“The district does not agree with the way the Attorney General David Eby has characterized the events. What has happened is the district has filed an application to very the terms of the trust that would see Brissenden, part of it, remain as park while part of the land could be sold,” said district spokesperson Donna Powers.
“We did not make this application just off the cuff. We held thorough public consultation.”
- ‘A new beginning’: First Nation ravaged by B.C. wildfire unveils new subdivision
- B.C. teen’s killer says new TV show about Reena Virk’s murder ‘disrespectful’
- Man accused of Victoria carjackings arrested a third time in as many days
- ‘If we stay with it, they will come’: Canucks sticking to game plan with series tied 1-1
In its own court filing in 2017 seeking to subdivide the property, the district argued that “the property is not well suited for use as a public park.”
“The terrain is steep and the property is relatively difficult to access, as it is not on any public transit lines. The property has no public amenities, facilities, or defined public parking, and has never been developed for park use.”
Powers also denied the district has profited off the land.
“The district is a public body, we operate on a non-profit basis. Our park system operates on a non-profit basis, it’s a service provided to the community and that service is subsidized by tax revenue to the tune of several million dollars each year,” she said.
The suit seeks a court order declaring that the district breached the park trust by failing to develop the lot into a park, and instead renting it out.
It seeks a further order requiring the district to make the land into a park, along with orders requiring any rent collected to be transferred to the Park Trust.
None of the claims have been proven in court.
Comments