On June 20, 2025, the Supreme Court of British Columbia released its decision in Lorval Developments Ltd. v. Langley (Township), 2025 BCSC 1148, setting aside the Township of Langley’s Community Amenity Contributions Policy (the “Policy”) on the basis that it amounted to a mandatory amenity payment regime without statutory authority. For local governments, developers, and landowners, this decision is significant because it confirms that municipalities cannot require community amenity contributions ("CACs") as a condition of rezoning unless expressly authorized by statute[1].
Community Amenity Contributions and Rezoning
In British Columbia, the Local Government Act provides specific statutory mechanisms through which municipalities may fund development-related infrastructure and amenities, including development cost charges (“DCCs”), density bonus bylaws, phased development agreements, and amenity cost charge (“ACC”) bylaws[2]. DCCs may only be imposed by a municipality for funding certain off-site services associated with new development, such as water, sewer, drainage, roads, and providing and improving park land[3]. The legislation prohibits municipalities from imposing fees, charges, or taxes unless authorized by statute[4].
CACs, by contrast, are contributions provided by developers in connection with rezoning applications and are generally intended to fund amenities and infrastructure that fall outside the scope of DCCs, including recreational or childcare facilities, affordable housing, fire halls, and other community amenities. The 2014 Provincial Government guidelines cautioned that, while CACs could be negotiated, local governments do not have authority to require CACs as a condition of rezoning[5].
Langley’s Community Amenity Contributions Policy
The Township of Langley’s CAC Policy applied to rezoning applications for new commercial, industrial, or residential development. Although the Policy described CACs as “voluntary” and referred to “guidelines” and “targets”, it also established a detailed framework governing CACs, including contribution formulas, exemptions, timing for collection, and annual inflation adjustments[6].
Lorval's Challenge to the Community Amenity Contributions Policy
Lorval challenged the Policy on the basis that it was, in substance, a mandatory payment regime requiring developers to provide amenity contributions as a condition of rezoning, despite the absence of statutory authority permitting municipalities to impose such charges. In the alternative, Lorval argued that the Policy was substantively unreasonable.
The Court’s Decision
Justice Coval held that the outcome turned on the proper characterization of the Policy. The Court emphasized that the Policy had to be assessed as a whole and concluded that it functioned as a mandatory payment scheme rather than a guide for non-binding contributions to be negotiated between the Township of Langley and developers. In particular, the Court found that the Policy created the expectation that specified contributions would generally be required as a condition of rezoning approvals and that its detailed structure resembled a regulatory regime rather than administrative guidance. In reaching this conclusion, the Court partially relied on language in the Policy indicating CACs were “intended to be collected through” fixed-rate contributions and payment of the CAC would be made "prior to Council consideration of the adoption of the Zoning Bylaw amendment bylaw”[7].
The Court therefore held that the Policy was a mandatory amenity payment regime beyond the Township of Langley's statutory authority and declared it invalid. Having reached that conclusion, the Court found it unnecessary to determine whether the Policy was substantively unreasonable. The Court also declined to make findings regarding the Policy's implementation in practice because the evidentiary record was insufficient to resolve those fact-specific issues.
Impact on Local Governments and Developers
The significance of the decision increased following the Township of Langley’s decision to abandon its appeal in May 2026. As a result, the judgment remains the leading British Columbia authority on the legality of municipal CAC policies.
For municipalities, the decision underscores that growth-related amenity funding must be grounded in statutory authority. Municipalities seeking to fund amenities associated with growth should consider the statutory tools available under the Local Government Act, including DCCs, density bonus bylaws, phased development agreements, and ACC bylaws.
The decision also confirms that courts will look beyond the terminology used in a policy when determining its legal effect. Describing contributions as “voluntary” will not prevent a policy from being characterized as a mandatory payment regime where, in substance, payment is effectively required to obtain rezoning approval[8].
For developers and landowners, the decision may affect how amenity contributions are negotiated in connection with rezoning applications and may lead to increased scrutiny of municipal policies that seek to obtain amenity funding outside the statutory ACC framework. In light of the decision, municipalities that continue to rely on CAC policies may face increased legal scrutiny, including challenges based on a lack of statutory authority and, depending on the circumstances, claims seeking repayment of improperly collected contributions.
What Happens Next?
The decision does not prevent local governments from obtaining funding for growth-related amenities. Rather, it confirms that they must do so through tools authorized by legislation, such as ACC bylaws, density bonus bylaws, or phased development agreements. Local governments that maintain or adopt CAC policies should review those policies carefully in light of Lorval Developments Ltd. v. Langley (Township), particularly where a policy links rezoning approval to payment of a specified or formula-based contribution.
Developers with active or future rezoning applications should also consider how the decision may affect negotiations over amenity contributions, especially where requested contributions are framed as voluntary but operate in practice as conditions of approval. The key issue will remain whether the contribution is genuinely negotiated or whether the policy, viewed as a whole, functions as a mandatory payment regime.
Disclaimer: This bulletin is provided for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The application of the issues discussed will depend on the specific facts of each case, and legal or policy developments may occur after the date of publication.
