BC Supreme Court grants statutory injunction in construction dispute
January 20, 2026
BY Kevin Zakreski
In Surrey (City) v Randhawa, 2026 BCSC 16, “the City of Surrey [sought] various declarations and injunctive relief to restrain the respondents from conducting further construction and to require the demolition of what it says is the unauthorized construction on the Property”. The case illustrates how the court deals with statutory injunctions, which are subject to a different test than the standard one that applies to most pre-trial injunctions.
The underlying dispute involved unauthorized construction due to failure to obtain building permits. The court’s consideration of whether to grant the city an injunction began with the issue of whether the respondent property owners were in breach of the city’s building bylaws:
[55] In considering whether to grant the relief sought on an application for a permanent statutory injunction, the court must determine whether the respondents have breached the statutes or the regulations or orders made under the statute: Vancouver Island Health Authority v. Giannikos, 2021 BCSC 957 paras. 54–57. I will start with that analysis.
[56] Pursuant to ss. 8(3)(l) and 53(2) of the Community Charter, S.B.C. 2003, c. 26, the City may, by bylaw, regulate, prohibit, and impose requirements in relation to buildings and structures for the health, safety and protection of persons and property. Pursuant to s. 298 (1)(a) of the Local Government Act, R.S.B.C. 2015, c. 1, the City is authorized to regulate the constructions, alteration, repair or demolition of buildings and other structures.
[57] The City has adopted the City of Surrey, Bylaw No. 17850, Surrey Building Bylaw, 2012 (14 January 2013) [Building Bylaws] for that purpose. [Bracketed text in original.]
After a lengthy review of the facts and the relevant bylaws, the court found numerous breaches.
Having established this breach of the bylaws, the court turned to consider the remedy of an injunction under section 274 of the Community Charter:
[86] As proceedings under s. 274(1) are statutory injunctions, the court should only refuse to enforce the legislative requirements in exceptional circumstances: Surrey (City) v. Sidhu, 2023 BCSC 1837 [Sidhu] at para. 29, citing North Pender Island Local Trust Committee v. Conconi, 2010 BCCA 494 [North Pender Island] at para. 38.
[87] Unlike the test for the granting of a common law injunction, the test for granting statutory injunctions does not require that an applicant prove irreparable harm nor does the court have to assess the balance of convenience as between the parties. Rather, an application for a statutory injunction engages the public interest in seeing that a public statute is given effect: Abbotsford (City) v. Weeds Glass & Gifts Ltd., 2016 BCSC 135 at paras. 20–22, citing North Pender Island at paras. 37–38.
[88] While the Court has discretion to refuse the injunction, the discretion is narrow and should only be granted in exceptional circumstances: Sidhu at para. 30, citing Burnaby (City) v. Pocrnic, 1999 BCCA 652 at para. 15. [Bracketed text in original.]
In the end, the court concluded that the exceptional circumstances needed to deny the injunction weren’t present in this case:
[95] In any event, to the extent that the demolition may cause hardship or inconvenience, that will not outweigh that public interest in having the law obeyed: Maple Ridge (District) v. Thornhill Aggregates Ltd. (1998), 54 B.C.L.R. (3d) 155 at para. 9, 1998 CanLII 6446 (B.C.C.A.).
[96] No exceptional circumstances exist to justify the exercise of the Court’s discretion to refuse the injunction sought. Having found that the respondents have breached the Building Bylaws in the manner set out above, the injunction sought by the City is granted.
