Four regular park-users say in petition “unnecessary” removal of 7,000 trees so far has increased their stress, anxiety and sadness.
Four people who say felling thousands of moth-infested trees in Stanley Park is causing them distress and sadness have failed in a bid to have the courts order the removal halted, at least until the court can hear their arguments to stop the tree felling permanently.
Michael and Katherine Caditz and two others argued in a petition to B.C. Supreme Court that the city and its park board have a duty of care to them and the public to properly maintain the trees and they allege they are negligent in that duty.
They acknowledged their argument of negligence of duty of care is a “novel” one, a judge wrote in reasons for judgment released this week.
Justice Maegen Giltrow said there is a dispute between the two sides about whether a report by B.A. Blackwell and Associates that the city relies on to remove an estimated 160,000 trees, or about a third of the park’s half a million trees, is “scientifically sound” and whether the tree removal to fight the hemlock looper moth infestation is necessary or safe.
The judge noted that about 7,000 of the conifers affected by the moths were removed between last October and April before work was put on hold for the summer in respect of visitors and nesting birds.
Court was told another 6,000 are scheduled to be felled between now and April. The Blackwell report recommended 160,000 trees in total be removed over three to five years, but during the hearing, city lawyers said that “this level of removal may not materialize.”
No final number was provided and the park board didn’t return a request for comment. But to reach a goal of 160,000 over three to five years, between 30,000 and 50,000 would need to felled each year.
The petitioners say the park board is mandated by law to maintain Stanley Park but its elected commissioners haven’t made any decisions about the looper moth impact, and they say it’s not clear if it was park board staff, city staff or city council who made the decision to remove the trees, according to the judgment.
They said it was park board staff that entered into a contract with Blackwell, the judgment said. And they said city council approved a $16 million budge for the work without a resolution by the park board commissioners to authorize the work, she wrote.
The Blackwell report was completed in January and the commissioners were updated by staff on plans to control the moths.
Giltrow concluded that she wouldn’t grant the injunction against the tree removal because “even though the applicants have raised credible and legitimate questions about the process by which tree removal has been and will be allowed in Stanley Park,” she said it’s unlikely that the “novel” duty of care argument would be successful at trial.
For the injunction request, “there is not a sufficiently serious question to be tried” to weigh in its favour, she wrote.
“Before anything as extensive as the potential removal of 160,000 trees in Stanley Park is effected, there is time” for the park board to fulfil its legal requirement to care and manage the park and for a full judicial review to be done before trees are removed after the April 2025 window, after the current Blackwell contract expires.
She dismissed the application for an injunction relief but left the door open for the petitioners to add a duty of care argument under B.C.’s Occupiers Liability Act.
A message left for Michael Caditz wasn’t returned.