Canada: B.C. Court Confirms Limited Jurisdiction of Department of Fisheries and Oceans over Development in Riparian Areas

Last Updated: July 2 2010
Article by Paul Cassidy, Bryan Hicks and Janice Walton

Copyright 2010, Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP

Originally published in Blakes Bulletin on Environmental Law, July 2010

In a recent decision of importance to project developers dealing with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO, now known as Fisheries and Oceans Canada or FOC), the Supreme Court of British Columbia exposed the institutional fiction that the DFO may reject development proposals that do not cause a HADD. In doing so, the Court found that the DFO extended far beyond its legitimate authority in trying to establish a decision-making role for itself in development proposals in riparian areas, in circumstances where no harmful alteration, disruption or destruction to fish habitat (HADD) would result. The Court confirmed that DFO approval is not required for activities that do not cause a HADD and consequently, the DFO has no jurisdiction to deny non-HADD developments. Further, the Court's discussion confirms that the DFO's opinion on how non- HADD developments should be built should not be relied upon by either local governments or the province to deny development approval.


The Court ruled on a case involving a petitioner's request for a municipal development variance, permitting him to construct a home 15 metres from the average high-water mark in a lake near Salmon Arm, B.C. Upon considering the petitioner's application, which included an opinion from a qualified consultant that no HADD would occur, the City of Salmon Arm supported the variance but made its approval conditional on approval by the DFO and the B.C. Ministry of Environment (MOE). The DFO agreed that the development would not cause a HADD, but expressed its opinion that the project could be designed differently to lessen impact on the riparian area. As a consequence of the DFO's comments, the City withheld its approval of the variance. The petitioner sought a declaration from the Court giving effect to the City's approval.

The City's decision to withhold approval was based upon its interpretation of the provincial Riparian Areas Regulation (RAR). The case was ultimately decided in the petitioner's favour on the grounds that the City's approval had effectively been given through the initial establishment of a restrictive covenant under the RAR's predecessor, the Streamside Protection Regulation; and that because of the transitional provisions of the RAR, approval under it was unnecessary. However, this case is more significant because of the Court's discussion of the DFO's improper involvement with non-HADD development proposals. The Court held that the City's practice to defer to the MOE and the DFO for approval was not consistent with the RAR, which does not mandate that non-HADD developments be approved either by the DFO or the MOE.


Fisheries Act. The DFO derives its regulatory powers over project development in riparian areas from the Fisheries Act. Section 35(1) of the Act makes it an offence for any person to cause a HADD. Section 35(2) provides that no person contravenes s. 35(1) if the HADD was authorized by the DFO. In this respect, an authorization under s. 35(2) is a statutory defence to causing a HADD and nothing more. It does not create a federal licensing scheme for non-HADD developments. In other words, s. 35 is not engaged by non-HADD developments, and the DFO has no authority to authorize or seek changes to them.

Riparian Areas Regulation. The RAR is a regulation under the B.C. Fish Protection Act. It provides that any proposed development within a riparian assessment area may not proceed without approval from the local government. Section 4 of the RAR sets out the preconditions for obtaining local government approval. As the Court points out in Yanke, the RAR makes a key distinction between proposed developments that would result in a HADD and those which would not.

Development proposals which will not cause a HADD proceed under s. 4(2) of the RAR, which provides that a local government may approve the development once the MOE has confirmed that the MOE and the DFO have been notified of the proposal and have been provided with an opinion by a Qualified Environmental Professional (QEP) that the development would not result in a HADD. The local government cannot give its approval until all notice requirements have been satisfied, but there is no requirement for approval from the DFO or the MOE.

Developments which will cause a HADD are considered under s. 4(3) of the RAR, which provides that a local government may not provide approval unless the HADD has been authorized under the Fisheries Act.

The scheme established under the RAR is consistent with the Fisheries Act, in that the prerequisite of DFO authorization contemplated by the RAR applies only to HADD developments. However, administrative agreements entered into by municipal, provincial and federal agencies (discussed below) for implementation of the RAR, and the MOE's guidance documents, have confused the role of the DFO in project development by implying that DFO authorization is required for all developments in riparian areas, regardless of whether they will cause a HADD. The result is a misconception by local governments that DFO approval is required for non-HADD development proposals, and a consequent over-reliance on the opinion of the DFO on project development. The Court ruling clears up this misconception.

Implementation Guidebook and Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement

The provincial government argued that its Riparian Areas Regulation Implementation Guidebook (the Guidebook) was authority for the proposition that variances of municipal setbacks must be approved by the DFO. In rejecting this argument, the Court pointed out that the Guidebook does not actually say that, and further, that it does not have the force of law. At the same time, the Court found that the Guidebook confuses the distinction made in the RAR between HADD and non- HADD developments. As an example, the Court cited portions of the Guidebook which state that variance requests shall be considered by the DFO, which will assess whether an authorization is required, and that the RAR sets the direction that can allow development to proceed if approved by the DFO. The Court described this as misleading.

The government also produced evidence of a letter from the City which stated that, in absence of a protocol with the DFO, all variance requests were to be submitted to the DFO prior to filing the RAR report, and the DFO "approval" was required, either through an authorization or a letter of advice (the DFO's standard letter that a HADD is likely to not occur).

In 2008, the DFO, MOE and Union of British Columbia Municipalities entered into the Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement Respecting the Implementation of British Columbia's Riparian Areas Regulation (the Agreement). The Court in Yanke reviewed the Agreement, and confirmed that it does not constitute a delegation of statutory decision-making power. However, the Court also pointed to several problematic provisions of the Agreement, in particular Annex 2, which sets out the roles and responsibilities of the parties. The Court found that the terms "variances" and "HADD" are used interchangeably in the Annex, leading to the implication that all applications for variances must be submitted to the DFO for review. The Court described this as creating a "troublesome ambiguity". As a consequence, the Court found the DFO and the MOE had gone far beyond the RAR in establishing a decisionmaking role for the DFO in non-HADD developments.

The Court determined that the City had developed a practice of deferring to the MOE and the DFO for approval as a pre-condition of permitting of any type of development in riparian areas, regardless of whether the QEP had determined there was a HADD. The Court stated that the approval of the DFO or the MOE was not a statutory prerequisite to the City permitting the development to proceed and that the notification requirements of the RAR had been complied with in the case. The Court held that the City's deferral of its decision-making authority to the DFO with respect to non-HADD developments was both unnecessary and improper.


The decision in Yanke highlights a problem that has been faced by developers in B.C. for years, that is, the deference paid by local governments to the DFO when approving developments near water bodies.

While the RAR has been carefully crafted not to extend jurisdiction where it does not exist, the scheme it mandates contributes to the problem by requiring notification to the DFO of all development in riparian areas, regardless of whether they are related to fishbearing waters, and regardless of whether a HADD will occur. Further, the B.C. government's efforts to encourage intergovernmental co-operation for riparian developments, as reflected in the Agreement and its guidebooks, has not helped, as these documents confuse both developers and local government into thinking of the DFO as a body which approves all such developments, which it is not.

In 2004 when the RAR was introduced in the B.C. legislature, Blakes had the following comment:

A wide range of concerns have been expressed regarding the RAR. First, it increases the role of the DFO beyond its statutory mandate by effectively involving it in projects which will not result in the harmful alteration of fish habitat. Under the Fisheries Act, the jurisdiction of the DFO flows directly from an assessment that there is a potential for harm to fish habitat. Without such potential, the DFO has no jurisdiction to request information about a project, but will now receive it because of the RAR provincially mandated process. Further, under the RAR, reports are prepared for all streams, without regard to whether they support a fishery. As the federal government only has power to regulate to protect fish habitat that supports a fishery, there is potential for the DFO to become involved in projects for which they cannot issue an authorization (as it would be outside their constitutional jurisdiction).

Second, the prohibition of the approval of a development which will cause harm to fish habitat, unless authorized by the DFO, fetters the discretion of local government officials on the basis of a decision to be made by a federal government entity over which neither the local nor provincial governments have any bureaucratic control. This, in effect, takes the ultimate decision regarding whether development within 30 metres of any watercourses in the affected areas may go ahead, out of the hands of local or provincial government, and into the hands of the federal government. This is particularly problematic as the Fisheries Act does not actually require the DFO to issue authorizations.

Six years later, it is clear that our concern that the RAR would result in the DFO extending its reach into areas beyond its jurisdiction has actually happened. Fortunately, the Court in Yanke has confirmed the DFO's limited role in riparian developments and provides direction to local governments and the province to avoid deferring decision-making to a federal entity with no authority to approve the work.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Events from this Firm
30 Oct 2019, Other, Toronto, Canada

The materials on the Blakes Business Class website are provided for informational purposes only. Accessing this information does not create a lawyer-client relationship.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions