The Supreme Court of British Columbia has granted an interim injunction preventing the City of Kelowna from approving the expropriation of privately owned waterfront land beside the Hotel Eldorado while the property owner’s judicial review proceeds.
In 1004364 B.C. Ltd. v. Kelowna (City), 2026 BCSC 1798, the Court found that transferring ownership before the legal challenge was resolved could cause irreparable harm. The decision illustrates when commercial property owners may obtain an injunction to preserve ownership during a disputed expropriation.
How a Boardwalk Dispute Led to Expropriation
The dispute concerned a public boardwalk crossing privately owned waterfront property associated with the Hotel Eldorado and Manteo Resort. The City held a statutory right of way permitting public use of the boardwalk, although portions extended beyond its boundaries.
Previous litigation had confirmed the right of way’s validity, subject to certain unenforceable provisions. However, disagreements continued over maintenance responsibilities and access arrangements.
The boardwalk had fallen into disrepair and was closed to the public. The owner refused to permit repairs until the parties agreed on access terms, reimbursement of maintenance expenses and protection against potential liability. Negotiations reached an impasse.
On July 13, 2026, Kelowna City Council passed a resolution during an in camera meeting, without notice to the owner, initiating the expropriation process for the waterfront strip beside the Hotel Eldorado.
The owner challenged the resolution on grounds of procedural unfairness and unreasonableness, seeking an injunction while its petition proceeded.
Why the Court Granted the Injunction
Justice Milman applied the three-part test for an interim injunction: a serious question to be tried, irreparable harm and the balance of convenience.
The owner’s legal challenge was arguable.
The Court found that the procedural-fairness and reasonableness arguments were not frivolous, although neither was particularly strong.
Kelowna argued that the statutory process limited the owner’s grounds for challenging expropriation and that the owner would have an opportunity to be heard before final approval.
Nevertheless, the Court held that the decision to initiate expropriation was not completely insulated from judicial review. The transfer of ownership could cause irreparable harm. The Court distinguished initiating an expropriation from completing the transfer of title.
Under the Expropriation Act, the City could abandon the proposed taking before making the required advance payment. However, once title vested, section 51 would prevent new proceedings challenging the expropriation’s validity.
The Court found that approving the expropriation before the petition was resolved could irreversibly deprive the owner of its land and render the legal challenge ineffective. Preserving ownership outweighed the temporary delay. The Court acknowledged the public interest in repairing and reopening the boardwalk. Allowing the expropriation to proceed could advance that objective.
However, the City had initiated a process capable of permanently changing the parties’ legal relationship. The Court concluded that the temporary public inconvenience did not outweigh the potential harm to the owner. The balance of convenience therefore favoured an injunction.
What the Injunction Prevents
The Court prohibited Kelowna, acting as the approving authority, from approving the expropriation under section 18 of the Expropriation Act or resolving to proceed with it under section 31 of the Community Charter.
The injunction remains in place pending the outcome of the proceeding or further court order. The decision did not determine that the proposed expropriation was unlawful. The owner’s underlying judicial review challenge remains unresolved.
What This Means for Commercial Property Owners
The decision distinguishes challenges to the legality of an expropriation from disputes over compensation for land already taken.
For commercial property owners, preserving ownership may be particularly important when a proposed taking affects access, business operations or the use of adjoining property.
An interim injunction may prevent an expropriation from advancing to an irreversible stage while a legal challenge is determined. The timing of that challenge is critical because statutory restrictions apply once ownership transfers.
ATAC LAW represents property owners, developers and businesses in expropriation matters and real estate litigation, including disputes involving statutory rights of way, compulsory acquisition and urgent court relief.
