The Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed a challenge to Vancouver’s decision to replace the Vancouver Aquatic Centre with a facility containing a 25-metre pool instead of the 50-metre pool originally planned. In Protecting Our Vancouver Aquatic Centre Society v. City of Vancouver, 2026 BCSC 1803, the Court found that the redesign fell within the borrowing authority voters had approved. The decision examines how far voter authorization extends when infrastructure projects undergo substantial design changes.
Why Vancouver Changed the Aquatic Centre Design
In October 2022, Vancouver voters approved borrowing $103 million toward replacing, renewing or rehabilitating the Vancouver Aquatic Centre. The City’s capital plan and voter information materials described a $140-million project prioritizing renewal of the existing 50-metre lap pool and diving facilities. However, the actual ballot question authorized borrowing for the aquatic centre’s renewal generally, without specifying the pool’s length or other design features.
Subsequent feasibility studies identified significant constraints, including the site’s proximity to the Burrard Street Bridge and shoreline, accessibility requirements, construction costs and scheduling limitations. Project consultants concluded that a 50-metre pool could not be accommodated within the existing building footprint while meeting the project’s other requirements. In March 2025, the Vancouver Park Board approved a revised design featuring a 25-metre pool and other aquatic amenities, and City Council subsequently increased the project budget to $175 million through an additional $35 million in funding.
Why the Court Upheld the Redesign
Protecting Our Vancouver Aquatic Centre Society and Jonathan Girard challenged the Park Board’s and City’s decisions, arguing that voters had approved borrowing for a facility containing a 50-metre pool. They maintained that the earlier capital plan and voter information materials should inform the interpretation of the borrowing authorization. The petitioners also alleged that the City had deliberately framed the ballot question in general terms to mislead voters.
Justice Giaschi rejected those arguments and held that the municipal decisions were subject to reasonableness review. Under section 245 of the Vancouver Charter, the plebiscite question had to identify the borrowing amount, applicable period and proposed projects, but was not required to prescribe detailed design specifications. The Court found that the ballot authorized $103 million for the replacement, renewal or rehabilitation of the aquatic centre, without restricting the City to a 50-metre pool.
The Court also rejected the allegation that voters had been deliberately misled. The evidence established that the City originally intended to retain a 50-metre pool and changed its plans after subsequent feasibility work revealed significant constraints. References to the larger pool in the capital plan and voter materials were expressions of the project’s intended scope, rather than legally binding conditions on the borrowing authorization.
How the Court Assessed the Municipal Decisions
Neither the Park Board nor City Council issued formal written reasons explaining their decisions. However, the Court examined staff reports, feasibility studies, meeting records and council deliberations to identify the reasoning behind the revised project. Those materials explained the physical, financial and scheduling constraints and supported the conclusion that the decisions were transparent, intelligible and justifiable.
The Court found that proceeding with a 25-metre pool was a reasonable exercise of the authority conferred by voters. It therefore dismissed the petition without needing to determine whether Council had separately exercised its statutory power to vary an approved project under section 245(3) of the Vancouver Charter. The Court’s role was to assess the legality and reasonableness of the municipal decisions, not to determine which pool design would better serve Vancouver residents.
Subsequent Appeal
The petitioners subsequently appealed the decision, and the Court of Appeal granted an interim injunction on October 13, 2026, temporarily stopping demolition work until November 3, 2026. That injunction expired, and demolition reportedly resumed. As of November 11, the appeal remained technically open, although the Society had reportedly indicated that it was unlikely to pursue it further.
What the Decision Means for Public Infrastructure Projects
The judgment illustrates the distinction between approving financing for a public project and legally committing to every design feature described during preliminary planning. For municipalities and public infrastructure owners, the wording of the statutory borrowing authorization determines the scope of the authority granted. Here, the Court accepted that a redesigned aquatic centre remained within the project voters had authorized, despite the substantial change to its principal swimming pool.
The decision also demonstrates the value of maintaining a clear record when technical, financial or site constraints require significant design revisions. Feasibility studies, staff recommendations and documented deliberations enabled the Court to assess the municipal decisions without formal written reasons. ATAC LAW advises public authorities, developers and project participants on infrastructure law and administrative tribunal advocacy and judicial review, including disputes involving project approvals and statutory decision-making.
