CITY OF WILLIAMS LAKE COUNCIL REPORT

DATE OF REPORT: DATE & TYPE OF MEETING: AUTHOR: SUBJECT: FILE: January 20, 2013 January 22, 2013 Regular Council Meeting Geoff Goodall, Acting Chief Administrative Officer NOTICE OF CIVIL CLAIM CRD FIRE PROTECTION ISSUE / MEDIATION 1-65-11 cc 1-65-14 (2280-20-04)

C3g

SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On Tuesday January 15th 2013 the CRD filed their notice of Civil claim regarding the rural fire protection issue against the City. The City now has 21 days to file their response. When the City has filed their response either the City or the CRD can initiate mediation and it will be mandatory for the other party to participate. Although not mandatory the City could request that the CRD and the City initiate the mediation process, this could save time and bring the parties back to the table to discuss the issue. SECTION 2: BACKGROUND None. SECTION 3: DISCUSSION None. SECTION 4: DETAILED ANALYSIS a. Financial Considerations Cost and Resource Allocations: N/A b. Legislative Considerations (Applicable Policies and/or Bylaws): N/A c. This project most closely supports the following ICSP Priority Areas: N/A d. This project potentially conflicts with the following ICSP Priority Areas (also list mitigation measures) N/A e. Environmental Considerations: N/A f. Social Considerations: N/A g. Economic Considerations: N/A

Notice of Civil Claim - CRD Rural Fire Protection

Page 2

SECTION 5: RECOMMENDATION That Council receive the notice of Civil action pertaining to the fire protection issue filed by the CRD against the City and further staff be directed to contact the CRD and request that both parties commence the process of mediation.

Respectfully submitted,

Geoff Goodall Acting Chief Administrative Officer ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A Notice of Civil Claim

SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Attachment "A" (8 Pages)

SEAL
15-Jan-13

Vancouver REGISTRY

No. S-129054 Vancouver Registry

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: CARIBOO REGIONAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF AND: CITY OF WILLIAMS LAKE DEFENDANT NOTICE OF CIVIL CLAIM This action has been started by the plaintiff(s) for the relief set out in Part 2 below. If you intend to respond to this action, you or your lawyer must (a) (b) (a) file a response to civil claim in Form 2 in the above-named registry of this court within the time for response to civil claim described below, and serve a copy of the filed response to civil claim on the plaintiff. file a response to civil claim in Form 2 and a counterclaim in Form 3 in the above-named registry of this court within the time for response to civil claim described below, and serve a copy of the filed response to civil claim and counterclaim on the plaintiff and on any new parties named in the counterclaim.

If you intend to make a counterclaim, you or your lawyer must

(b)

JUDGMENT MAY BE PRONOUNCED AGAINST YOU IF YOU FAIL to file the response to civil claim within the time for response to civil claim described below. Time for response to civil claim A response to civil claim must be filed and served on the plaintiff(s), (a) (b) (c) (d) if you were served with the notice of civil claim anywhere in Canada, within 21 days after that service, if you were served with the notice of civil claim anywhere in the United States of America, within 35 days after that service, if you were served with the notice of civil claim anywhere else, within 49 days after that service, or if the time for response to civil claim has been set by order of the court, within that time.

I:\ SDC \CAR030\CIT121\Pleoclings\009.Notice of Civil Claitn.doc

2 CLAIM OF THE PLAINTIFF Part 1: STATEMENT OF FACTS The Parties 1. The Plaintiff; the Cariboo Regional District, is an incorporated regional board and has an address for delivery for the purposes of this litigation at 1100 505 Burrard Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, V7X 1M5. 2. The Defendant, the City of Williams Lake, is an incorporated municipality and has an address for delivery for the purposes of this litigation at 1616 808 Nelson Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6Z 2H2. 3. The Plaintiff is located in the Central Interior of British Columbia and comprises 12 electoral areas, A through L, and four incorporated member municipalities, 100 Mile House, Quesnel, Wells, and the Defendant City of Williams Lake. The Plaintiff serves approximately 63,000 residents and provides for roughly 100 local government services for its taxpayers, including fire protection, emergency planning, environmental services, and recreational facilities. Background 4. In 1964, an agreement was entered into between the Province of British Columbia and the Defendant to provide fire protection services for residents living in specific outlying areas of the Plaintiff's member municipalities, known as the Rural Fringe Area (the "Provincial Agreement"). 5. In July 2006, the Plaintiff entered into its own agreement with the Defendant for the provision of fire protection services for a separate portion of the Rural Fringe Area (the "Phase 1 Agreement). The Phase 1 Agreement was set to expire in July 2011, but was subsequently extended to December 2011. 6. In January 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a second agreement with the Defendant to provide fire protection services for yet another separate portion of the Rural Fringe Area (the "Phase 2 Agreement"). The Phase 2 Agreement expired in December 2011.

I:\ SDC CAR030\C1T121\Pleadings \009.Notice of Civil Claim.doc

3 7 In July 2012, the Province of British Columbia notified the Plaintiff and the Defendant that it would he terminating the Provincial Agreement effective December 31, 2012. As such, all the agreements to provide fire protection services to the Rural Fringe Area expired by December 31, 2012, The New Amalgamated Agreement 8. In August 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant began negotiations to enter into an amalgamated agreement that would service all sections of the Rural Fringe Area covered by the three earlier agreements. Following extensive negotiations, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to terms on a five year Rural Fire Protection Agreement (the "RFPA") for parts of Electoral Areas D, E, and F in the Rural Fringe Area (the "Fire Protection Service Area"). The RFPA was subject only to the approval of the affected Rural Fringe Area residents by way of a referendum conducted by the Plaintiff. This subject condition was satisfied on November 24, 2012. 9. Pursuant to the RFPA, a formula was agreed upon for the allocation of costs for the residents based on the net taxable values of land and improvements within the City of Williams Lake and the Rural Fringe Area. Bylaws and Resolutions 10. Prior to the referendum, the Plaintiff and the Defendant passed the necessary bylaws and resolutions authorizing and agreeing to the RFPA, including the cost allocation formula. 11. Specifically, on October 12, 2012, the Cariboo Regional District Williams Lake Rural Contracted Fire Protection Service Establishment Bylaw No. 4776, 2012 ("Bylaw No. 4776") passed first, second, and third readings at the special electronic meeting of the Plaintiff's Board of Directors in accordance with the agreed upon terms. 12. The Mayor of the City of Williams Lake, who is also a member of the Plaintiff's Board of Directors, was present at the meeting on October 12, 2012 and voted in favour of Bylaw No. 4776. 13. On October 23, 2012, following the passing of Bylaw No. 4776, the Defendant's City Council passed Resolution No. 468/12, expressly reaffirming its support for an
\ SDC CARO 3 0 CIT 12 I \Pleadings \009.Notice of Civil Clairo.doo

4 amalgamated fire protection agreement based on the agreed upon terms, including allocating costs based on total net taxable assessed values for all property in the City of Williams Lake and the rural areas. 14. On November 24, 2012, a referendum was held and the voters within the Fire Protection Service Area approved the agreement. The referendum also set a maximum allowable amount that the Carbioo Regional District could charge to its residents. The Plaintiff states that it sought authorization of the maximum amount in accordance with the requirements of Section 800.1(1)(e) of the Local Government Act and to ensure that there was sufficient room over the life of the contract to accommodate potential future cost increases. Once the referendum passed, the subject condition was satisfied and the RFPA became a binding contract. 15. Subsequent to the referendum passing, the Chief Administrative Officer of the Plaintiff and the acting Chief Administrative Officer of the Defendant reduced the agreed upon terms to writing and submitted the RFPA to the Plaintiff and the Defendant for execution.
The City's Repudiation of the RFPA

16.

On December 11, 2012, and without any prior notice, the Defendant's City Council passed Resolution No. 1C172/12 declaring that the Defendant would only agree to a one year term with the cost fixed at the maximum charge allowable under the approved referendum conducted by the Plaintiff.

17.

Further, the Defendant refused to provide or continue fire protection services to the Rural Fringe Area beyond December 31, 2012 unless the Plaintiff agreed to the terms set out in Resolution No. 1C172/12.

18.

There is not an alternative provider for fire protection services for the Rural Fringe Area. Accordingly, the Plaintiff would be forced to establish its own fire department in order to service this region.

19.

The withdrawal of these essential services by the Defendant would endanger the safety and welfare of the residents within the Rural Fringe Area until the Plaintiff is able to establish its own fire department. This type of harm cannot be quantified in monetary

terms. 1:\spc\cAR030\cal 2 I1Pleadings 009.Notice of Civil Claindoc

5 20. As a result, the Plaintiff was forced to seek an injunction compelling the Defendant to continue to provide fire protection services. 21. On December 21, 2012, the Plaintiff obtained an interim injunction for a 120 day period expiring on April 30, 2013, unless extended. 22. The conduct of the Defendant as aforesaid constituted a breach or apprehended breach of the RFPA amounting to a repudiation of the RFPA, which repudiation the Plaintiff did not accept. 23. The Plaintiff has been and continues to be ready, willing and able to perform its obligations under the RFPA. Part 2: RELIEF SOUGHT 1. 2. 3. 4. A declaration that the RFPA is valid and binding; An order for specific performance of the RFPA; In the alternative, general and special damages for breach of contract; An extension to the interim injunction requiring the Defendant to continue to provide fire protection services until the Plaintiff is able to implement a satisfactory alternative for its residents in the Rural Fringe Area; 5. 6. 7. Interest pursuant to the Court Order Interest Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 79; Costs; and Such further and other relief as this Honourable Court deems just.

Part 3: LEGAL BASIS 1. The Plaintiff relies on the terms of the RFPA and the applicable common law regarding contracts. 2. The Plaintiff submits that the RFPA is a valid and binding contract and that all the requisite elements of a contract are present, including offer, acceptance, and consideration.

I: \SDC \CAR030\CITI2ITleadings 009,Notice of Civil Claim. doc

6 3. An offer was made by the Defendant to the Plaintiff to provide fire protection services to the Rural Fringe Service Area for a five year term at a cost to be determined based on assessed land value. 4. The Plaintiff accepted this offer as evidenced by Bylaw No. 4776. This bylaw affirms the agreed upon terms set out in the RFPA, subject only to a successful referendum by the electors in the Fire Protection Service Area, This acceptance was communicated to the Defendant via its Mayor, who sits on the Plaintiff's Board of Directors and voted in favour of Bylaw No. 4776. 5. Following communication of this acceptance to the City, the City Council passed Resolution No. 468/12 on October 28, 2012, reaffirming its commitment to the RFPA, including the cost allocation formula. 6. There is good and sufficient consideration by way of the Defendant agreeing to provide fire protection services and the Plaintiff agreeing to pay for these services based on an assessment formula. 7. The Defendant has sought to repudiate the RFPA, which repudiation is not accepted by the Plaintiff.

I: \SDC \CA12030\CIT1211Pleadings\009.Notice of Civil Claiin.doc

8.

The Plaintiff has suffered damage, losses as a result of the Defendant's attempt to repudiate the RFPA and will suffer irreparable harm and further damage and losses if the RFPA is not enforced.

Plaintiff's address for service:

Shane D. Coblin Kornfeld LLP 1100 One Bentall Centre 505 Burrard Street, Box 11 Vancouver, British Columbia Canada V7X 1M5 604-683-0570 scobl in@kornfeldllp. corn Vancouver 800 SmitheS.;reet Vanco Y6fi C V6Z 2E1

Fax number address for service (if any): E-mail address for service (if any): Place of trial: The address of the registry is:

Dated

January 15, 2013 ignature of Lawyer iei-11 aintiff Kornfeld LLP

Shane D. Goblin

Rule 7-1 (1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules states: (1) Unless all parties of record consent or the court otherwise orders, each party of record to an action must, within 35 days after the end of the pleading period, (a) prepare a list of documents in Form 22 that lists (i) all documents that are or have been in the party's possession or control and that could, if available, be used by any party at trial to prove or disprove a material fact, and all other documents to which the party intends to refer at trial, and

(ii) (b)

serve the list on all parties of record.

I:\SDC \CAR030\ CIT121 \Pleadings \009.Notice of Civil Claim.doc

APPENDIX

[The following information is provided for data collection purposes only and is of no legal effect.]
Part 1: CONCISE SUMMARY OF NATURE OF CLAIM: 1. Breach of contract. Part 2: THIS CLAIM ARISES FROM THE FOLLOWING: A personal injury arising out of:

II

a motor vehicle accident medical malpractice another cause contaminated sites construction defects real property (real estate)

I 1
II

A dispute concerning:

P N

personal property the provision of goods or services or other general commercial matters investment losses the lending of money an employment relationship a will or other issues concerning the probate of an estate a matter not listed here

Part 3: THIS CLAIM INVOLVES:

[Check all boxes below that apply to this case.]

P P

a class action maritime law aboriginal law constitutional law conflict of laws none of the above do not know

Part 4: THIS CLAIM INVOLVES:

[Ilan enactment is being relied on, specify. Do not list more than 3 enactments.]

I:\SDC \CAR.030 C1T I 2 ITleadings 009.Notice of Civil Claim.doc