Four Vancouver residents asked the BC Supreme Court for an injunction to pause the removal of trees from Stanley Park.
About 7,000 trees were removed from Stanley Park last winter because of a years-long looper moth infestation damaging the conifers. The moths eat the trees, which leads to them losing leaves and often dying, according to the Supreme Court judgement posted online this week.
The City of Vancouver and Park Board have been following the recommendations of the Blackwell Report to respond to the current looper moth outbreak. The report looked at removing up to 160,000 trees, or about one-third of the total trees in Stanley Park, in the next few years to respond to the moth outbreak.
The total number of trees removed may end up being much less, though. The City and Park Board told the court they only plan to remove 6,000 trees this winter — less than the previous one.
Removing dead trees is necessary for public safety in Stanley Park, according to a report to the City, since dry, dead trees contribute to wildfire risk in downtown Vancouver.
Justice Maegen Giltrow, who has a background in environmental law, listened to the residents’ concerns that the tree removal was impacting their psychological well-being as well as sense of physical safety in the park.
In her decision, she also wrote their concerns the clarity of the decision-making leading up to the $16 million tree removal contract had merit.
“The plaintiffs have raised legitimate concerns about the apparent lack of deliberative decision-making by the Park Board, which is the body statutorily responsible for the care, management and control of Stanley Park, in relation to an important issue that will impact the future of Stanley Park,” Giltrow wrote. “There has not been a transparent and considered decision by the Park Board Commissioners themselves to proceed in a particular way.”
But ultimately the plaintiffs couldn’t prove the City and Park Board owed them a duty of care for their mental wellbeing. Giltrow ended up denying the injunction, allowing the City and Park Board to proceed with tree removal as scheduled this winter.
“In these circumstances, a group of citizens has put their hands up and said something is amiss. It may well be; in fact, the Public Respondents acknowledged this possibility during the hearing of this matter,” Giltrow wrote. “It is an important role of the court to hear challenges to government action or inaction. However, the possibility of improper government action does not require this Court to establish a new private duty of care between the Public Respondents and four citizens.”