Law360 Canada ( August 12, 2025, 10:11 AM EDT) -- Appeal by the appellant (“Ironclad”) of an order made on a petition for judicial review affirming the decision of the City of West Kelowna to impose a latecomer charge on the appellant. The appellant was engaged in the development of a real estate project in West Kelowna. The respondents (“WestUrban”) were developing a neighbouring project. Both had to satisfy requirements imposed by the third respondent, the City of West Kelowna (“City”). In 2018, the City required WestUrban to construct road and site servicing infrastructure work that would benefit Ironclad’s project. The City advised Ironclad that it would be required to contribute to the cost by paying a latecomer charge. The City provided a quantity surveyor’s (SSA’s) revised report to Ironclad and required it to pay 54 per cent or $749,666 (the “Charge”) as a condition of obtaining an occupancy permit. Ironclad petitioned the Supreme Court for an order setting aside the City’s decision to require it to pay the Charge on two grounds. First, it maintained that the decision was procedurally unfair and secondly, it maintained that the City’s decision to impose the Charge was substantively unreasonable. The City and WestUrban opposed the petition. The chambers judge dismissed Ironclad’s petition. She considered that, while the procedure that led to the imposition of the Charge was unfair to Ironclad, the City did not owe it a duty to act fairly because she viewed the decision as legislative in nature....