The British Columbia Court of Appeal has released a decision concerning the provincial government’s power to regulate short-term rentals1. In a judgment dated December 30, 2025, the court dismissed an appeal brought by the Westcoast Association for Property Rights and a Victoria property owner named Angela Mason. The legal battle centered on the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act, a piece of legislation that has fundamentally changed the landscape of property ownership and the tourism economy across the province. The court’s ruling marks a major moment in the ongoing tension between private property rights and the government’s efforts to address the housing crisis through strict legislative measures.
The Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act, often referred to as the STRAA, was officially enacted on October 26, 2023, and most of its core provisions came into force on May 1, 2024. The primary goal of the legislation was to return short-term rental units to the long-term housing market. To achieve this, the government established a general prohibition against providing short-term rentals of less than 90 days unless the property is the owner’s principal residence. Furthermore, the Act explicitly eliminated what are known as non-conforming use protections. In the past, if a property was being used for a specific purpose before a new law was passed, that use was often allowed to continue under a grandfather clause. The STRAA removed this protection for short-term rentals, essentially forcing owners to comply with the new rules regardless of how they had used their property in the years prior.
The appellants in this case represent a broad range of interests within the short-term rental industry. The Westcoast Association for Property Rights is a group of more than 200 property owners and service providers who have been directly impacted by the new laws. Among them is Angela Mason, who purchased a unit in a Victoria building known as The Oriental in June 2023. Ms. Mason intended to use the property as both her residence and a short-term rental to help cover the costs of ownership. The Oriental building has a long history of short-term rental use, dating back to its redevelopment in 2011. Even after the City of Victoria changed its zoning in 2018, the building was allowed to continue operating short-term rentals until the provincial government stepped in with the STRAA.
Before the new rules were even fully enforced, the Association and Ms. Mason filed a petition under the Judicial Review Procedure Act. They were seeking a court declaration that the government could not use the STRAA to take away their established property rights without compensation. They argued that the law operated retrospectively and amounted to a constructive taking, or expropriation, of their business interests and property value. They essentially wanted the court to rule that the government owed them money if it was going to destroy their ability to earn income from their properties. However, a lower court judge struck the petition down before it could even go to a full hearing, calling the legal challenge premature and an abuse of process.
The lower court judge found that because the provincial government’s Director of Short-Term Rentals had not yet taken any specific enforcement action against the owners, there was no actual decision for the court to review. In the world of administrative law, courts generally prefer to wait until a government official has made a specific ruling or issued a fine before they step in. Because the owners brought their case before they were actually penalized, the judge ruled that the court lacked a proper factual foundation to grant the declarations the owners were looking for. The owners then took this issue to the Court of Appeal, arguing that even if they could not use the Judicial Review Procedure Act, the court still had the inherent power to interpret the law and protect their rights.
Madam Justice Fisher, writing for the Court of Appeal, carefully examined these arguments but ultimately agreed with the original decision to strike the petition. The court noted that while it does have a very wide power to grant declarations about the meaning of laws, it must exercise that power with great caution. One of the main reasons the court refused to act in this case was the diverse and speculative nature of the owners’ claims. The court described the Westcoast Association as a large and loosely identified group whose individual circumstances were likely very different. Some owners might be in areas that are exempt from the law, while others might be operating in hotels or motels that are not covered by the STRAA restrictions.
The court emphasized that because the STRAA is a complex regulatory scheme with many different exceptions and possible exemptions, it would be inappropriate for a judge to issue a general ruling without a specific set of facts. For example, a property owner in a rural area might face different legal realities than someone owning a condo in downtown Victoria. By asking the court to interpret how the law applies to everyone at once, the owners were essentially asking for an advisory opinion on a hypothetical situation. The Court of Appeal stated that it is a fundamental principle of the Canadian legal system that courts should decide actual disputes between parties rather than answering general legal questions that have not yet resulted in a real-world conflict.
“A declaration will not normally be granted when the dispute is over and has become academic, or where the dispute has yet to arise and may not arise.”
This quote, cited by the court from previous legal precedents, highlights the judiciary’s reluctance to get involved in legislative matters before a concrete problem exists. The court also addressed the owners’ concerns that they should not have to break the law and risk a fine just to get a court to tell them what the law means. While the court acknowledged this frustration, it pointed out that the STRAA provides its own internal process for appeals and reviews. If an owner is eventually fined, they can challenge that fine through the administrative system and eventually through the courts if necessary.
Regarding the claim of constructive taking or expropriation, the Court of Appeal offered a small glimmer of hope for the property owners but not within this specific lawsuit. The court clarified that striking the petition does not necessarily mean the owners can never seek compensation. It simply means they cannot seek it through a judicial review petition, which is a specific type of fast-tracked legal proceeding used to challenge government decisions. If the owners want to pursue a claim for money because the government has supposedly taken their property rights, they would likely need to start a full civil lawsuit, which involves a more detailed process of evidence and witness testimony.
The court also looked at historical legal cases, such as Dyson v. Attorney General, where citizens were allowed to challenge government notices before they were penalized. However, the court distinguished those cases from the current dispute. In the past, those challenges were allowed because they involved a single, simple legal question that applied to millions of people in the exact same way. In the case of the STRAA, the law applies differently to every owner depending on their location, the type of dwelling they own, and their personal residence status. This complexity makes it impossible for a court to issue one blanket declaration that would solve the problem for everyone involved.
Ultimately, Chief Justice Marchand and Justice Edelmann concurred with Madam Justice Fisher in dismissing the appeal. The court found that the issues raised by the property owners were hypothetical and speculative at this stage. The ruling confirms that for now, the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act stands as written, and the provincial government is free to continue its enforcement efforts. Property owners who feel they have been unfairly treated or who believe their rights have been taken away will have to wait until they are directly impacted by an enforcement decision before they can ask the court to step in, or they will have to pursue a different and more complex type of legal action for compensation.
The decision reinforces the idea that the legislature has the exclusive authority to enact laws that it deems necessary for the public good, such as addressing housing affordability. Unless a law is challenged on constitutional grounds—which was not the focus of this specific appeal—the courts are generally required to defer to the government’s power to regulate businesses and property use. The Westcoast Association for Property Rights and individual owners like Angela Mason now face a difficult path forward as the May 1, 2024 deadline for compliance has already passed, and the provincial enforcement regime continues to roll out across British Columbia.
Read more BC legal news here.
