The British Columbia Court of Appeal has refused to change an earlier ruling denying a stay of a West Vancouver bylaw injunction, after the house at the centre of the dispute had already been demolished apart from its foundation.
In Este v West Vancouver (District of), 2026 BCCA 413, a unanimous panel dismissed Rosa Donna Este’s application to vary or cancel a July 2026 order refusing interim relief. She sought to preserve the remaining foundation while challenging a permanent injunction that barred unauthorized work and interference with the district’s demolition order.
Justice Warren, with Justices Fleming and Mayer concurring, found no error of law, principle or understanding of the facts that justified intervention. The October 20, 2026 decision did not determine the main appeal from the permanent injunction, which the reasons recorded as scheduled for November 25.
The demolition order was a separate decision
The proceedings followed a 2015 fire. In 2020, the district ordered the house demolished under the Community Charter on the basis that it was derelict. Este initially did not oppose demolition, but later challenged it after she was unable to obtain a building permit for a replacement home.
A judicial review of the permit refusal and demolition order failed in 2022. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, and the Supreme Court of Canada refused leave in 2023.
Este subsequently carried out repairs without a permit. The district obtained an interlocutory injunction, followed in 2026 by a permanent injunction restraining work on the property and obstruction of the demolition order’s enforcement.
Este appealed the permanent injunction and asked for a stay. Justice MacNaughton refused that request in July. By the time of the variation application, the district had demolished the house, leaving its foundation. Este argued that the foundation preserved a previously approved, non-conforming footprint that would not now be allowed.
The distinction between the two orders was central. The district’s authority to demolish came from the 2020 demolition order, not from the later permanent injunction. The validity of the demolition order was not at issue in this stay proceeding.
New evidence did not address the order under appeal
Este relied on what she described as newly discovered evidence about the extent of the fire damage and engineering reports supporting repair. She also pointed to a 2026 report that, she said, assessed the repaired residence as structurally sound and safe to occupy.
The district opposed the stay. It argued that no particular percentage of damage was required for the demolition order and that the proceedings attempted to reopen a decision already upheld by the courts.
MacNaughton applied the three-part stay test: whether there was a serious issue to be tried, whether refusing relief would cause irreparable harm, and where the balance of convenience lay.
She found that Este’s arguments focused on the demolition order rather than a flaw in the permanent injunction. She also reasoned that staying the injunction would not suspend the independently operative demolition order, and that the public interest in enforcing the bylaw weighed against relief.
On review, Warren found that MacNaughton had understood both the practical consequences and the new-evidence argument. Este had not shown that the judge overlooked the reports. Rather, their relevance was the problem: they challenged the demolition order instead of a decisive issue concerning the permanent injunction.
The panel also rejected the argument that the judge had misunderstood why Este’s position on demolition changed. MacNaughton had considered the asserted later discoveries and noted that Este already knew there were conflicting views about whether the house could be repaired when she did not oppose demolition.
An earlier stay did not determine this application
Este relied on a stay granted in 2025 concerning the interlocutory injunction. Warren explained that the earlier ruling arose in different circumstances, principally an arguable concern about a reasonable apprehension of bias involving the judge who had made that interlocutory order.
That concern did not arise in the application concerning the permanent injunction. The earlier stay therefore did not establish that MacNaughton had erred.
A variation application is a deferential review of the single judge’s decision, not a new hearing of the original request. The panel found no reviewable error and left the refusal of a stay intact.
Este had also begun a separate Supreme Court application to reconsider the judicial review of the demolition order. The appeal panel did not decide that application. Any interim relief pending that reconsideration, Warren said, was a matter for the Supreme Court in that proceeding.
