On the other hand, the respondents emphasize the role of the approving officer under s. 996 and the role of the court on an appeal under s. 89 of the Land Title Act. As to the former, the only decision which counsel were able to locate is an unreported decision of my own (Mohl v. Webb [[1987] B.C.W.L.D. 066], Vancouver No. A862631, 1st December 1986) in which I observed at p. 4 that "a discretion remains in the approving officer which must, of course, be properly exercised …" That observation is consistent with the definition of "may" in the Interpretation Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 206 ("permissive and empowering"). Because s. 996 contemplates subdivisions which contravene one or more municipal bylaws, I accept that the legislature intended the approving officer to have a discretion thereunder.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.