The following excerpt is from Niebuhr et al. v. Vancouver (City) Board of Variance,, 2006 BCSC 1425 (CanLII):
Fundamental to this appeal is whether “person aggrieved” in s. 573(1)(a) extends to third parties unhappy with a decision of the Director of Planning. The term has often been the subject of judicial comment. In Attorney General of Gambia v. N’Jie, [1961] 2 All E.R. 504 at 511, Lord Denning said: The words “persons aggrieved” are of wide import and should not be subject to a restrictive interpretation. They do not include, of course, a mere busybody who is interfering in things which do not concern him; but they do include a person who has a genuine grievance because an order has been made which prejudicially affects his interest.
"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.