Can a B.C. municipality require a developer to pay a Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) as a condition of rezoning? A recent B.C. Supreme Court decision says not without explicit statutory authority from the government.

‍

In the Lorval Developments Ltd. v. Langley (Township) case (2025 BCSC 1148), the Court struck down the Township of Langley’s Community Amenity Contributions Policy, finding that, despite being described as “voluntary, the Policy essentially acted as a mandatory payment regime.

‍

The decision is significant for both municipalities and developers:

1. Municipalities cannot impose CACs simply because a policy says they are voluntary. Courts will look at how the policy actually operates.
2. Amenity funding must have statutory authority. Municipalities have other tools available under the Local Government Act, including DCCs, density bonus bylaws, ACC bylaws and phased development agreements.
3. Developers may have greater leverage in rezoning negotiations. Where a requested contribution effectively becomes a condition of approval, the legal basis for that contribution may warrant closer scrutiny.
4. Existing CAC policies may need review. The Township of Langley abandoned its appeal in 2026, leaving the decision as an important authority on municipal CAC regimes in B.C.

‍

The takeaway: Calling a contribution “voluntary” does not necessarily make it voluntary. The substance and operation of the policy matter.

‍