`Egregious terms' prompt dock owners to refuse to sign port's new contract
Waterfront property owners in Port Moody say their docks are under threat, not from rot or a storm, but a new licensing agreement.
Residents on Alderside Road said they were shocked when they received new contracts from the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority last year. They say the updated terms stripped away their rights and opened the door to completely losing access to their docks and foreshore lots in the future.
Owners were given an April 30, 2023 deadline to sign, but many refused. “This is about the erosion of our rights,” said Ryan Sayer, an Alderside Road resident. “If these egregious terms are to remain in these agreements, we're not going to sign.”
Affected residents have organized meetings, formed a dock-protection society and hired lawyers over the changes.
The port's recreational dock program is responsible for licensing some 500 docks in Burrard Inlet, Indian Arm and Port Moody Arm, and all properties with docks are required to have a licence.
Updates to the program began rolling out in 2020 — the first update since a moratorium was placed on licences in 2008.
The goal was to enhance protection for the marine environment and streamline the licence renewal process, according to the port authority. The port said the changes were necessary as the program had not been updated in decades.
But for residents of Alderside Road, the terms appear to go far beyond that.
“I was just blown away,” said Dennis Nisbet, a retired real estate agent. “This contract is so one-sided, I don't think we can sign it.”
The agreement states that when the licence expires in 2030, owners will have one option to renew for another 10-year term. Unlike previous contracts, the language does not guarantee renewals, leaving owners fearing the agreements will not carry on past 2040.
It also removed a stipulation requiring “reasonable cause” to be shown if the port decides to terminate a licence.
In many cases, private property encroaches onto foreshore parcels owned by the federal government, so owners could technically be ordered to remove structures like retaining walls and decks if their licences were nixed.
Nisbet said this applies to his seawall, which serves as the structural anchor for his property. He said if he were forced to remove it, his house would collapse.
Owners are also concerned that their annual fees are being significantly increased starting in 2025.
As a result of the affected property owners' lobbying, the port has made changes. Initially, the terms let the port axe a licence with 30 days' notice; that has been extended to 15 months.
Language was added to clarify that licences can only be terminated to fulfil the port authority's mandate under the Canada Marine Act. Jennifer Natland, the port's vice-president of real estate, told owners in August on a conference call that it would only happen if an owner was in default of the licence or if the port was required by a court or governmental decision.
Another revision made it clear licensees would only be liable for pollution that they or their guests introduce into the environment.
While the updated licences do not authorize encroachments, neither did previous licences, Natland said, adding that licensees do not have to remove any structure unless ordered to. She said the port authority has never required an owner to remove encroachments.
Natland said that while the port expects to be issuing dock licences beyond 2040, they cannot predict the future legal and regulatory environment.
“That is a big part of the reason why we actually have termination clauses in the agreements,” Natland said. “Things change over time, the world changes, the context that we're operating in changes.”
Owners remain unconvinced. Sayer founded the Recreational Dock Owner Society to fight for contract changes.
Sayer said the assurances the port provided during the August meeting do not reflect the language actually in the contract.
If waterfront properties were to lose their waterfront access, he said it would slash property values.
“I paid a premium, as did everybody else along the waterfront, for not only the use of the waterfront, but all the encumbrances — as they refer to them — for my enjoyment,” Sayer said. “If I ever decide I want to sell my property, I'm going to take a punch in the nose.”