Why a judge dismissed the challenge to Vancouver Aquatic Centre's redevelopment | Daily Hive

Why a judge dismissed the challenge to Vancouver Aquatic Centre's redevelopment with a 25-metre pool

2025 concept of the new Vancouver Aquatic Centre. (MJMA Architecture & Design/Acton Ostry Architects/Vancouver Park Board)

The Supreme Court of British Columbia has dismissed a legal challenge by a community group and pool users to the City of Vancouver’s plan to replace Vancouver Aquatic Centre’s 50-metre lap swimming pool with a 25-metre pool in a complete redevelopment of the facility.

The decision upholds the municipal government’s authority to use $103 million in borrowing approved by voters in a plebiscite question on the 2022 civic election ballot for the replacement project, despite information distributed before the vote describing plans to renew the facility with a new 50-metre pool.

Justice Christopher Giaschi first orally announced his decision to dismiss the petition last week, and released the reasons in a detailed written ruling on Sept. 23, 2026.

The case was brought by Protecting Our Vancouver Aquatic Centre Society and Jonathan Girard, who is a society director and swimmer. They argued that the City could only use the voter-approved borrowing for a replacement that included a 50-metre lap pool.

The society sought to overturn the Vancouver Park Board’s approval of the shorter-pool plan and prevent the City and Park Board from spending the borrowed money on a facility without a 50-metre pool.

You might also like:

At the centre of the dispute was the difference between the City’s descriptions of the project before the 2022 civic election and the wording voters actually saw on their ballots.

The City’s capital plan and voter information package outlined a two-phase redevelopment, with the first phase focused on renewing the 50-metre lap pool and diving pool. However, the ballot question asked voters to authorize $103 million in borrowing to replace, renew or rehabilitate the Vancouver Aquatic Centre. It did not specify a pool length or require any particular amenities.

That funding formed part of a broader $162-million plebiscite borrowing question for community facilities, which received 68.4 per cent support from voters.

Justice Giaschi found that the City and Park Board could reasonably conclude that a replacement containing a 25-metre pool fell within the authorization voters had given them.

“It was reasonable for the Park Board and the City to conclude that a new VAC with a 25-metre pool came within the borrowing plebiscite that had been approved by the electors. In fact, in my view, they were correct to come to this conclusion,” he wrote.

The judge said references to a 50-metre pool in the earlier planning documents reflected the municipal government’s intentions at the time, which City staff had initially worked to pursue. They did not add a requirement that was absent from the ballot question.

“Nothing in the evidence supports the assertion that the City or the Park Board deliberately misled voters”

While some voters would have supported the borrowing because they expected a 50-metre pool, others could have supported it for different reasons, such as the diving facilities, he ruled.

He also warned that interpreting a clear ballot question through statements made before the vote would create uncertainty for the City’s financial planning, potentially exposing borrowing approvals to repeated challenges.

The court rejected the petitioners’ suggestion that the City had deliberately used general wording to mislead voters.

He found that both bodies had intended to include a 50-metre pool before and after the 2022 vote. The feasibility problems became apparent in 2024, after more detailed planning was underway.

“The decisions are subject to judicial review to a standard of reasonableness and were reasonable given the actual plebiscite question to which the voters gave their approval. Nothing in the evidence supports the assertion that the City or the Park Board deliberately misled voters,” wrote the judge in his ruling.

“At the time of the plebiscite, all parties involved anticipated that the renewed facility would include a 50-metre pool. The subsequent change resulted from feasibility constraints identified during the design process.”

February 2025 preliminary concept of the new Vancouver Aquatic Centre. (Acton Ostry Architects/MJMA Architecture and Design)

Vancouver Aquatic Centre first opened in 1974 at Sunset Beach Park next to the Burrard Street Bridge in Downtown Vancouver’s West End neighbourhood. The original budget to renew the aging facility was $140 million, including the $103 million in voter-approved borrowing and $37 million from development contributions.

According to City staff reports reviewed by the judge, replacing the existing 50-metre pool involved more than fitting another tank of the same length into the building.

As previously elaborated by Park Board staff and the project team in Spring 2025, a modern facility needed more space around the pool for accessibility and day-to-day use, along with changes to meet current pool design standards. Park Board staff concluded that a 50-metre pool could not be accommodated within the existing building footprint alongside the other planned aquatic amenities while meeting the required standards.

Expanding beyond that land area footprint presented further difficulties, including restrictions associated with the bridge, Beach Avenue, and the shoreline, sea-level rise considerations, land ownership issues, and uncertainty about geotechnical conditions for complex construction.

Park Board staff previously noted that incorporating a 50-metre pool would require redesigning the waterfront project with a larger building footprint, significantly increasing construction costs. They also warned that the time needed to perform the additional design work could push the project beyond the end-of-2026 deadline they identified for awarding construction contracts and starting construction, potentially jeopardizing legal access to the $103 million in borrowing approved by voters in the 2022 civic election.

If voter re-approval for the project’s borrowing were required, putting the project back on the ballot in the 2026 civic election could also complicate funding for other capital projects and priorities that depend on borrowing and require similar voter approval.

The redevelopment was fast-tracked as a capital plan priority after part of the exterior wall near the main entrance collapsed in March 2022. The facility’s deteriorating condition was made evident again in November 2025, when a piece of concrete fell from the ceiling into a pool lane. The aquatic centre reopened after a three-week closure, during which protective ceiling netting was installed.

Park Board staff also reported that the existing pool had been unable to accommodate 50-metre competitive swim meets since the mid-1990s because of updated aquatic regulations, although the facility continued to serve local swimmers, divers, and clubs and host swim competitions using a 25-metre course.

Interior of the now-closed Vancouver Aquatic Centre. (Stephanie Braconnier/Shutterstock)

A partial collapse of the exterior wall near the main entrance of the aging Vancouver Aquatic Centre in March 2022. (Daily Hive)

After the initial controversy in early 2025 when it was first revealed that a 25-metre pool was being contemplated for the new facility’s primary tank, Park Board commissioners initially asked their staff to reconsider a 50-metre pool. However, after a month, further analysis again concluded that the longer pool could not fit within the existing footprint while meeting the required standards and retaining the other amenities and features.

In March 2025, Park Board commissioners approved proceeding with the 25-metre option. Vancouver City Council subsequently approved an additional $35 million for the project’s concept in June 2025, bringing its budget to $175 million.

Overall, this concept incorporates a 25-metre lap pool, diving pool, leisure pool and hot pool, along with steam and sauna rooms. It also includes a fitness gym and a multipurpose space.

The society and other advocates for retaining a 50-metre pool repeatedly argue that replacing it with a 25-metre pool would be devastating for swim clubs and organizations that rely on the longer pool for training and recreation. Over the years, this aquatic centre has helped develop many youth swimmers, including individuals who went on to represent Canada at the Olympics.

They argue that displaced youth, elite swimmers, and groups would have few alternatives, given the shortage of 50-metre pools across Vancouver and the wider region. The already-busy Hillcrest Aquatic Centre operated by the Park Board offers the only 50-metre alternative within the city.

Park Board staff previously indicated that programs at Hillcrest Aquatic Centre that do not require a 50-metre pool could be moved to other smaller aquatic centres. This would free up space to temporarily accommodate clubs and organizations displaced from the Vancouver Aquatic Centre for several years.

“It is not the role of the court to assess whether a 50-metre pool is required or needed”

Justice Giaschi emphasized that the court’s role was to determine whether the municipal government had acted within their legal powers. It was not deciding whether the Metro Vancouver region needed a 50-metre pool or whether building a facility with a shorter pool represented good value for public money.

“This is a petition for judicial review and, as such, is not concerned with policy considerations. In particular, it is not the role of the court to assess whether a 50-metre pool is required or needed in Metro Vancouver or whether the construction of a facility with only a 25-metre pool is a good use of public funds,” reads the ruling.

“Rather, the role of this court is to review the actions and decisions of the Park Board and the City to determine if they have exercised their powers in a manner consistent with statutory and constitutional constraints.”

The dismissal follows an earlier unsuccessful legal petition attempt by the society to prevent the existing aquatic centre from closing. In preparation for demolition, the facility permanently closed in late June 2026, ending operations after half a century.

Just days before the closure, Justice Giaschi refused a request for an interim order to keep the existing facility open, finding that the society had not established “they would be irreparably harmed if the injunction was refused and that the balance of convenience favoured the respondents because there were ongoing safety risks with the VAC remaining open to the public.”

When they approved the revised project last year, Park Board commissioners also affirmed a commitment to build a new 50-metre pool somewhere in Vancouver within the following 10 years. Similar commitments have also been expressed by City Council.

Society leaders to appeal ruling and run for Park Board in civic election, as demolition now begins

After Justice Giaschi released his written ruling on Sept. 23, 2026, the society announced it would appeal the decision.

The announcement came just over a week before demolition of the existing aquatic centre is scheduled to begin on Oct. 1, 2026. In July 2025, the City approved a $3.5 million contract with Heatherbrae Builders to carry out the demolition.

Since Giaschi delivered his oral decision last week, the society has raised thousands of dollars through crowdfunding to help cover an estimated $5,000 in legal costs to launch the appeal. As of today, the society has cumulatively raised more than $110,000 through crowdfunding for its advocacy and legal battle efforts since its launch last year.

“Nothing requires this building to come down in the next eight days. Not the site. Not the budget. Not the contract. This facility has stood for fifty years; it can stand for two more weeks,” the society said on its website when announcing its plans to appeal.

“We will say plainly what we believe: the timing is vindictive, and profoundly anti-democratic. It is the one decision in this entire file that cannot be undone, and it has been scheduled for the narrow window before the public gets a say. In the Society’s view, that is not a coincidence — it is the point.”

Interior of the now-closed Vancouver Aquatic Centre. (Stephanie Braconnier/Shutterstock)

Interior of the now-closed Vancouver Aquatic Centre. (City of Vancouver)

Girard and Mayeli Alvarez, another leader of the society, are also running for seats on the Park Board in the civic election on Oct. 17, 2026. Both are candidates under Colleen Hardwick’s TEAM For A Livable Vancouver party.

“We are not politicians. Neither of us has ever run for anything. Fourteen months ago we started asking questions about this project because the answers were not adding up, and we assumed somebody in authority would look at what we found and fix it. Nobody did. So we are going to the table ourselves,” they said on the society’s website earlier this month when announcing their candidacies.

Embedded in their platform, TEAM has promised to “retain a world-class 50-metre pool at the Vancouver Aquatic Centre.”

In addition to the public safety plebiscite questions, the 2026 civic election includes three capital plan questions asking voters to approve $790 million in borrowing. This would help fund $3.5 billion in new and upgraded facilities and infrastructure over the coming years, including $338 million for the “replacement, renewal, or rehabilitation of community facilities, including aging community centres, pools, or other community facility projects including buildings such as rinks, libraries, childcare facilities and social facilities.”

The 2026 capital plan plebiscite questions and accompanying information are broadly worded, leaving the details of individual projects open-ended. This is particularly notable given the controversy over the Vancouver Aquatic Centre renewal description presented to voters ahead of the 2022 capital plan borrowing vote.

In March 2026, Park Board commissioners approved a member motion calling for an independent performance audit by the City’s Auditor General of the project’s planning and decision-making process. Part of the controversy stems from the lack of consultation with clubs and user groups, which were completely caught off guard by Park Board staff’s recommendation in early 2025 to proceed with a 25-metre pool instead of the 50-metre pool they had expected for years.

The Auditor General’s office has not yet indicated whether it will audit the project’s design and planning process. Its publicly available audit schedule currently extends through 2028.

You might also like: