Law360 Canada ( December 1, 2021, 6:20 AM EST) -- Appeal by the Municipality from an order of a chambers judge quashing its decision that upheld the 2019 denial of a building permit on grounds that the respondent’s proposed use of the lands was not permitted under its Zoning Bylaw. In 2015, Mack, the Municipality’s then Director of Planning and Development, issued a development permit to the respondent for what the respondent argued was the same proposed land use in relation to an identically zoned portion of adjoining property. The permit authorized development of the respondent’s Phase One Property as a private vehicle testing and training facility, including a motor circuit and related clubhouse facilities. In 2018, the respondent applied for a development permit for the Phase Two Property for a circuit extension to the existing facility and to develop the Phase Two Property as a recreational roadway which would be used for testing vehicles, as a training facility for private, non-certified training, and as a site for temporary vehicle parking and storage. The primary use sought to make of the land was as a circuit or track for the testing of vehicles. In the 2019 decision, Conway, the Municipality’s Director of Planning and Building, determined that the respondent’s proposed use of the Phase Two property was not listed as a permitted use in the I2 Zone, and concluded that the proposed use did not fall within the scope of any permitted use, including industrial use, within the I2, Industrial Heavy, Zone. Specifically permitted uses in the Light Industrial Zone included Industrial Use and Service Industry. He considered Mack’s view that a private vehicle testing and training facility, including a motor circuit and clubhouse facility was permitted in the I2 Zone as an industrial use, and Mack’s rationale for coming to that conclusion. Conway came to a contrary conclusion for reasons he did not express. The chambers judge found it was unreasonable for the Municipality to depart from its past practices and decisions without providing an adequate explanation for doing so. The chambers judge concluded that neither the decision of Council nor the record as a whole provided the justification Vavilov required for the change in direction. The Municipality argued the respondent’s proposed use of the land in its 2018 development permit application was different from that which supported issuance of the 2015 development permit and that it was not bound by Mack’s interpretation of the bylaw and did not depart from any longstanding practice or established internal authority when it upheld Conway’s decision....