The timeline is damning:
- October 2023: Comprehensive geotechnical testing conducted across an expanded footprint area
- February 24, 2025: Officials tell Park Board expansion is "not feasible"
- March 31, 2025: Park Board approves scaled-down 25-meter pool design
- June 4, 2025: Date stamped on technical drawings showing "maximum building footprint"
- October 10, 2025: Drawings finally released via FOI request
This sequence proves either: (1) expansion studies existed before approval but were deliberately withheld from commissioners, or (2) the City conducted studies after approval contradicting their sworn testimony. Either scenario constitutes material misrepresentation to elected officials and taxpayers.
What the Documents Show
The geotechnical investigation package includes:
Testhole Location Plans (Figures 1, 2, 3) - Aerial site plans showing multiple boundary types:
- Red line: Site perimeter (property boundary)
- Purple line with diagonal purple fill: "Maximum building footprint" - extending significantly beyond the current building envelope in multiple directions
- The purple maximum footprint boundary shows substantial expansion potential toward Beach Avenue (north), westward, and eastward within the property
Tetra Tech explicitly delineated a construction-feasible footprint (purple) that's distinct from both the current building and the overall site perimeter. That's a deliberate professional judgment about what can be built, which makes the "expansion not feasible" claims even more contradictory.
Ten Strategic Bore Holes positioned throughout the expanded footprint area:
- Sonic holes: SH23-01 (15.39m deep), SH23-02 (16.8m), SH23-03 (9.2m)
- Auger holes with monitoring wells: AH/MW23-05, 06, 10
- Additional auger holes: AH23-04, 07, 08, 09
Comprehensive Soil Analysis showing entirely typical Vancouver waterfront construction conditions with no deal-breakers that would prevent expansion.
Timeline of Deception: How We Got Here
August 18, 2025: Filing the Judicial Review
Following months of public opposition to the scaled-down aquatic centre design, we filed a petition for judicial review in BC Supreme Court challenging the process that led to Park Board's approval. Our concerns centered on procedural irregularities and what appeared to be speculative, fear-based assertions used to pressure commissioners.
August 20, 2025: The FOI Request
Two days after filing our petition, we submitted a comprehensive Freedom of Information request seeking:
-
Archaeological impact assessments - Referenced by Acton Ostry: "there have been assessments that have determined that there's a high potential for archaeological finds on this site"
-
Geotechnical bore-hole logs - To verify claims about soil conditions and site constraints
-
Shoring engineering reports - Essential for understanding excavation requirements
-
Class B cost comparisons for 50m versus 25m pool options - To verify cost claims made during deliberations
The expectation was simple: if officials made definitive statements about feasibility, archaeology, and costs at the hearing, supporting documentation must exist. This was about establishing whether their language was evidence-based or purely speculative.
August 25, 2025: Development application submitted (DP-2025-00685)
5 days (3 business days) following our FOI submission and only a week after our judicial review filing, the City of Vancouver officially files their development application for the Vancouver Aquatic Centre. Coincidence?
September 23, 2025: The Suspicious Response
Rather than the standard 30-day turnaround, the City's initial response invoked a delay provision claiming the records "contain information that may affect the business interests of a third party" and that disclosure decisions wouldn't come until November 6, 2025.
This raised immediate red flags. How can taxpayer-funded studies on public land for a public facility contain proprietary "business interests"? The answer: they cannot.
After consulting BC's Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, we discovered Section 25 explicitly requires immediate disclosure when information is clearly in the public interest - regardless of other provisions. A $175 million taxpayer project facing significant opposition unquestionably meets this threshold.
October 8, 2025: Legal Intervention
Our lawyer at Bojm, Funt & Gibbons sent a formal letter to the City's FOI director demanding immediate cessation of the improperly invoked delays and release of the documents. We cited Section 25 and the clear public interest in disclosure.
October 10, 2025: The City Backs Down
One day after the development permit public comment period opened, the City surrendered. The FOI response arrived with a stark revelation:
What did NOT exist:
- ❌ Archaeological impact assessments
- ❌ Shoring engineering reports
- ❌ Class B cost comparisons for 50m vs 25m options
What DID exist:
- ✓ Complete geotechnical bore-hole logs from October 2023
- ✓ Testhole location plans showing "maximum building footprint"
- ✓ Comprehensive soil analysis supporting expanded construction
The contrast is damning: officials possessed concrete evidence supporting expansion possibilities while claiming such studies would cost tens of thousands of dollars and cause debilitating delays.
What Commissioners Were Told vs. What Actually Existed
The February 24, 2025 Park Board hearing was dominated by language designed to foreclose discussion of alternatives and create urgency around approving the scaled-down design. Let's compare what officials said to what the technical evidence shows.
On Site Constraints and Expansion Feasibility
Craig Crawford (Director, Facilities Planning) - 00:39:18:
they quickly realized that an expansion from the existing footprint was not going to be feasible
Acton Ostry (Project Architect) - 01:19:03:
we are constrained by the existing footprint... Going beyond that would trigger some requirements for an approval by the province... Any expansion, if it was in fact even approved, would then take us, which is unknown, which is a significant schedule risk, would require rezoning of the property as well
What the bore-hole logs show:
Tetra Tech's testhole location plans explicitly map a "maximum building footprint" and position bore holes to assess ground conditions across this expanded area. The soil analysis reveals entirely standard conditions - sand fill over glacial till over bedrock - with Standard Penetration Test values (SPT N=43-50+) indicating excellent bearing capacity.
No geotechnical constraints prevent expansion. The professional engineers conducting the investigation clearly believed expansion was viable enough to map maximum limits and test throughout that area.
On Soil Conditions
Acton Ostry - 01:20:24:
there are potential soil issues, but, you know—we deal with unusual soil conditions all the time
What the bore-hole logs show:
Bore hole SH23-01 (15.39m deep): Standard fill material, dense sand/silt layers (SPT N>50), sandstone bedrock at 11m depth. Bore hole SH23-02 (16.8m deep): Similar profile with dense till-like material. Bore hole SH23-03 (9.2m): Standard topsoil, sand fill, till material.
These are textbook Vancouver waterfront conditions supporting high-rise construction throughout downtown. Nothing "unusual" or problematic. Ostry was technically correct that they "deal with unusual soil conditions all the time" - but misleading commissioners by implying this site presented such conditions.
On Archaeological Assessment
Acton Ostry - during hearing:
there have been assessments that have determined that there's a high potential for archaeological finds on this site
Tiina Mack (Director, Planning and Park Development) - during hearing:
There'd be a number of additional technical feasibility studies that would have to be undertaken. We talked about the soil condition, geo-technically as well as archaeologically. So order magnitude on those is probably 50 to 70,000 [dollars] per study.
What the FOI response confirms:
Zero archaeological impact assessments were ever conducted.
Ostry's statement used present perfect tense ("there have been assessments") implying completed work. This was false. Mack's statement used future tense ("would have to be undertaken") while providing specific cost estimates, creating the impression that while not yet done, the work was scoped and expensive.
The reality: Pure speculation presented as established fact to intimidate commissioners into accepting the reduced scope.
On Cost Comparisons
Throughout the hearing, officials made definitive statements about the cost implications of a 50-meter pool versus the proposed 25-meter design, suggesting the larger facility was financially prohibitive.
What the FOI response confirms:
Zero Class B cost comparisons between the 50m and 25m options were ever conducted.
How can officials make authoritative claims about cost differences without conducting comparative cost analysis? They cannot - unless the goal is to manufacture justification for a predetermined outcome rather than genuinely evaluating alternatives.
On Timeline and Urgency
Acton Ostry - 00:40:15:
essentially, the question before you today is really, it's a go or no go decision on this pool
Acton Ostry - 01:19:03:
What we're presenting today is a scope and budget that's achievable within a schedule that requires, as I said earlier, this go no go decision now. Any delay, any redesign, will put the project at significant risk.
What the timeline shows:
The "go no go" ultimatum was artificial. The bore-hole investigations were completed in October 2023 - sixteen months before the February 2025 hearing. Testhole location plans dated June 4, 2025 show continued technical development months after approval.
If additional studies would cause "significant schedule risk," why was the City still preparing technical drawings showing maximum footprint options in June 2025?
The urgency was manufactured to prevent commissioners from demanding the alternatives analysis they should have received.
Technical Analysis: What the Bore-Hole Logs Actually Reveal
For those interested in the engineering details, here's what Tetra Tech's comprehensive geotechnical investigation found:
Site Conditions Are Ideal for Construction
Fill Layer (0-3m depth):
Typical urban fill material consisting of sand, silt, and gravel with brick fragments - standard for redeveloped sites. Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCPT) results show increasing density with depth.
Glacial Till (3-7m depth):
Dense to very dense sand and silt layers (Till-like material) with SPT N-values of 43-50+, indicating excellent bearing capacity. This is high-quality founding material capable of supporting significant structural loads.
Bedrock (7-15m depth):
Sandstone, ranging from highly weathered at shallow depths to slightly weathered to fresh rock at depth. Provides ultimate bearing capacity for deep foundations if required.
Groundwater:
Water table encountered at expected depths for waterfront sites. Standard dewatering methods would apply during construction - nothing unusual or cost-prohibitive.
No Deal-Breaker Conditions
Notably absent from all bore-hole logs:
- ❌ Contaminated soils requiring remediation
- ❌ Unstable clay layers requiring ground improvement
- ❌ Subsurface voids or karst conditions
- ❌ Artesian groundwater conditions
- ❌ Any conditions that would preclude foundation construction
The soil profile encountered is entirely typical for Vancouver False Creek waterfront construction and presents no technical obstacles that haven't been routinely overcome in similar projects throughout the area.
Strategic Positioning of Test Holes
The placement of bore holes is particularly revealing:
SH23-01: Positioned near the northwest corner of the maximum footprint boundary
SH23-02: Northwestern expansion area toward Beach Avenue
SH23-03: Western expansion area
AH23-04, AH/MW23-05: Central and southern areas of the expanded footprint
AH/MW23-06: Eastern side of expanded area
AH23-07, AH23-08: Northern boundary investigation
AH23-09: Far western expansion limit
AH/MW23-10: Eastern perimeter
This distribution demonstrates that Tetra Tech was systematically assessing ground conditions across the entire "maximum building footprint" area - not just within the existing building envelope. You don't conduct this comprehensive investigation pattern unless you're evaluating expansion options.
The Provincial Approval Red Herring
Acton Ostry's statement that footprint expansion would "trigger some requirements for an approval by the province" and require "rezoning of the property" deserves scrutiny.
On provincial approval:
Vancouver parks are governed by the Vancouver Charter and Park Board By-laws. While provincial processes exist for certain park alienations, expanding a recreational facility footprint within existing park boundaries does not automatically trigger provincial oversight - particularly when the expansion remains well within the overall site shown in the Tetra Tech plans.
On rezoning:
Parks are not subject to conventional zoning bylaws like private property. Park Board has authority over park uses and development. The invocation of "rezoning" appears designed to suggest regulatory complexity where Park Board authorities would likely suffice.
These claims created perception of insurmountable regulatory obstacles without providing specifics about which statutes, regulations, or approval processes actually applied.
The June 4, 2025 Date: Smoking Gun Evidence
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this entire affair is the date stamped on Tetra Tech's testhole location plans showing the "maximum building footprint": June 4, 2025.
This is more than two months after Park Board approved the scaled-down 25-meter pool design on March 31, 2025.
Why Would Post-Approval Technical Drawings Exist?
Several scenarios could explain this:
Scenario 1: The drawings existed before approval but carried forward dates
If technical drawings showing maximum footprint were prepared before the Park Board vote but dated June 2025, this suggests they were being updated or revised after approval - meaning the City was still actively working on footprint alternatives even after commissioners were told expansion was impossible.
Scenario 2: New drawings were created after approval
If these drawings were genuinely created in June 2025, the City commissioned studies showing viable expansion after securing approval based on claims expansion wasn't feasible. This would constitute material misrepresentation - obtaining approval through false statements, then conducting studies that contradicted those statements.
Scenario 3: The drawings existed before approval but were deliberately withheld
If drawings showing maximum feasible footprint existed before February 2025 but were not provided to Park Board commissioners, this represents deliberate suppression of material evidence relevant to the decision.
All three scenarios constitute serious breaches of public trust and potentially fraudulent misrepresentation to elected officials.
Standard Engineering Practice
In standard practice, geotechnical investigations are conducted early in project development to inform design decisions. The bore-hole testing occurred in October 2023. Site plans showing testhole locations and maximum building footprints would typically be prepared contemporaneously with or shortly after field investigations.
The June 4, 2025 date on these plans - nineteen months after field work - suggests either:
- Significant revisions were made to the plans after the Park Board decision, or
- The plans existed earlier but were not disclosed to commissioners when relevant
Either interpretation supports our allegation that commissioners were denied access to complete technical information showing expansion was feasible.
Addressing the 'Comprehensive Data Collection' Defense
If the maximum footprint was merely comprehensive data collection, then City staff possessed geotechnical evidence showing soil conditions were suitable across a larger area. This evidence should have been disclosed to Park Board commissioners along with the statement: 'We collected data across this larger area and can confirm soil conditions would support expansion if the Board wishes to explore that option.'
If the maximum footprint represented genuine exploration of expansion options, then City staff conducted feasibility studies for larger designs but chose not to present these alternatives to commissioners - a clear failure of proper alternatives analysis.
In either interpretation, commissioners were denied access to material information about site capabilities when making their decision. The question is not whether the City 'secretly planned' to expand, but whether commissioners were given complete information about what was technically feasible.
Implications: A Pattern of Procedural Failures
This FOI response exposes not isolated errors but a systematic pattern of failures in how this project was presented to decision-makers:
1. Definitive Statements Without Supporting Evidence
Officials made authoritative claims about feasibility, costs, archaeology, and timelines without conducting the basic due diligence studies that would support such statements. This transforms "expert opinion" into "expert speculation" - inappropriate for a $175 million decision.
2. Artificial Urgency to Foreclose Alternatives
The "go no go" framing and timeline pressure were manufactured. With geotechnical studies completed sixteen months before the hearing and technical drawings still being developed months after approval, there was no genuine deadline forcing an immediate decision.
3. Selective Presentation of Technical Information
The City possessed geotechnical evidence showing expanded footprint was technically viable but presented only information supporting the predetermined 25-meter design. This is the opposite of transparent, evidence-based decision-making.
4. Post-Approval Studies Contradicting Pre-Approval Testimony
The June 2025 technical drawings showing maximum footprint suggest the City's own contractors believed expansion was viable enough to map its limits - contradicting what commissioners were told when they voted.
5. FOI Process Obstruction
The City's attempt to delay disclosure by invoking "third party business interests" - for taxpayer-funded studies on public land for a public facility - suggests awareness that these documents were damaging to their position.
What Happens Next
We are working with our legal team at Bojm, Funt & Gibbons to file an amended petition in our ongoing judicial review, incorporating this new evidence. The amended petition will argue:
Material Misrepresentation: City officials and consultants made false or misleading statements about technical feasibility, archaeological concerns, and cost comparisons that materially influenced Park Board's decision.
Failure of Procedural Fairness: Commissioners were denied access to complete technical information (bore-hole logs showing maximum footprint) while being pressured with artificial timeline urgency.
Breach of Fiduciary Duty: City staff failed in their duty to provide complete, accurate information to Park Board commissioners making a generational decision about public infrastructure.
Suppression of Material Evidence: Technical drawings showing viable expansion options either existed before approval and were withheld, or were created after approval contradicting sworn testimony - both scenarios demonstrate bad faith.
Additional FOI Requests Planned
We have submitted follow-up FOI requests seeking:
- Internal communications between City staff, consultants, and Tetra Tech regarding the bore-hole investigation and maximum footprint determination
- All drafts and versions of the testhole location plans to establish when the "maximum building footprint" was first identified
- Communications between City staff and Park Board commissioners regarding site constraints and technical feasibility
- Records of any design alternatives exploring the maximum footprint that were developed but not presented to Park Board
- Meeting minutes, emails, and decision documents explaining why technical evidence of viable expansion was not disclosed
Public Records Request to Tetra Tech
As a private engineering firm, Tetra Tech is not subject to FOI legislation. However, we are planning on submitting a formal request asking them to voluntarily disclose:
- When they first informed the City that an expanded footprint was technically feasible
- Whether they prepared any reports or recommendations regarding optimal building footprint that were not presented to Park Board
- Whether they were directed by the City to limit their analysis or recommendations regarding expansion options
Professional engineers have ethical obligations under their licensing requirements. We believe Tetra Tech's professionals will want to ensure their work is not being misrepresented.
Call to Action: Vancouver Deserves Accountability
This investigation has revealed what many suspected: the Vancouver Aquatic Centre approval process was corrupted by incomplete information, speculative claims presented as facts, and suppression of evidence showing alternatives were viable.
A $175 million generational investment in public infrastructure approved under these circumstances cannot stand. The process violated basic principles of transparent, evidence-based governance that taxpayers have every right to expect.
What You Can Do
1. Share this investigation: The mainstream media has largely failed to scrutinize this project's approval process. Help spread awareness through social media, community groups, and local representatives.
2. Contact your elected officials:
- Park Board Commissioners: Demand answers about why they weren't provided complete technical information
- City Council: Ask why staff suppressed evidence of viable expansion options
- Provincial representatives: Request investigation into whether procedural requirements were met
3. Submit comments on the development permit (DP-2025-00685):
The development permit public comment period is currently open. Reference this FOI evidence in your submissions and demand the project be redesigned to explore the maximum feasible footprint.
4. Support the judicial review:
Our legal challenge is the only formal mechanism holding the City accountable for this deceptive process. Follow our updates and consider supporting our efforts.
5. Demand an independent investigation:
The BC Ombudsperson has authority to investigate municipal government conduct. File complaints demanding investigation into:
- Why technical evidence was withheld from Park Board commissioners
- Why definitive claims were made without supporting studies
- Whether the FOI process was improperly obstructed
Conclusion: The Truth Will Prevail
For months, the very few supporters of this scaled-down and significantly opposed aquatic centre design have accused critics of being obstructionist, unrealistic, or motivated by anti-development sentiment.
This FOI response proves the opposite: critics were right to question the process, right to demand evidence for officials' claims, and right to insist that a $175 million decision deserves rigorous alternatives analysis.
The bore-hole logs don't lie. Professional engineers at Tetra Tech mapped a "maximum building footprint" and systematically tested ground conditions across an expanded area because they believed expansion was technically viable. The soil conditions they found support that conclusion.
City officials knew or should have known this when they told Park Board commissioners that footprint expansion was "not feasible." They knew or should have known this when they created artificial timeline pressure with "go no go" ultimatums. They knew or should have known this when they claimed archaeological and cost studies would be prohibitively expensive while sitting on completed geotechnical studies.
The question is no longer whether mistakes were made - the evidence is conclusive. The question is whether anyone will be held accountable, and whether this corrupted decision will be allowed to stand.
We will continue this fight in the courts and the public square until Vancouver gets the transparent, evidence-based governance its citizens deserve, and the 50m pool it deserves.
For technical professionals: The complete bore-hole log package (City of Vancouver FOI 2025-558) is available for review. We encourage engineers, architects, and construction professionals to examine the geotechnical data independently and assess our conclusions.
For journalists: We are available for interviews and can provide additional documentation supporting these findings. Click here to email us.
For legal observers: We welcome analysis of the procedural issues identified in this investigation and the potential legal remedies available.
Last Updated: October 14, 2025
Next Update: Following submission of amended judicial review petition
This investigation is ongoing. Follow our website for updates as new information becomes available through FOI responses, legal proceedings, and public records requests.
