Justice Giaschi delivered his decision today. Our petition was dismissed. We are considering an appeal. And on October 17, both petitioners in this case – myself (Jon Girard) and my fellow POVACS director Mayeli Alvarez – are on the ballot for Vancouver Park Board.
Here is what happened, plainly.
The Decision
The decision was delivered orally. Written reasons will follow. Until those are released, nobody – including us – has the Court's full reasoning. However, we are confident it was arrived at incorrectly. When it is published, we will publish it here in full.
What we can say is that the case turned substantially on the standard by which a court reviews a decision like this one. Our counsel argued the petition as a question the Court decides for itself. The decision did not proceed on that footing. That disagreement is not a complaint. It is the kind of question an appeal exists to settle. We have a very strong basis for one.
The Question Has Not Moved
In 2022 the City told voters, in its own Capital Plan and its own voter information package, that the first phase would focus on "the renewal of the 50m lap pool and diving pool." 77% said yes. What is being built is a 25-metre pool at a cost near $175 million.
How can you ask the public for one thing and then deliver another?
If that is permitted, then either plebiscite questions have to be drafted like twenty-page contracts, or public consultation in this city is not something a resident can rely on. Neither is a good outcome for anyone.
And the record is the record. The City's own Ausenco report (February 2023) found retaining and remediating the existing concrete "feasible and practical." An independent structural engineer found no cause for alarm in November 2025. The City's own procurement documents required three options to be studied. Internal emails show senior staff killed the 50-metre option in March 2024, before commissioners ever saw it. No ruling alters a document. Then City staff and the contracted architects were later involved in documented obstruction ahead of the March 2025 vote. We have also recently filed an Integrity Commissioner complaint regarding Tom Digby's code of conduct violations (more on that to follow shortly) after he sent Mayeli Alvarez and I an intimidation email one Thursday night at 10:30pm.
An Appeal Is Under Consideration
A notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of the order being pronounced. That clock is running now – which means the decision has to be made on the oral ruling, before the written reasons exist.
We have not made it yet, and we won't announce one before we have. Whether an appeal is viable is partly a question of what we can fund. The City's legal budget has no ceiling and is paid for by your taxes. Ours is residents, one contribution at a time. Chip in to the legal fund.
The Building – and Today's Deadline
On August 27, counsel wrote to the Court, with the agreement of counsel for the respondents, recording that the respondents intend to begin demolition on October 1, 2026, and must confirm with their contractor by September 16 to do it.
That is today. Nobody is compelling it. The contract can be confirmed later. Demolishing the building inside the appeal window does not resolve the question. It forecloses the answer.
Our ask costs the City nothing: hold the demolition, open the full record, and let the process finish.
Why We Are Running
A court rules on what was lawful. It does not decide what this city builds next, or who sits at the table when the next decision is made. Only voters do that – and that is exactly why Mayeli Alvarez and I are both standing for Park Board.
Seven commissioners will be elected on October 17. They will decide the Aquatic Centre site, Kitsilano, Kerrisdale, Britannia, Renfrew. Between us we have spent fourteen months reading the capital reports, the cost estimates and the internal correspondence on this project. We are not going to start learning it after October 18th. We want to make sure Kitsilano and all of the other community assets set for renewal don't turn out the way VAC did.
Today makes the ballot more important, not less.
If you have followed this campaign, the ask is simple: vote all the way down to Park Board — it is the section most people leave blank, and it is the section that decides this. Ask every candidate the specific question: will you vote to halt the current project and reopen the planning for a ten-lane, fifty-metre pool? Get it in writing. Ask them if they will retain the full width existing iconic 137.5 metre pool at Kitsilano. Get it in writing.
For journalists: We can walk you through the petition, the filed materials, and the engineering reports on the record. We will publish the written reasons as soon as they are released. Counsel is not available for comment. Click here to email us.
Last Updated: September 16th, 2026
With thanks,
Jon Girard Managing Director, PROTECTING OUR VANCOUVER AQUATIC CENTRE SOCIETY Candidate for Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation
PROTECTING OUR VANCOUVER AQUATIC CENTRE SOCIETY (S0083228) is a registered non-profit organization dedicated to democratic accountability and voter rights. The judicial review (Case No. S-263492) was brought pursuant to the Judicial Review Procedure Act. The sections of this article concerning the October 17 municipal election are published by Jon Girard in his personal capacity as a candidate.
