Quest University is suing the District of Squamish, demanding the municipality pay back fees the school believes were collected unfairly.
In a statement of claim filed in court, the school accuses the District of breaking an agreement that exempts Quest from development cost charges.
鈥淭he defendant has breached its contract with Quest by failing to continue to offer the exemption for development cost charges for the land,鈥� alleges the school in its notice of civil claim. 鈥淎s a result, Quest will suffer loss and damage.鈥� 聽
Quest is asking the District to pay damages resulting from what the school is calling 鈥渦njust enrichment.鈥澛�
However, it鈥檚 unclear, how much 鈥� if any 鈥� money was allegedly collected unfairly by the District, as there are no dollar figures in the statement. Quest was unable to provide numbers when asked by The Chief, and the District says it has collected no development cost charges.
The school is also asking the courts to bar the District from collecting any more development cost charges associated with the school鈥檚 lands.
In 2001, the Sea to Sky Foundation struck a non-binding agreement with the District about the lands where Quest would be built, according to the notice of civil claim. The Sea to Sky Foundation was the charity that owned the lands where Quest was built.
Following the agreement, it was determined Quest would pay development cost charges of $8,000 per housing unit and for every 3,000 square feet of neighbourhood commercial space.聽
The costs would go to paying for the off-site works, which refers to infrastructure that can include pipes, roads, bridges, sidewalks, pumps, valves and meters, among other things.
In exchange, the District was expected to provide a $5-million revolving fund to finance the construction of those off-site works for up to 20 years.
The civil claim says a draft partnering agreement was then signed with the initials of the parties鈥� representatives.
But in 2002, the District was unable to satisfy the conditions in this draft agreement, as it could not meet the financing requirements for the off-site works, Quest said in its claim.
As an alternative measure, the District council opted to remove the development cost charges in exchange for Quest becoming responsible for installing all off-site works, as well as the associated costs, according to the school.
The school says that in 2005 the District adopted a bylaw that exempted Quest鈥檚 land from development cost charges.
This land was then developed by the Sea to Sky Foundation, which spent more than $7.6 million building the off-site works, the claim states.
The foundation later gave its property to Quest.
But in 2015, says the school, the District adopted a bylaw that would impose development cost charges by removing the exemption previously granted to Quest鈥檚 lands.聽
However, the District agreed to avoid enforcing the bylaw for one year.
The non-enforcement period has since expired and the District has told Quest that it must pay development cost charges for the land.
Quest has been asking the District to put back the exemption, but to no avail.
The District defended itself against the allegations, saying the motion resulted from a decision by the provincial ministry responsible for overseeing local governments.
In a brief emailed statement provided to the Chief, Mayor Patricia Heintzman wrote:聽
鈥淎s was discussed in public meetings in 2015 when the Development Cost Charge (DCC) Bylaw was amended, this was a decision made by the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development. The Ministry has made it very clear that these lands are not eligible for exemption from DCCs under the provincial legislation.鈥�
As of press time, the District says it has not filed a statement of defence because it has not been served with a notice of civil claim.
However, Quest鈥檚 claim has been available for viewing in the Vancouver court registry since March 16.聽
When prompted for a response to the District鈥檚 statement, Quest referred The Chief to Shan Trouton of Rostrum Developments.
Trouton, who works as a real estate consultant for Quest, said that even if the Ministry of Community had a hand in the decision, the District still has some responsibility in the matter.
鈥淲e think that the municipality can do more, and we think that they鈥檙e in a position to solve the situation,鈥� he said.
He also said it鈥檚 unfair for Quest to be charged development cost charges when the school has already paid the bills for infrastructure.聽
鈥淣ow to pay all the costs and then have to pay DCC fees for the same costs on top of that is just unjust and frankly, it鈥檚 double-dipping,鈥� he said.
鈥淲e just don鈥檛 think it鈥檚 fair to pay twice for the costs,鈥� he added.
None of the allegations have been proven in court.
Quest is registered as a non-profit organization and is one of the few post-secondary institutions to offer courses on a block system, which means students start and complete subjects one at a time.
Tuition for its upcoming school year is expected to rise to about $34,000 for both Canadian and international students.
The school made more than $24 million between 2015 and 2016.
But its expenses exceeded $28 million in the same period.
In that time, Quest paid out more than $9.1 million to 88 full-time and 282 part-time employees, with its highest earning full-time employee falling in the $250,000 to $299,999 income bracket.
