Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Ambitious Kelowna Mountain project faces legal challenge yet again

Lawsuit challenges regional district's authority over development
kelowna-mtn-castanet
Kelowna Mountain shortly after it opened in 2014.

Proponents of the planned Kelowna Mountain development are heading back to court.

In papers filed last month in B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver, Kelowna Mountain Limited Partnership is again taking the Regional District of Central Okanagan to court.

It comes two years after a similar suit filed in 2015 was dismissed when the judge determined the plaintiffs had “done little” to advance the claim since filing.

The court action seeks remedy from the court to overcome “a procedural hurdle” to be able to plead the particulars of the petition “or put in evidence the documents in support of the petition absent the court’s assistance as sought in the prayer for relief.”

Kelowna Mountain is suing the RDCO over claims the regional district overstepped its authority by adopting the South Slopes Official Community Plan in June 2012.

The suit says prior to that adoption the property just south of the City of Kelowna boundary was not covered by an official community plan and not subject to development permit requirements.

“RDCO subsequently enacted bylaws and resolutions and adopted land use policies under the authority ostensibly conferred by enactment of the OCP that affected generally the petitioners’ use and enjoyment of the property and specifically its proposed development,” the suit claims.

Mark Consiglio purchased about 640 hectares of land around 2005 with ambitious plans for a sprawling complex including a wine park, wine cave, suspension bridges, ski hill, golf course, amphitheatre and residential development.

The suit claims the regional district did not follow the required process for adopting the OCP was invalid and void making any subsequent bylaws and resolutions arising from the OCP unlawful.

The regional district has yet to respond to the filing.

Claims made in the suit have not been tested in a court of law.