Court dismisses challenge to replace Vancouver Aquatic Centre’s 50-metre pool with a 25-metre facility

The Story

The Supreme Court of British Columbia has dismissed a legal challenge brought by a community group and pool users to Vancouver’s plan to redevelop the Vancouver Aquatic Centre by replacing its 50-metre lap pool with a 25-metre pool, preserving the City and Vancouver Park Board’s authority to proceed using $103 million in borrowing approved by voters in the 2022 civic election.

Justice Christopher Giaschi issued the written reasons on Sept. 23, 2026, following an oral decision last week to dismiss the petition brought by the Protecting Our Vancouver Aquatic Centre Society and director Jonathan Girard, a swimmer. The ruling upholds the municipal decision-making that the project falls within the scope of the borrowing authorization voters approved, despite information circulated before the vote that described plans aimed at renewing the facility with a new 50-metre pool.

At the heart of the dispute was the wording of the 2022 plebiscite question. The City’s capital plan and voter information package described a two-phase redevelopment in which Phase 1 would renew a 50-metre lap pool and diving pool. However, the ballot question authorized $103 million “to replace, renew or rehabilitate” the Vancouver Aquatic Centre and did not specify pool length or require particular amenities.

The petition sought to overturn the Park Board’s approval of a revised design featuring a shorter primary pool, and to prevent the City and Park Board from spending the voter-approved borrowing on a project that, in the petitioners’ view, no longer met what voters expected from a 50-metre replacement. The Protecting Our Vancouver Aquatic Centre Society argued that the City could only use the borrowing for a replacement that included a 50-metre lap pool.

Justice Giaschi found that it was reasonable for both the Park Board and the City to conclude that a replacement containing a 25-metre pool was within the authorization voters had approved. He wrote that the Park Board and City were correct to conclude that a new Vancouver Aquatic Centre with a 25-metre pool fell within the plebiscite borrowing question supported by electors.

In the reasons, the judge said references to a 50-metre pool in earlier planning documents reflected the City’s intended direction at the time those documents were prepared and were not evidence that a requirement absent from the ballot question had been imposed through pre-vote materials. He also noted that some voters might have supported the borrowing for reasons other than expecting a renewed 50-metre lap pool, including the continued provision of diving facilities.

The court rejected the petitioners’ suggestion that the municipal government deliberately misled voters. Justice Giaschi stated that nothing in the evidence supported a claim of deliberate misleading, and he cautioned that treating clear ballot wording as something to be overridden by pre-vote statements could undermine certainty in financial planning and invite repeat challenges to borrowing approvals.

The judgment emphasized the limits of what the court can decide in a judicial review. Justice Giaschi wrote that the court’s task was not to decide whether Metro Vancouver needs a 50-metre pool or whether building with only a 25-metre pool represents good value. Instead, he said the court must review whether the Park Board and the City acted within their legal powers and in a manner consistent with statutory and constitutional constraints.

The case followed earlier efforts to keep the existing facility open. Vancouver Aquatic Centre permanently closed in late June 2026 after roughly half a century of operations. Days before the closure, Justice Giaschi refused a request for an interim order, concluding the society had not established that it would face irreparable harm if the injunction was denied, and finding there were ongoing safety risks associated with keeping the VAC open to the public.

According to information reviewed in court reasons, the redevelopment was fast-tracked after part of the exterior wall near the main entrance collapsed in March 2022. The condition of the building deteriorated further later, including an incident in November 2025 when a piece of concrete fell from the ceiling into a pool lane; the centre reopened after a three-week closure that included installing protective ceiling netting.

Court materials also describe how the existing pool had not been able to host 50-metre competitive swim meets since the mid-1990s due to updated aquatic regulations, although it continued to be used for local swimmers, divers, clubs and meets using a 25-metre course. That context was part of the broader dispute over what a replacement should enable for competitive swimming and community use.

The reasons describe why the City and Park Board shifted away from fitting a 50-metre pool. Park Board staff had previously indicated that accommodating a 50-metre pool in the existing building footprint while meeting accessibility and modern pool design standards was not feasible alongside other planned aquatic amenities. Expanding the footprint posed further complications tied to waterfront constraints, bridge and shoreline factors, sea-level rise considerations, land ownership issues, and uncertainty about geotechnical conditions for construction.

The Park Board’s earlier planning material also warned that redesigning for a longer pool could significantly increase construction costs and potentially push the project beyond an end-of-2026 timeframe identified for awarding construction contracts and starting construction, which staff said could jeopardize legal access to the $103 million borrowing approved by voters. The reasons also describe potential complications if re-approval were required for the borrowing.

The petitioners’ position contrasted with the City’s and Park Board’s approvals. The society and other advocates argued that replacing the 50-metre pool with a 25-metre tank would harm swim clubs and organizations relying on the longer course for training and recreation, and they pointed to limited alternatives within the city. They also argued that displaced youth and elite swimmers would face few options because 50-metre pools are scarce in Vancouver and the wider region.

A 50-metre alternative within Vancouver is Hillcrest Aquatic Centre, operated by the Park Board. Park Board staff previously indicated that programs that do not require a 50-metre pool could be moved to other smaller aquatic centres to temporarily create room for groups displaced from the VAC for several years.

The Park Board initially approved the 25-metre option in March 2025 after commissioners asked staff to reconsider the feasibility of a 50-metre pool and later concluded it could not fit within the existing footprint while meeting required standards and preserving other amenities. Vancouver City Council later approved an additional $35 million for the project concept in June 2025, bringing the budget described in court material to $175 million.

The concept outlined for the redevelopment includes a 25-metre lap pool, a diving pool, a leisure pool and a hot pool, along with steam and sauna rooms. It also includes a fitness gym and a multipurpose space. The broader borrowing described in the dispute was part of a larger plebiscite question for community facilities that received 68.4 per cent support.

In his ruling, Justice Giaschi reiterated that the court was not assessing whether a 50-metre pool is required for the region, but rather whether municipal bodies reasonably interpreted the scope of voter authorization. The dismissal means the judicial review challenge has failed and the financing authorization at issue remains upheld in court.

Following the Park Board’s revised project approval, commissioners affirmed a commitment to build a new 50-metre pool somewhere in Vancouver within the following 10 years, a commitment also reflected in City Council statements mentioned in the court material.