[93]         Even based on the deferential standard, the Decision was unreasonable. Its interpretation that the actions of the petitioner did not fall within the broad definition of “construction” in the Building Bylaw was not consistent with the text, context, and purpose of the enactment. The excavation of the organic topsoil, the deposit of the permanent structural fill, and the placement of the preloading sand were all necessary steps in the construction process, and expressly and implicitly contemplated in the issuance of the building permit upon receipt of the geotechnical report.

Source: 2020 BCSC 455 Minster Enterprises Ltd. v. City of Richmond