Copy and pasted from another forum: Courtesy to AA for digging it up
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2018/2018bcsc2167/2018bcsc2167.html?resultIndex=1[307] Earlier in these Reasons, I noted my very significant concerns about the action of DLCC and its ranch manager, Mr. Gardner, in their actions in, for a lack of a better term, taking the law in their own hands and closing, by virtue of a lock and intimidation, a public road. As critical as I am of Mr. Gardner, greater criticism may be levelled at the Province for its absolute lack of action in maintaining their property and enforcing the public good against a determined and bullying corporate entity and its manager.
[308] In particular, and with no disrespect intended, the evidence of Mr. Kirk regarding the actions of the Ministry of Highways under his watch, are actions which are frankly deplorable. Although Mr. Kirk may have had some strategic reason for doing so, he should have acted to enforce a public right and he did not. Mr. Kirk had determined in 1996 that the expression by Mr. Gardner to him, on behalf of DLCC, that the Stoney Lake Road had been traded for, the construction of the bypass road was not factually correct. He advised Mr. Gardner and DLCC of this. As such, a representative of the Province had determined in 1996, with some certainty, that the closure of the Stoney Lake Road was unlawful.
[315] I reluctantly conclude there was a breach of the Province’s obligations to the citizens of British Columbia, when DLCC unilaterally closed a public road and no government official in the Ministry of Highways had the wherewithal to insist that the lock on the gate be removed, nor insist that a corporate entity respect the law.
[318] No explanation was provided to the Court for why the government did nothing when they clearly have an obligation to, in my view, enforce a public right to roads.
[320] One of the very profound lessons of this litigation is that the Province has failed to protect the public interest. It has failed to ensure that a road it owns was not blocked, and subsequently destroyed by virtue of flooding, by a private land owner with economic interests aligned with the closure and destruction of the road. The Province’s actions, in not protecting the public interest in that sense, are disappointing to say the least.