Kamloops Violated Spirit of AAP Guide

Today’s post is about the concerns around Kamloops City Council’s use of the Alternative Approval Process (AAP) for the PAC (Performing Arts Centre) and arena multiplex projects. I’ll argue that, even if legally defensible, Council violated the spirit of the BC AAP guidelines.

Legality not Enough: How Council Undermined the Spirit 

In 2024, Council launched an AAP to authorize long-term borrowing for two of the city’s most ambitious undertakings in decades. While the City ultimately survived a court challenge reaffirming the process’s legality, many critics argue Council’s handling of the AAP betrayed its spirit — eroding democratic accountability, transparency, and meaningful public engagement.

AAP’s Intended Spirit

As outlined in the provincial Alternative Approval Process Guide, the AAP allows electors to voice opposition by submitting a response form — but only if they oppose; non-action is counted as tacit approval.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs guidance emphasizes not just legal compliance, but fairness and balance. Local governments should provide “accurate and balanced information … so that eligible electors can make an informed decision.” Promotional activity that is biased or overly favorable to the project “will likely face questions … about whether … the AAP process was fair.”

In short: while the AAP is legally more streamlined and less costly than a referendum, it still carries an expectation of democratic legitimacy — not a rubber-stamp.

What Kamloops Council Did — And Why Critics Say It Violated the Spirit

1. Bundling Massive Projects Under One AAP

Rather than separating the PAC and the arena/multiplex into distinct questions, Council first attempted to lump them (along with other “future developments”) under a single loan-authorization bylaw. 

By grouping such big-ticket, disparate projects together, a single AAP would make it harder for electors to express nuanced opinions. Someone supporting the arena/multiplex but opposing the PAC may have had no real choice but to accept both — by doing nothing. That dilutes the democratic accountability that “informed decision” is supposed to guarantee.

Although the province made the City split the projects into 2 separate AAPs, the AAP for the arena/multiplex still included other “future developments”.

2. Minimal Active Engagement, Heavy Reliance on Passive “Non-response”

Under the AAP, if eligible residents don’t submit a form, that’s treated as approval. Critics point out that this dynamic shifts the burden to those opposed, rather than encouraging informed debate.

Further, as one local watchdog group put it: the AAP process is “TRUST THE GOVERNMENT … system” with no way for citizen scrutineers to verify how response forms are accepted or rejected. In contrast, a referendum gives more transparent and accountable voting mechanisms.

3. Notice Strategy That Raised Accessibility and Equity Concerns

Kamloops did not publish in a local newspaper; instead, they posted AAP notices online and on a public notice board at City Hall. While the court ruled this method met legal requirements and was “reasonable,” critics argue it fails the equity test underlying the AAP’s spirit.

Some local commentators said that the city’s decision disproportionately disadvantaged seniors and residents without reliable internet access. Indeed, in the court challenge, the petitioner raised concerns that notice via website was less accessible — though the court declined to overturn the bylaws.

4. Power Dynamics and Transparency Gaps

Perhaps most pointedly, critics argue that Council and staff acted like promoters, not neutral facilitators. As one opinion piece noted, the AAP is meant to be less expensive than a referendum, but not less transparent.

Furthermore, the city defended its process by arguing there was “no requirement” to mail out response forms to all electors, maintaining that such mail-outs would undermine the cost-saving purpose of the AAP. But for many, this defense rings hollow: democratic legitimacy should not be sacrificed in the name of expediency.

Local groups also flagged concerns that council members participated in working groups promoting the PAC — a clear conflict with the idea that the government should provide “balanced information” rather than campaign for one side.

Why the Court Ruled for the City — and What That Means

In Wunderlich v. City of Kamloops (2025), Justice Groves upheld the city’s use of the AAP. The court found all major elements — elector estimation, public notification, timing — were “reasonable,” applying a deferential standard under Vavilov.

This means, legally, Council stayed within its rights. But several legal commentators and local critics pointed out that legality isn’t the same as a robust democratic process. Groves even acknowledged that despite being legally sound, the AAP’s use in this context was politically controversial.

The Consequences: Political Risk, Erosion of Trust

By prioritizing legal compliance over the spirit of meaningful engagement, Council has traded off democratic legitimacy. Critics warn of long-term costs:

• Alienation: Citizens feel disenfranchised, especially those skeptical of the PAC. As one commentator said, opponents weren’t just blocking a building, but what they saw as a “shaky process.”
  
• Precedents: Using the AAP for very large infrastructure projects may set a precedent where significant civic decisions are made via the path of least resistance, not maximum transparency.
  
• Political backlash: Even if the courts side with the city, the people may not. Trust in Council could erode, especially among those who believe their only meaningful voice is via a referendum.

Conclusion: Reform, Not Just Reproach

If Kamloops—and other B.C. municipalities—want to preserve not just the letter but the spirit of the AAP, here are some possible reforms:

1. Separate by project: Don’t bundle major capital projects with minor ones. Let citizens weigh them individually.
   
2. Improve notice-access equity: Even if media outlets close, explore a hybrid communication strategy (mail, in-person events, targeted outreach).
   
3. Neutral facilitation, not campaigning: Council and staff should act as facilitators, not cheerleaders. Independent oversight (e.g. citizen scrutineers) could be built in.
   
4. Consider a hybrid model: For very large borrowing decisions, maybe municipally funded referenda (even with cost) are justified for legitimacy’s sake.

Kamloops’ AAP saga is a potent reminder: democracy is more than just following the rules. It’s about building trust, ensuring fairness, and giving citizens more than a default “silence = yes” checkbox. Legality can win in court—but legitimacy wins in the hearts of the community.

What Can You Do?