The B.C. Supreme Court has struck down a petition challenging the provincial legislation restricting short-term rentals that was enacted in 2024.

The Westcoast Association for Property Rights, whose members include property owners who rent out their properties for short-term rentals and other short-term rental stakeholders, as well as Victoria-based Amala Vacation Rental Solutions co-owner Angela Mason put forward the petition last year, arguing that the legislation would eliminate the legal use of their properties, and would result in the destruction of small businesses.

According to a decision released by Justice Jasmin Ahmad on Feb. 24, the petitioners were seeking relief that would minimize the impact of the legislation and ensure that they can continue to use their properties and provide services for short-term rentals.

They also argued that the effect of the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act (STRAA) is to diminish the value of their properties, which amounts to expropriation, saying that they are entitled to compensation.

The STRAA aims to return short-term rentals to the long-term housing market by prohibiting property owners from using their properties for short-term rentals of less than 90-days, and eliminates statutory non-conforming use protections for short-term rentals.

"It is well known that British Columbia faces a housing crisis in which it has become increasingly difficult to buy affordable homes throughout the province. As that crisis has increased, so too has the growth in short-term rentals, through platforms such as Airbnb and Vrbo. Indeed, it has been said that a significant amount of housing in the province is used for short-term use," noted Ahmad's decision.

The province argued that the petition is premature, noting that there hasn't been a decision regarding the contravention of the act when the petition was put forward.

Ahmad noted that she dismissed the petition as it was brought forward before the provincial director of compliance and enforcement was able to exercise their "statutory power of decision," which Ahmad says is an abuse of process.

She also said because there was no proper constitutional challenge, there is no ground to review or challenge the act, and because the petitioners did not reference a specific property owner, the issues they raised were hypothetical.

Though the courts are not moving forward with the petition right now, Ahmad added, the issue could be raised again in the future "in appropriate circumstances."