Their counsel always provides a chuckle with their defence fantasies. Same thing happened with my lawsuit and look what it cost them for all their denials, bullshit and stalling. $210K. to me and the hundreds of thousands to their own lawyers defending lawsuits, appealing each and every fine but won’t spend a cent on improving the filthy site to ensure pollutants don’t enter the marine environment.
Jurisich always claims he’s a victim and doing everything according to rules and regulations. Refuses to acknowledge reports, proof and insists he’s doing nothing wrong. I hope I contribute to the downfall of these fuckers.
Union Bay shipbreaking facility trial to be heard end of November
The ongoing saga of the shipbreaking facility in Union Bay will be heard in the Supreme Court of British Columbia at the end of November.
The Comox Valley Regional District (CVRD) said it has learned the court dates will be Nov. 25, 26 and 27.
The notice of civil claim was initially filed on April 14, 2022, then an amended notice expanding the claim was filed on March 25, 2026.
The CVRD’s amended claim against Union Bay Industries and Deep Water Recovery is that the companies are using the property for a number of purposes that are not allowed.
The property is zoned in two pieces, with the shoreline zoned for Industrial Marine. The land is partially zoned for Rural Twenty and another portion for Country Residential One.
The Industrial Marine zoning allows for uses such as boat building and repairs and service and sales, seafood processing and sales, marina, barge facility, waterfront freight handling facility, log handling and storage facility, storage and works yard and warehousing, and offices.
The Rural Twenty, or land-based portion, allows for a single-detached dwelling, agricultural use, veterinary establishment, plant nursery and greenhouse, silviculture, fish hatchery, animal kennel, riding academy, wood processing, sawmill, various gravel and peat uses, or a research and testing facility.
The Country residential portion only allows for a single detached dwelling or agriculture use.
The CVRD’s claim alleges that the property was being used for industrial purposes and dismantling and recycling marine vessels.
“The Ship Breaking Use is not a permitted use of the Property under the Zoning Bylaw, and is prohibited by the Zoning Bylaw,” the CVRD’s claim says.
Additionally, the claim alleges the land is being used to house people in recreational vehicles, which is not a permitted use.
The CVRD is seeking a declaration that the ship breaking and housing use are in contravention of its zoning bylaw, an order that the companies must cease and desist the ship breaking, and that the housing use must cease and desist as well, in addition to other relief.
In the response by Union Bay Industries and Deep Water Recovery, the only facts agreed to from the CVRD’s claim are that the two companies are incorporated and their respective addresses, that Union Bay Industries is the registered owner in fee simple, and that Deep Water occupies the property.
“Unless expressly admitted herein, the Defendents deny each and every allegation of fact, argument, and all other matters contained in the Plaintiff’s Amended Notice of Civil Claim,” the response says.
The response says that Union Bay Industries previously operated a log sorting business on the property, and that Deep Water Recovery’s operations include a barge loading facility, a storage and works yard and warehousing facility, a waterfront freight handling facility, and marine vessel services.
“Deep Water has, on occasion, been tasked with performing emergency rescue services on behalf of the Canadian government and the Canadian Coast Guard,” the response says.
“To date, Deep Water’s activities have never included work on any motorized vessels, with the exception of one small wooden vessel delivered by the Canadian Coast Guard, as referenced above.”
The response also claims that the CVRD “previously approved Deep Water’s operations, and, on its own admission, considered those operations to be compliant with the Zoning Bylaw,” the response says.
“However, after sustained lobbying by local residents and organized community groups, the Plaintiff succumbed to external pressure and saw Deep Water’s operations as politically unpopular.”
The response claims the enforcement has been advanced “without any legitimate regulatory objective.”
“Instead, the Plaintiff has invoked enforcement and other mechanisms, including the Court’s processes, not to enforce its bylaws, but to eliminate a disfavoured, yet lawful, business after previously approving it.”
The response argues that its operations are permitted under the boat building and repairs and service and sales, barge facility, waterfront freight handling facility and/or storage works yard and warehousing uses in the zoning.
The property was previously governed by a water lease agreement with the province of B.C., which was cancelled on or around July 3, 2025.
It alleges its application to the B.C. government included information that it provides a vessel decommissioning service, the services consist of decommissioning derelict vessels or those at the end of its serviceable life, and that it would conform with the international quality management standards for effective environmental management.
The response further alleges that the CVRD wrote a letter to the ministry in response to the proposed tenure, confirming that the purposes fit the zoning.
The companies also deny housing individuals on the site in recreational vehicles or at all.
The response says that it opposes granting all requested relief sought by the CVRD.
The trial will be heard in court in Vancouver from Nov. 25-27.
