What is the effect of a by-law change in Campbell River, BC, allowing a mobile home park to be built in the same space as a recreational facility?

In dismissing the district's application, McKenzie J. said, at pp. 170-71: I have concluded that one need go no further than subs. (2) to find sanction for the continued use of the eight spaces originally constructed for use by mobile homes. The fact that only two mobile homes had been installed by the time of the by-law change does not mean that only those two spaces may continue to be used for the purpose of mobile homes. I think that the analogy offered by counsel for the respondents is apt when he compared the situation to an apartment building with empty suites at the time of the by-law change. Surely in filling up those suites after the change the owner would only be continuing the use of his premises, not extending that use. Vancouver v. Victoria Block Ltd., supra, held that the purpose of a similar subsection is to protect the status quo. I hold that the status quo will be protected here if the remaining six spaces are employed in the same fashion as the two already occupied. The "lawful use of premises" comprehends the premises at large, and the fact that four pads happened to be unoccupied at the time of the by-law change does not mean that the use for mobile homes has not been established before the change. Vancouver v. Victoria Block dealt with a building having three floors with the first two having a different established use at the time of the change than the upper floor. The court held that to convert the middle floor to the same use as the third floor was "to extend or enlarge the right that he has to the use of the third floor as housekeeping rooms". There, the owner was trying to change the established function of one floor. Here there is no such attempt. Were these owners trying to convert any of the 37 smaller pads used for recreational vehicles into larger pads for mobile homes, then they would be in the Vancouver v. Victoria Block situation, and they could only be saved if their actions could be justified under subs. (3). I do not have to decide that question. I hold that the placing since 9th November 1977 of permanent mobile homes adjacent to the remaining six large pads, making connection to them of the sanitary disposal system, potable water system and electric and cablevision facilities, is not contrary to by-law 760 of the district of Campbell River and is a non-conforming use authorized to continue pursuant to s. 705(2) of the Municipal Act.