Approved for tenants.
Twice evacuated.

A new tower became an emergency before Christmas.

Danbrook One was an 11-storey rental tower at 2766 Claude Road. The City issued its first occupancy permit on February 28, 2019. On December 20 of the same year, Young chaired the special council meeting that supported revoking it after WSP identified significant structural non-compliance with the BC Building Code. Both the permit date and council’s decision appear in the meeting minutes¹.

By then, 86 of the building’s 90 units were occupied. Residents were strongly advised to leave days before Christmas. The City arranged emergency hotel accommodation and opened a response centre, as the Goldstream News Gazette reported that day². A home in a newly approved building had turned into an urgent search for somewhere safe to sleep.

The engineering failures were serious and admitted.

In a May 9, 2022 consent order³, structural engineer Brian McClure admitted unprofessional conduct and incompetence in the building’s structural design. The admissions include code failures in the earthquake-resisting and gravity-load systems, inadequate design work and field reviews, and failure to adequately address serious concerns raised during construction.

Engineers and Geoscientists BC cancelled his registration. Its June 2022 announcement⁴ records a $25,000 fine and $32,000 in agreed legal costs. The defects were substantial enough to end his ability to practise engineering in B.C.

A regulator’s investigation. Then a City comfort letter.

Langford knew the engineering regulator was investigating. It then issued a comfort letter to a prospective buyer. Capital Daily’s investigation⁵ traces EGBC’s contact with the City to April 2019 and the letter to June. Centurion alleges the letter omitted the engineering complaint. Langford says the April notice did not disclose safety concerns and that it learned of those on December 3. The alleged omission remains disputed, but reassuring a buyer while an investigation was underway deserves scrutiny.

In July 2021, Langford’s chief building inspector told Capital Daily that the City had not changed its building-permit review process following Danbrook One. The same reporting said independent-review verification was not a condition of building permits at that time. EGBC said municipalities were not obligated to verify that a third-party review had occurred, but could set their own permit approval processes. After the first evacuation, stronger municipal checks deserved consideration. This is a criticism of the safeguards in place, rather than a finding that Young personally issued the permits or breached a legal duty.

Centurion’s amended civil claim, reported in November 2025⁹, alleges negligence in Langford’s approval and assurances. Those allegations remain disputed; the City’s September 2026 statement says the matter is before the courts.

Langford also fought a required-architect ruling—and lost.

During Young’s mayoralty, Langford approved another building without the architect the law required, then unsuccessfully defended that decision in court. The Architectural Institute of British Columbia’s account of the case¹¹ describes an August 2016 permit for five residential units and commercial space, based on drawings prepared by an unlicensed individual.

In May 2020, the B.C. Supreme Court declared the permitting decision unreasonable because Langford had not considered the Architects Act’s requirements. The City appealed. In June 2021, the Court of Appeal dismissed its appeal, confirming that the Act’s safety provisions constrained building officials’ discretion.¹²¹³ This separate case does not establish the cause of Danbrook’s structural failures. It does show that, during the same period, Langford fought a regulator over legally required professional oversight and lost. The proceeding sought a declaration, rather than damages; no verified legal-cost figure is available here.

Reopened under Young. Evacuated again the next year.

After remediation, Langford issued another occupancy permit in April 2022, still during Young’s mayoralty. The building reopened under the name RidgeView Place at 2770 Claude Road. The Westshore’s reporting⁶ records the permit and the second evacuation.

On April 24, 2023, under the council that replaced Young, the City revoked that permit too. Its announcement⁷ says an engineering inspection found the structure unsafe. EGBC had raised concerns about unresolved structural issues and said it had received no evidence of a comprehensive review of the building’s structural design or as-built structure for the remediation.

After the first evacuation, Langford should have demanded proof that the whole building had been independently checked before letting tenants back in. Its May 2023 answers to residents⁸ instead defended reliance on the owner and structural engineer’s authenticated designs. Asked why the City had not requested proof of a comprehensive review before reissuing the permit, it pointed to the professional reliance model. In April 2023, under the next council and after another regulator’s warning, the City demanded a third-party safety assessment and a comprehensive independent structural design review.

Now the owner expects to dismantle it.

On September 17, 2026, the City announced¹⁰ that Centurion had notified it the building was expected to be deconstructed. Mayor Scott Goodmanson described the loss of 96 rental homes. That is the City’s current unit count; the original 2019 reporting described 90 units. The announcement identifies an expected outcome, with details and timing still to be determined.

Approvals are worthless if people cannot safely stay.

Young presided over a City that permitted occupation, confronted a major safety failure, and then permitted occupation again. The engineering regulator established serious professional failures. The municipal approval system also failed to deliver the safety residents needed, twice.

Municipalities routinely rely on outside engineers to certify structural work; Langford’s own explanation says that model is used across B.C. But once a building has failed so badly that residents must leave, routine assurances are not enough. Young’s City should have insisted on an independent second opinion and proof of a comprehensive review before reopening it. Instead, tenants moved back into a tower that would be declared unsafe again. Residents paid for that failure with another lost home. The next council inherited the evacuation. That is the human cost of approving development without demanding the scrutiny its history requires.

Sources

1. City of Langford, January 20, 2020 council agenda packagePages 3–4 contain the December 20, 2019 special council minutes: Young presiding, original permit dated February 28, 2019, WSP findings and support for revocation.
2. Shalu Mehta, Goldstream News Gazette, December 20, 2019Original evacuation, 90 units with 86 occupied, emergency accommodation and Young’s response.
3. Engineers and Geoscientists BC, Brian McClure consent orderMay 9, 2022: admitted design, review and professional failures and disciplinary terms.
4. Engineers and Geoscientists BC, June 2, 2022 announcementCancellation of registration, fine and costs.
5. Aaron Guillen, Capital Daily, July 22, 2021FOI-based investigation of engineering reviews, the City’s response, warning timeline and disputed assurance-letter allegations.
6. Michael John Lo and Cam Welch, The Westshore, April 24, 2023April 2022 occupancy permit and second evacuation.
7. City of Langford, April 24, 2023 announcementSecond revocation, unresolved structural concerns, inspection findings and City explanation.
8. City of Langford, May 9, 2023 resident questions and answersPages 2–4 explain reliance on engineering assurances and respond to questions about the lack of proof of a comprehensive review.
9. Robyn Bell, Capital Daily, November 4, 2025Reports the amended civil claim; allegations are not a court finding of City negligence.
10. City of Langford, September 17, 2026 statementOwner’s expected deconstruction, current 96-unit count and continuing litigation. Deconstruction is not described as already completed.
11. AIBC, June 13, 2019: municipal permitting judicial reviewAugust 2016 permit, five residential units and commercial space, unlicensed designer and required architect. Explains that the proceeding sought judicial review, not monetary recovery.
12. AIBC, June 3, 2020: Supreme Court rulingRegulator’s account of 2020 BCSC 801, with a link to the judgment: the permit decision was unreasonable for failing to consider the Architects Act.
13. AIBC, July 7, 2021: Langford’s appeal dismissedRegulator’s account of 2021 BCCA 261, decided June 30, with a link to the judgment. Confirms the Act’s safety provisions constrain municipal permitting discretion.