The B.C. Supreme Court will not grant an injunction to stop tree removal in Vancouver鈥檚 Stanley Park after a group claimed the work was doing more harm than good.

The court ruled this week that the challenge raised 鈥渘ovel鈥� issues about whether park users were owed a duty of care by the city and park board, but it would be 鈥渦nlikely鈥� that a trial would establish such a duty.

The case was filed by park users Michael and Katherine Caditz, Anita Hansen and Jillian Maguire, who claim the removal of trees because of a looper moth infestation caused them 鈥渆motional and psychological harm.鈥�

They claim the city and the park board were negligent in ordering the tree removal work, relying on a 鈥渇undamentally flawed report鈥� by a forestry consulting company hired to carry out the logging work.

Plaintiff Michael Caditz says he and his fellow plaintiffs disagree with the court鈥檚 ruling, but no trial date to hear the case in full has been set.

Caditz says they are exploring other legal options because they still believe the decision to cut down thousands of trees in the park was based on 鈥渂ad science,鈥� and that upcoming logging activity in the park should be halted.

鈥淲e feel there was gross negligence involved and we disagree with the judge鈥檚 decision and we鈥檙e analyzing the decision to determine how to proceed,鈥� Caditz said in an interview on Thursday.

He said they consulted a number of experts who agreed that the 鈥渓ogging operation that鈥檚 being done is not necessary.鈥�

鈥淚t鈥檚 causing more harm than good,鈥� Caditz said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 creating an elevated risk of falling trees and a fire and that there鈥檚 no basis at all in science, in evidence-based science for the logging operation.鈥�

The B.C. Supreme Court declined to issue an injunction before a trial, finding that 鈥渂efore anything as extensive as the potential removal of 160,000 trees in Stanley Park is effected, there is time鈥� for the park board to fulfil 鈥渋ts statutory obligations with respect to the care and management of Stanley Park.鈥�

The court also found that there鈥檚 also a legal avenue for 鈥渁 public law challenge, by way of judicial review, to any decision to proceed with tree removal beyond that contemplated for the 2024/2025 window, if warranted.鈥�

The city and park board鈥檚 lawyer, Ian Dixon, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the court鈥檚 ruling.