A Yukon Supreme Court ruling could see city voters go to the polls in a referendum over the use of land near McLean Lake.

Justice Ron Veale has ruled against the city and declared valid a petition for a referendum to amend the Official Community Plan (OCP) and zoning bylaw to create McLean Lake Park.

"I find that this petition is within the jurisdiction of the city council in the (Municipal) Act and it should proceed to referendum," reads Veale's 19-page decision, released Thursday.

Marianne Darragh led the petition calling for the referendum that would help create a park in the area now used as a quarry site.

Last March, after a number of correspondences between the city and Darragh were exchanged about the possibility, the city advised her to stop collecting signatures until it could establish the referendum was valid under the Municipal Act.

City officials then put out a news release stating if the petition was outside the jurisdiction of city council, it could apply for a court declaration that the petition was invalid.

The release also pointed to the legal history of the area. It noted referendum price tags are $14,000 and that residents would have a chance to address the issue during the city's review of the OCP this fall.

Last April, the city declared the petition invalid under territorial legislation.

Darragh continued to collect the required 2,000 signatures she needed for a referendum, eventually submitting 2,654 in total, the decision states.

City lawyers found the petition met all the requirements for a referendum with the exception of it being outside council's jurisdiction. They then began the legal proceedings to have the petition declared invalid.

Pointing to several sections of the Municipal Act, the city argued OCP amendments have to be made following procedures outlined specifically for OCPs.

"In general, this means the city must give notice of the amendment (s. 280) and hold a public hearing before second reading of the bylaw (s. 281)," reads the decision.

"It must submit the proposed amendment to the minister for review and approval before third reading and adoption (s. 282)."

That would mean there wouldn't be enough time to go through the required public hearing prior to second reading of the petition bylaw, it was argued.

A similar process exists for zoning changes, the city noted in the case.

"Apart from the timing concerns, I have not been referred to any other conflict between the provisions of the (Municipal) Act that would make it impossible to have both a bylaw referendum and meet the requirements of the OCP amendment secants," Veale wrote.

"Thus, the city should comply with the requirements of both the bylaw referendum and the OCP amendment procedure."

The judge also pointed to another section of the act stating electors can petition council "on any matter within the jurisdiction of the council including capital project," with the exclusion of the budget bylaw or general property tax bylaw.

"There is no mention of the OCP or any expressed intention to exclude it from the bylaw referendum provisions," Veale noted.

"Therefore, it seems that OCPs are not meant to be excluded from the petition process."

The judge also pointed to case law in reaching his decision in favour of Darragh.

Veale then outlined a procedure for such OCP referendums, requiring council to give first reading of the bylaw within eight weeks of when the petition is handed into the city.

It must then publish the notice of amendments and the public hearing for two weeks and wait at least 21 days before holding the hearing.

Second reading of the bylaw would come after the hearing and within eight weeks of the petition and the referendum within 90 days of first reading of the bylaw.

If approved through referendum, the bylaw would then be submitted to the territorial minister for approval outside of the 90-day period.

In finding the city's argument invalid, Veale also ruled the city must pay Darragh's court costs.

This morning, Darragh said she is pleased with the ruling.

While she went to court with the legislation to back up her arguments, she said the outcome is always an unknown.

"You just never know," she said.

As for whether she sees the city following through on the referendum, she noted: "As confident as you can be dealing with the City of Whitehorse."

City officials could not be reached for comment on the ruling this morning.