On Feb. 25, Sun Peaks Mountain Resort Municipality (SPMRM) released the Sun Peaks Community Health Centre Process Summary, a document outlining the background of the health centre’s closure and the timeline associated with key actions during the process of establishing a new operator to date.
The health centre suspended operations in October 2025, as the municipality, which owns the clinic space, sought out a new operator to replace Supporting Team Excellence with Patients Society (STEPS).
This summary comes nearly five months after the closure of the clinic, and the municipality has received numerous questions and pressure from residents, particularly those with long-term or emergency health concerns.
“The municipality does not provide health care service, and that it is not a role of local government, but we are the owners of the Sun Peaks Community Health Centre, and we want to ensure that medical services are provided in our community, and we also want to ensure sustainability of health care operations,” Mayor Rob O’Toole said while announcing the summary would be released after the Feb. 24 meeting.
O’Toole clarified at the council meeting that there is no available timeline for reopening the clinic.
The timeline: The request for proposals process
On July 14, 2025, SPMRM council voted to end STEPS’ lease of the health centre, announcing the change in a statement to the community July 25.
On July 28, the Health Centre Working Group, which included council members, community members, stakeholders and current or former medical/healthcare professionals, held its first meeting.
On Aug. 14, the working group drafted recommendations for the Request for Proposals (RFP), and presented it to council Aug. 19.
Though the summary stated the request for proposals was shared publicly Aug. 25, it was made public Aug. 29. Dr. Catherine Nowierksi submitted the sole proposal to operate the clinic Sept. 10, in which she expressed interest in buying the health centre building unit. Nowierski did respond to SPIN’s request for comments by the time of publication.
“The proposal included a purchase option, which was outside the scope of the RFP,” the summary states.
The request for proposals was informed by recommendations made by the working group, which deliberated on whether to sell or lease the clinic space. The working group recommended leasing the clinic space to the incoming operator, advising to maintain “public ownership and community oversight of a vital community asset.”
During an Oct. 7 meeting, council reiterated the health centre space is not available for purchase and requested more information from Nowierski, “due to lack of details in the proposal,” the summary states.
According to the summary, throughout the week of Oct. 8 to 14, SPMRM had an ongoing correspondence with Nowierski, where she was firm on purchasing the clinic.
“It was explained to the proponent that the health centre is a community asset, and the municipality wishes to preserve and protect it as such,” the summary reads. “The proponent responded that the purchase option was non-negotiable.”
Changing direction on selling the health centre
During a meeting Oct. 28, SPMRM reconfirmed it did not support the sale of the clinic space, however by Nov. 4, due to “significant community pressure and stalled negotiations” council reconsidered its position, discussing terms of a potential lease with an option to purchase.
O’Toole, chief administrative officer Deanna Campbell, Coun. Len Hrycan and CEO of Sun Peaks Resort LLP (SPR), Darcy Alexander met with Nowierski on Nov. 10 to discuss next steps for the health centre.
According to the summary, both parties agreed in principle to implement a month-to-month rental arrangement to allow the clinic to open as quickly as possible while negotiations continued on a more detailed, long-term agreement.
“Covenant wording, health centre equipment, strata plan re-filing and lease with option to purchase, buy back option, exit clause and sale of the property were all discussed,” the summary states.
The buy back option was required as SPMRM and SPR co-own the health clinic building through a stratified structure, with the municipality owning the bottom level and the resort owning the top.
“[The] resort said they would support us selling the clinic space only as long as we protected it for future use as a family medical clinic, and the patrol space and the ambulance bay remained under control of Sun Peaks Resort through a future sale to them,” O’Toole said.
The decision to sell the clinic to the proponent was put on the table, with an opportunity to buy the facility back if the proponent fails to operate it as a health clinic.
Following the Nov. 10 meeting, SPMRM worked closely with legal counsel to draft and finalize a Facility Use Permit (FUP), while consulting with legal counsel to address the more complex components of the project, including covenants, land title matters and stratification requirements.
The use permit was shared with Noweriski, who expressed concern about the rental rate, which had been based on a market rent analysis.
In response, SPMRM indicated a willingness to reconsider the amount of $10,707.50 plus GST per month, plus expenses, and reduce it to better reflect the limited use of the space. While Nowierski requested a full exemption from rent, even under a short-term FUP arrangement, the summary states the municipality would not be legally permissible without a formal partnering agreement in place.
According to the Community Charter and Local Government Act in British Columbia, municipalities cannot provide assistance to businesses, including below-market rent or no rent, below-market sale, property tax exemptions and more.
Given the legislative restrictions on providing assistance to a business, SPMRM sought further legal advice to explore potential alternatives. Options discussed included pursuing a partnering agreement for a short-term arrangement or issuing a Fair Usage Policy? to the Sun Peaks Health Authority, a non-profit, which could then sub-lease the space to Nowierski.
The summary stated Nowierski responded by submitting a proposed Temporary Lease to Occupy (TLO), along with supporting schedules and a written rationale outlining why she preferred that structure.
According to the summary, this TLO did not align with the direction previously agreed upon, “and contained terms that council had not fully considered or agreed to and or were not permitted absent a partnering agreement.”
Legal counsel further advised against the approach as landlords “typically do not allow a tenant to draft the terms and conditions of a lease.”
On Nov. 19, the municipality issued a detailed written response to Nowierski explaining that the proposed TLO represented a significant shift from the previously agreed-upon direction and confirmed that SPMRM could not proceed under that model.
During a Nov. 25 meeting, both parties agreed in principle to move ahead with a lease that included an option to purchase, alongside a formal partnering agreement to address legislative requirements to waive the rent. A range of key components were reviewed in detail, including the proposed lease term, a waiver of rent structured through the partnering agreement, defined service level expectations, patient prioritization, appraisal requirements, covenants on title, a right of first refusal for the municipality and stratification matters.
Drafting the lease and partnering agreement
According to the summary, between Nov. 25 and Dec. 10, SPMRM worked closely with legal counsel to prepare the draft lease and partnering agreement. During this process, legal counsel advised that the covenant schedules would require additional time to complete due to their technical complexity and the complicated ownership structure of the property. To avoid unnecessary delays, it was determined that the main terms and substance of the covenants would be outlined within the draft agreement itself, with the detailed schedules to be finalized and amended at a later stage.
At the Dec. 2 council meeting, Campbell shared that the reopening date was expected sooner than later.
“We know it may not seem or feel like it, but as one of my staff pointed out this morning, we’re actually moving through a really complex process quicker than what happened in any other situation,” Campbell said during the meeting.
On Dec. 11 council reviewed the draft lease, raised questions and provided comments, which were addressed by legal counsel and returned to council for further consideration on Dec. 16.
According to the summary, several revisions were requested, including clearer and more detailed language regarding the municipality’s buy-back option.
Following those changes, the finalized draft was sent to Nowierski on Dec. 22, along with an invitation to discuss any questions or proposed amendments. Nowierski was advised that the covenant schedules were still being finalized, but that the intended substance of those schedules had been incorporated as commentary within the draft.
A pause in communication and changing terms
On Jan. 13, administration followed up by email to check on the status of Nowierski’s review and again offered to meet to address any concerns, but no response was received according to the summary. A further email was sent on Jan. 30, requesting that a meeting be scheduled to move toward finalizing the agreement, but again no response was received.
Additional communication was sent on Feb. 4 offering another opportunity to meet, to which Nowierski responded by submitting a new agreement and accompanying schedules. She advised that this document represented her final position and proposed a target opening date of Feb. 16.
“This agreement was a complete departure from what was agreed to in the in-camera November 25 collaboration meeting,” the summary stated.
At the Feb. 10, in-camera meeting, council reviewed Nowierski’s revised position, noting what had previously been discussed in principle. Some provisions, council noted, could place the SPMRM in breach of its legislative obligations and responsibilities to the community.
The municipality communicated that new agreement could not be accepted, requesting Nowierski proceed within SPMRM’s established framework, including providing comments or proposed revisions to the original draft agreement.
The following day, Nowierski responded, indicating she was prepared to finalize an agreement and requesting the covenant schedules in order to complete the review. In the response, Nowierski referenced her original RFP submission as forming the basis of any final agreement, “which is inconsistent with – and contrary to – procurement law and the discussions between the municipality and the proponents to date,” according to the summary.
On Feb. 17, legal counsel provided draft schedules to SPMRM.
Between Feb. 19 and Feb. 23, further email correspondence occurred between the parties, reflecting differing views on process timelines, agreements and related matters.
At the Feb. 24, in-camera meeting, council reviewed the draft schedules to confirm they aligned with the previously agreed-upon framework. Council then passed a resolution directing that the complete agreement package, including the previously circulated draft agreement and the newly prepared draft schedules, be sent to the proponents for review and comment.
During the Feb. 24 council meeting, O’Toole emphasized that there’s no clear timeline for reopening the clinic.
“We’re committed to getting the clinic reopened and collaborating on that and it’ll take time,” O’Toole said. “It takes us to follow the proper process and meet those legislative requirements. So we’re committed to getting it open, but I don’t have a crystal ball to say that it can be open.”
What did you think of this story?
Sun Peaks Independent News is your essential source for community news in Sun Peaks. Your feedback after we publish a story helps ensure we're always improving our reporting to better serve you.
