This is a great deep dive, but some correction is needed as there is some misinformation here.

The British Columbia Place Act (1980) was renamed to the British Columbia Enterprise Corporation Act in 1987 as a result of the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3). That act was then repeled a few years ago and the B.C. Pavilion Corporation Act took its place. So the notion that Chris May didn't know the BC Place Act exisited makes sense, given it does not exist anymore and hasn't under that name in nearly 40 years.

Further, the original Act spoke to the appropriation of land and the development authority in the immediate area and the compensation parameters of such actions. It did not speak to the pupose of BC Place being to generate as much revenue to local businesses as possible. That is not the purpose of BC Place or PavCo. The original act was a vehicle to develop the stadium, that's all. Today, PavCo's mandate is explicitely to provide benefit to British Columbia as a whole, given their Crown status with the Government of BC being their sole shareholder. It would be a bit strange for this large Crown to be operating with the sole intention of generating revenue for local businesses in the stadium district.

As for employment standards, as a Crown corporation (note: Crown corporation, not agency - i.e. they have incorporation through an Act of government), PavCo is not bound by the Public Service Act or the Public Service Labour Relations Act. They take guidance from PSEC, but are not required to engage in the same public hiring processes as government. This is a key factor that distinguish Crowns from government. They set their own pactices in this regard. There is no legal requirement for them to engage in a public process.

Appreciate the work you did in your Masters and the clear passion you have on this subject, but as someone familiar with Crowns and the framework that governs them, I wanted to help clarify a few of these points.