Letter dated November 14, 2024 from J. Becker, 24 Vickery Road, Re: Registration of Notice on Title for 12 Vickery Road

RE: Town of View Royal Building Department’s Recommendation to Council to pass resolution for registration of a notice on the title of my property with civic address of 12 Vickery Road, Victoria, BC

I would like to say upfront; I don’t have a problem with having a registration of notice on the title of my property pursuant to section 57 of the Community Charter, SBC 2003. c.26, as long as there are no restrictions on me and my family’s ability to occupy the premises at our own risk and there are no penalties and no remedial actions taken (in particular the remedial action process outlined in sections 17, 72 to 80 (inclusive), and 258 of the Community Charter), including additional property taxes, assessed against the current owners of the property.

I would like to provide some background information and supporting documentation for you to consider before you decide on the Building Department’s recommendation.

My wife and I have lived in the Town of View Royal since April 1, 2003. Since moving into our first house on Vickery Road in 2009, we have worked with the Building Department in completing additions to our homes and even helped our neighbour to have his home uncondemned.

The single family dwelling being built, at 12 Vickery Road, is our age-in-place retirement home. Given this, our goal was to build a house that would last for years to come we installed triple pane windows, a wood burning stove, a wood burning fireplace, and higher density insulation to ensure we were warm during power outages. It was not our intent to not comply with sections 5.2, 18.4 and 24.8 of the Building Bylaw No. 1111; however, due to circumstances described in the following paragraphs, we find ourselves being labelled the “villains” for identifying a structural problem and refusing to abandon our project because the Engineer on Record (EOR) could not acknowledge he made a mistake.

As I was building this house by myself, the build process takes much longer than a regular jobsite with a crew. The Buepoint engineers asked me several times if they could do a Framing Inspection, I said no because I had not enough framing built for them to inspect. I have photographic evidence date and time stamped showing the condition of my framing that coincides with the engineer’s requests. When I wanted a second set of eyes to see if I was missing something in the build, I agreed to the 1st Preliminary Framing Inspection for October 31, 2022 knowing I was not ready for a Framing Inspection. Before this inspection, I listed all of the items I still had to complete which the Engineer-in-Training (EIT) used in his list on the 1st report. I would like to note that the report does not state the inspection “Failed” – it states that “Further Review Required”. During this inspection, I mentioned to the EIT that I had a concern with the 6x6 posts on the ground floor as they were splitting. The EIT took a picture and then turned away to continue his inspection, I wasn’t certain if he heard me and hoped that someone looking at the picture would recognize there was a problem but I heard nothing from the Engineer on Record (EOR) so I called him. The November 16, 2022 Preliminary Framing Inspection Report was not updated after an inspection but rather an update to the October 31, 2022 report as the EIT was going through the pictures. Again, it stated, “Further Review Required”. When I asked for clarification on the revisions made to the report and suggested we could meet at his office or at the job site, the EIT requested the job site. I was seeking clarifications on 2 questions but when the EIT couldn’t answer my questions, he decided to spend the time conducting an unrequested Framing Inspection which resulted in the November 29, 2022 Framing Inspection Report: which again stated “Further Review Required”. As I was working alone, I wasn’t going to request for a formal Framing Inspection until I had time to finish completing the items on the Preliminary Framing Inspection Report.

As the Preliminary Framing Inspection Report seemed like the EIT was being overzealous, I scheduled a Framing Review by the Town’s Building Inspector for December 6, 2022. As the Town of View Royal was in the process of hiring a replacement Building Inspector, Robert Gutierrez, came to conduct the Framing Review. During the review, Mr. Gutierrez complimented me on my workmanship and mentioned that he had been observing me working on the project by myself. Mr. Gutierrez approved the Plumbing and partially approved the Framing, requesting some minor corrections (see Attachment # 1). NOTE: In the Building Department’s Council Report, the December 6th Framing Inspection and the December 8th Rough In Plumbing Inspection was indicated as “No record of being performed”. On the same day, I contacted the Engineer on Record (EOR) to discuss the confusing instructions and was told they were options for me to chose from. After advising him of which option I would proceed with, the next day, I was told that option wouldn’t work (see Attachment # 2).

As I felt I was not being heard and wondered if perhaps I wasn’t being clear, I requested on January 25, 2023 for a meeting with the EOR to be held in person and it be videotaped. On my request, my wife reviewed the emails and jumped into the email trail by questioning the EOR about whether the EIT had advised the EOR of my concern about the 6x6 posts in the garage (ground floor) were bowing and cracking, and also noting that the 8x8 posts in the living space (second floor) were also having issues. My wife then stated “This is why John is asking you, as the Engineer on Record, to come to the site. You need to see the problems in person.” When the EOR stated “There do not appear to be problems with posts. However, I can review that if you’d like.” (see Attachment # 3). Without coming to the site and having the EOR state that there is no problem with the posts, my wife was upset and after considering all the events to date, she filed a complaint to the Engineers and Geoscientists BC (EGBC) on February 9, 2023; however, when she did not get a response from EGBC by March 1, 2023, she followed up and learned that they did not receive her February 9th email. It appears the EGBC has been inundated with complaints and high employee turnover, so after a year and 8 months, we are still waiting for our complaint to be reviewed and have gone through 2 Complaint Intake Officers and are currently on our third Complaint Intake Officer.

When I wasn’t getting any help, I even ratted myself out to WorkSafeBC. Seriously concerned about what was happening to the posts, I decided to shut down my project’s interior work for almost a year as I felt it was an unsafe work environment. My wife contacted other engineers to see if they could help. We were told by 8 engineers to “shore up your posts and work with your existing engineer”. We didn’t think our building would be still standing if we didn’t fix the problem before continuing with the construction.

After almost 2 months, the EOR asked to come to the jobsite, I thought he was coming out to talk about the cracking and bowing posts, by then we had about 5 out of 6 posts failing. I was mostly concerned about the 3 posts that was holding up half of the building. It turned out the EOR did not want to talk about the posts but rather to conduct another Framing Inspection. The EOR did not ask to have the shoring removed and instead blamed me for covering up the posts so he couldn’t see the problem. In a previous site visit, he had advised me that he could ask me to do anything he wants to ensure the building was built to his design.

When the March 14, 2023 Framing Inspection Report stated “floor is not level, has high spots and low spots – structurally not a concern” and “feels like the floor has some soft spots – looks like floor sheathing is discontinuous between joists”; however, no where in the report was anything about the cracking and bowing 6x6 posts, I decided to suspend the EOR contract until the problem was resolved after conducting a quick Google search on “conditions of a structurally unsound building”. The first 2 items listed in the conditions was sloping and soft floors.

I asked for the Town of View Royal’s Building Department’s assistance. My wife emailed Mr. Gutierrez on March 22, 2023, and a follow up email on March 27, 2023 (see Attachment # 4). Mr. Gutierrez suggested he send a letter to the EOR on Town of View Royal’s Official Letter head to see if he could get the problem resolved. In the past we had a similar problem on this site where the previous Building Inspector (Gary Faykes) misunderstood what I had said, and he believed I did not have an engineer on my project any longer. He sent an official letter to our engineer who clarified that the Building Inspector had misunderstood my statement. At no point did he place a “Stop Work Order” on my project, so precedence had been set with the Town of View Royal.

In the meantime, after I suspended the EOR, my wife interpreted the EOR’s response as that he quit. So, after discussing the situation with Mr. Gutierrez, she again tried contacting other engineers to see if anyone would be willing to take on our project. Mr. Thor Tandy of UNISOL Engineering said he would be willing to come see our site and determine if he could help. On March 31, 2023, Mr. Tandy came to review the project. When I pointed the cracking and bowing 6x6 posts, my records note that Mr. Tandy, standing beside me, stated “I think the engineer overloaded his posts”. After speaking with the EOR, Mr. Tandy advised that “I have subsequently decided that involvement by UNISOL Engineering Ltd is not practicable.”

On April 14, 2023, my wife sent a reminder to Building Department asking if the Town of View Royal asked for a second opinion through the EGBC (see Attachment # 5). Looking at Mr. Gutierrez’s Building Inspections Report dated August 16, 2023, I see instead of approaching the EGBC, he had arranged for a third party review was conducted by UNISOL Engineering (referenced in the letter as Thorn Engineering) at the request of Buepoint consulting (referenced in the letter as Blue Point consulting) and the review was paid for by the Buepoint consulting. I requested the third party review to be paid by Town of View Royal as if either party paid for the review, there would be a conflict of interest as reviewer was thereby reporting to the party who was paying them. Had Mr. Gutierrez advised that that the Town of View Royal shouldn’t have to pay for this review, I would have requested that the Town of View Royal pay upfront, and the expense then could have been divided amongst the two parties. Instead, my wife and I received a report that was no longer unbiased.

After exhausting all efforts to find a lawyer in Victoria, my wife and I contracted a Vancouver lawyer who then engaged another engineer to review our situation. In this engineer’s report, he recommended we replace “the existing 6x6 posts with 7x7 parallam posts which will not dimensionally change or check, nor would they bow or deform under the calculated loads.” After receiving this recommendation, I replaced the existing posts, and immediately the building became sound, and the soft floors disappeared.

Rather than burden Town Council with all the nuisances between the EOR and ourselves, I will state that we have filed a Civil Claim against buepoint consulting ltd. Over the years on this project, we have, numerous times received conflicting orders from the Town. Case in point, on April 1, 2020, we received a letter from the Town of View Royal advising us of the Interim Building Permit and Inspection Processes. A year after I received this letter, I contacted the Town and asked if this was still the process as I had never received a follow up letter. Upon doing so, I was called a liar, that this letter was never issued (see Attachment # 6). Gary Faykes showed up on my site after this episode and I showed him the Town’s letter to me. He commented “It’s got my boss’s signature”. Clearly, I was not a liar. Another example was on our Town permit, Mr. Faykes noted that I was not given permission to help the elderly or veterans because of what I had done on my house on 24 Vickery Road. I had approached Our Place and after a long conversation and a site visit from their representatives, they were interested in housing seniors under their program in my home on 24 Vickery Road. As another example, in response to our complaint, the EOR response, on the final page noted to the EGBC to contact Stephen Patterson for additional information. This begs the question, is there collusion/corruption/bias against us by Mr. Patterson and the actions he has taken on this situation?

During our August 15, 2023 Meeting with Mr. Patterson and Leanne Taylor, after listening to Ms. Taylor’s experience with her renovation, I stated that our situation is completely different. Shortly after I described our situation was like an elephant being held up by a popsicle stick to describe the danger of putting too much load on inadequate posts, the meeting was over. Another example, in the previous administration, the previous CAO blocked me from having a meeting with the mayor and himself where I hoped I could turn to the Town for help, its only the current CAO who has taken the time to listen to what we have said.

In conclusion, we understand that Town Council, through majority vote, will make collective decisions in the best interests of the community. My wife and I are not the “villains” but rather the “victims” of a system that puts the owner of a house being forced to work with an engineer who may have made a mistake and is unwilling to work with the builder and the owner in finding an acceptable solution that addresses the owner’s concerns about the building being unsafe (hence the lawsuit).

My wife and I were and are still in a situation whereby we cannot meet the requirements of the British Columbia Building Codes (BC Building Codes) as we cannot hire another engineer to take on the risks and responsibilities of the original engineer, and therefore, we will never be able to get the engineer stamp required by the BC Building Codes and there in turn we cannot get an occupancy permit from the Town of View Royal: we are in a catch 22. We understand that section 57 of the Community Charter needs to be invoked to remove all risks to the Town of View Royal. Our request is that we not be penalized any further by the Town of View Royal for occupying a house that does not have the engineer’s stamp or the occupancy permit but has been built to the BC Building Codes. If required, we are willing to post on our property a notice stating that the house does not have an occupancy permit before our guests visit the property to ensure they are aware of their risks should they enter our home.

Sincerely,

John Becker 24 Vickery Road Victoria, BC V9B 1M4

Attachment # 1 – Town of View Royal’s December 6, 2022 Building Inspection Report Attachment # 2 – December 6, 2022 Email advising the option selected will not work Attachment # 3 – January 26, 2023 Email advising no problems with posts Attachment # 4 – March 27, 2023 Email to Mr. Gutierrez Attachment # 5 – April 14, 2023 Email to Mr. Guiterrez and Mr. Patterson Attachment # 6 – Town of View Royal’s Letter dated April 1, 2020