Notice of Remedial Action Response Letter (February 23, 2025)

RE: Notice of Remedial Action in accordance with the Community Charter Sections 72 – 80 for the property located at 12 Vickery Road

This letter is to acknowledge receipt of the email and package from Stephen Patterson, Building Inspector, regarding the Notice of Remedial Action for the property located at 12 Vickery Road. There is a lot in the Notice of Remedial Action for me to review to provide my formal response; however, I wanted to provide my initial gut reaction to the accusations and statements that have been made and have been omitted, and to ask some questions.

In my November 14, 2024, letter to Town Council, I stated “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. C26, 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 remedial actions take (in particular the remedial action process outlined in section 17, 72 to 80 (inclusive), and 258 of the Community Charter), including additional property taxes assessed against the current owners of the property.” I still stand by that statement and therefore I will be formally responding to the remedial actions being proposed in the February 14, 2025, Council Report by the Building Inspector (provided as a separate attachment to the email) for the March 4, 2025, Council Meeting.

Regarding the Town Council’s unanimous support for section 57 on the property title, Anna and I were and are still grateful for the kindness and understanding they’ve shown us.

While I am preparing the formal response, based on my initial review, I have the following questions:

1. By what date does our formal response need to be submitted for inclusion in the Public Agenda for the March 4, 2025, Council Meeting?
2. What is the relevance of the following attachments? They are not referenced anywhere in the Council Report, other than being listed under the section Attachments. a. #32 – Part 9 Plumbing permit application b. #33 – Part 9 New Construction building permit application c. #34 – Title Search d. #35 – Charge CA5854902 e. #36 – BC Assessment f. #37 – 12 Vickery BP Application g. #38 – Approved Building Plans.

Regarding the will of John Henry Cosier (attachment # 35), what is the relevance of Charge CA5854902 and my role as Executor to this Council Report? Is this an attempt to slander or impugn my character? I demand Mr. Patterson provide an explanation justifying the relevance of this document and its inclusion in the Council Report. If I am correct and Mr. Patterson cannot justify his actions, then I am inclined to believe that he is trying to make me look bad before the Town Council. Anyone capable of fabricating an alternative reality for events that they have not completely investigated (proving incompetence) to the Town Councillors I believe should not be trusted.

In response to Mr. Patterson’s accusation (top of page 5 of the Council Report) that “The owner has removed the SWO, which is in contravention of the Town’s Building Bylaw.” I would like Mr. Patterson to prove that I removed the sign. When the initial Stop Work Order (SWO) was removed, my wife emailed Scott Sommerville, Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), to thank him for assisting us. She assumed that Mr. Sommerville arranged for the Building Inspector to remove the sign. When this turned out to be not true, another SWO was posted on the door. I took photos of the sign daily to ensure that there was no tampering with the sign. When the sign disappeared for a second time, I noted it in my mind and went to work. Later that day while moving around the property I found the sign hidden behind my garbage bin located near the basement door. Unsure of what happened I picked up the sign and placed it inside the building behind the glass of the front door window. It sat next to the Building Permit. I took several photographs, which are date and time stamped as evidence that the sign was still visible and now no one could remove the sign without breaking a window. Later that day, I asked Anna to check our security camera files and we found a late night intruder on our property, possibly responsible for the sign removal. We have several files saved as evidence to ensure we are not being persecuted, in short, we have learned not to trust.

So again, I demand Mr. Patterson provide evidence for which he has implicated me. Failure to do so will mean that he is willing to lie to the Council regarding my honour. Either he provides evidence, or he retract this claim and admit he lied. Given the two incidents of the SWO being removed, we installed the gate on our driveway to deter any further intrusion onto our property and to completely enclosed our project. For your information, I still have the sign in my building the only reason it wasn’t in the window case was because I was cleaning up around the front entrance and neglected to put the sign back afterwards. Furthermore, as noted in Attachment 15 of the Council Report, Anna contacted Mr. Patterson to ask about the removal of the “Unsafe to Occupy” sign. This demonstrates that we did not remove the signs, that we have been complying the entire time, and leads to the suspicion on our part that there is a game afoot.

Furthermore, when Mr. Patterson came to post the Unsafe to Occupy sign on my door, he began knocking loudly on my front door to draw me outside. I feel this was a deliberate attempt to instigate a conflict, as it was unnecessary to have me come outside to post his sign. I spoke to Mr. Patterson and the Bylaw Officer and although I was frustrated, I tried to find middle ground by offering Mr. Patterson the opportunity to look inside the house to see its current state. He was not interested so I began to open the front door to go inside my house as I did not need to be present to watch him tape a sign to my front door. When I tried to open the door, Mr. Patterson reached passed me and tried to slam the door in my face. I pushed his arm out of the way and Mr. Patterson snapped “Are you trying to obstruct me?” I snapped back “Don’t obstruct me from going into my own house.” To be perfectly clear, there is a camera located a few feet from where we were standing and while they are not visible in the video the camera has a microphone. If Mr. Patterson was wondering what happened to the SWO at that time, he could have simply asked me instead of falsely accusing me of removing the sign in the Council Report.

I would like to emphasize that Anna and I have had a horrible time being heard by anyone as we have had to repeat our side of the events on numerous occasions. You would think by now, the Building Department would understand that they have approached our situation with hostility and dishonesty. I don’t make those charges lightly; I will provide you with evidence.

Also, I was the one who contacted WorkSafeBC to report my project was being suspended, this is something the EOR should have done after he was made aware of the bowing and cracking 6x6 posts.

Again, Mr. Patterson presented a half truth because in Anna’s email of March 31, 2023 6:36 PM, she stated “we believed that Mark had quit.” As noted in Anna’s email to Robert Gutierrez, Anna advised the Building Inspector that “Following is the email trail from today’s interactions with Mark from buepoint consulting ltd. From our perspective, Mark quit our Project based on his decision to notify the Town of View Royal’s Building Department and we will be seeking another engineer."

I will be providing further discrepancies Mr. Patterson has provided in our upcoming response, but I feel it necessary to point this out now as he is recommending the demolition of our home and using the Town Council to get this done, as Mr. Patterson is fully aware that I cannot meet the Recommendation made in the Council Report as the EOR will not sign off on the framing review. The EOR will not quit and therefore, no other engineer will take on the role and responsibilities of the EOR for our project. If we fire the current EOR, he is released of all his responsibilities for our project. To be clear, I cannot submit a new Building Permit as no engineer is going to agree to take on our project. This is wholly due to how the engineers association feels about buepoint consulting ltd., none of these engineers know me, I don’t exist in their world, but they do know who Mark is.

In a conversation with an engineering firm, it was pointed out to me that if the EOR quit our project, then the engineering association would be obligated to find us a replacement;

The good people of Town Council are being misled by Mr. Patterson and the Building Department, in my opinion, and further facts will reveal this in our upcoming response. It is my suspicion, but I have no proof; however, the section titled “Time Critical” states “The issues at 12 Vickery Road present an immediate and ongoing issue to public safety and the integrity of the property.” I believe that if the Town Council is convinced to demolish my home before my court date with the EOR for our Civil Claim No. 24 7032, this could easily be construed as an attempt to destroy evidence pertinent to our legal proceedings. Mr. Buesink has already indicated in writing that he is working with Mr. Patterson, and I believe this constitutes collusion because Mr. Patterson has never conducted an independent inspection to see if anything he has been told is even true. This will all be revealed to the courts at our upcoming trial.

Before I leave this part, I will add one more glaring misinterpretation. In Attachment 5, Thor Tandy’s review, point 3.0 ITEMS OF CONCERN, Thor Tandy states “The basement posts are failing and checking has occurred in many of the posts since construction”. Whose quote is this? It is not mine; I have never said that the posts are “failing and checking”, I have always said they are “bowing and cracking to the point where you can see light passing through the post”. I can only assume that this quote was from Thor Tandy’s first visit to our site. Mr. Tandy was warned that my phone records everything, I made that very clear to him.

Maybe it would help if I explained what it’s like to build a house entirely by yourself. 12 Vickery Road is the fourth house I have built on this street. I built 34 Vickery Road by myself; the only exception was plumbing and electrical. That house has an engineer’s stamp and the occupancy permit. I built 24 Vickery Road by myself; the only exception was plumbing and electrical. That house has an engineer’s stamp and the occupancy permit. I renovated Jack’s old house on 12 Vickery Road after the Building Department had condemned his home, after 7 months of work, Jack was allowed to return to his home (I did the work for snickers and beer). The house I’m building now has 14 foot tall walls, I’m 5 foot 8 inches, ask yourself, how does one person build a house with those dimensions? I have a skillset that most people don’t have. Because I work alone, it takes longer than if there was a crew of carpenters working on my site. What would take 5 carpenters 1 week to complete takes me almost a month. So, I have to approach the building of a house very different from the standard. My priority was to stand up all the walls and get a roof over my head during the warm period of the year. During the winter rains, I could go inside and finish all the small details. This meant I never concern myself with framing windows or doors or interior walls, adding blocking or straps or any of the small details that had to be completed on my project. Build the big things first, focus on the small things later, so anyone who looks at my project at a particular moment in time during an inspection will see many differences from a standard build. That’s because I work alone!

The Town Council is being asked to believe that I can build 4 houses by myself (on Vickery Road) suddenly I can’t do carpentry. Does this sound real to you? Does this form of logic mean that tearing down my house makes sense to you? I would think the good people of the Town Council should be asking the Building Department for proof that all of the items on EOR’s list were not addressed, because I have photographic, video and written evidence that these items were completed. That is, if Town Council decide to demolish my house, you will be doing so based on a Building Inspector who has never inspected my home. In my almost 40 years of construction, Mr. Patterson is the first building inspector I have ever meet who doesn’t actually inspect buildings. What are the taxpayers of the Town of View Royal paying Mr. Patterson for? To be clear, I am frustrated as Mr. Patterson has spent more time trying to get my house demolished then inspecting my house to confirm compliance with the BC Building Code. He has refused to conduct inspections and slandered my character by telling me I’m not a Journeyman Carpenter and I am not qualified to build my house (see Attachment 7 of the Council Report). I have never claimed to be a Journeyman Carpenter, my trades tickets are in different fields. I passed the Owner Builder Exam with a score of greater than 70% and was given the New Owner Builder Authorization by BC Housing.

Furthermore, why black out sections of Anna’s July 23, 2023 7:00 PM email? Is it because, the Building Department is afraid the statements may prevent their efforts to demolish the evidence before our Civil Claim and therefore, misrepresenting the situation through deleted comments like (by Anna) “By questioning John’s qualifications as a carpenter, are you then insinuating that the engineer(s) and building inspector(s) for 34 Vickery Road, and 24 Vickery Road were not qualified to do their work as they signed the letters of assurance and issued the Occupancy Permits to a Builder with poor workmanship? Are you also stating that the building inspector who uncondemned and issued the Occupancy Permit for 12 Vickery Road after John completed the renovations was also unqualified?” What are you hiding from the good people of the Town Council? I think the Town Council should consider that they may be being deceived.

Instead of conducting inspections, Mr. Patterson has spent more time writing reports that has not been fully investigated and spent taxpayers’ money to hire a legal counsel and to obtain information that is not pertinent to the situation (i.e., John Henry Cosier’s will). It was because of his attitude and his actions; Anna filed a complaint to the Building Officials’ Association.

And I have to ask, what is the fascination with constantly asking me for my legal counsel? This is the third time I have been told to seek legal counsel. My legal counsel resides in Vancouver, I am not going to pay my legal counsel to travel to Victoria to listen to the Building Department bloviate about how I am a bad man. If you have an axe to grind, I can’t stop you. Anna and I have done nothing wrong, we have asked for help, we have been rejected, we are not deliberately trying to be a problem, or create a problem, that has been thrust upon us.

The kindness we were shown by the Town Council by their unanimous agreeance to put section 57 on the property title after all we have been through cannot be overstated. My wife spent many nights crying over how we have been rejected by some, abandoned by others, and forced to endure lies and slander. We desperately wanted to comply with all the rules and regulations, but instead we were stymied by the Building Department and a delinquent EOR who would not take responsibility for his mistake. As I once mentioned to the CAO, the EOR has made a mistake, the EOR won’t admit there is a mistake, the EOR won’t sign off on our build because there is a mistake, we will never be given occupancy because of the EOR, it’s a loop.

Finally regarding Mr. Patterson’s claim that the Town will still be responsible for future claims, in our meeting with the CAO, Anna and I offered to the CAO that we would be willing to sign a waiver to release the Town of View Royal from any responsibility, and if in some far off future, after Anna and I are dead, and the house is still standing, will that be proof that the EOR and the Building Department were wrong about the structural stability of my build?

I would like to point out that the house has been standing for almost 2.5 years in its present state with no evidence of structural failure, this house has endured high winds, cold temperatures, rain and snow, and earthquakes caused by the rock blasting done across the Island Highway. During this period, the EOR has never failed a single wall, never failed any portion of the floor, never failed any section of the roof: that is, the EOR has never failed the structure of the building! He has indicated there was some things that still needed to be completed. With the SWO and being told the Building Permit cannot be renewed, as well as being told I was to have no further communication with the Building Inspector, Mr. Patterson was preventing me from working on the items on the Framing Review list, I was put in a catch 22 situation.

When I was notified by the buepoint consulting staff that the EOR was coming to the site for a visit I believed that he was coming to address the bowing and cracking 6x6 posts. Instead, it became a 2 hour unrequested, unapproved Framing Review which turned out to be more of a witch hunt rather than seriously looking at my posts.

I would like to point out that the EOR and the Building Inspector have the authority to ask the Builder to remove anything blocking the view of an inspection, they could have asked me to remove the shoring, neither of these individuals asked for the shoring to be removed because they knew I am correct. Instead, they continue to blame me for trying to hide it. Why would I be hiding the posts that I am trying to have addressed? As noted in my letter of November 14, 2024 to Town Council, when Anna and I contacted other engineers, about the bowing and cracking problem, 8 of the engineers told us to “shore up your posts and work with your existing engineer”.

Let me reiterate this important point, and the reader of this letter take notice. I never requested a framing review ever, because I was not ready for a framing review. I agreed to the first preliminary review because Heather from buepoint had phoned me twice, texted me once, and sent me an email asking if a preliminary framing review could be conducted. I agreed in principle to a preliminary framing review with the knowledge that I was not ready. I have photographs of the house at the time of the preliminary framing review showing that I was still in the process of framing.

In conclusion, I will be providing a full in-depth response to the Council Report, and you can probably tell by my initial gut reaction, that I am a little hostile at having to continuously repeat myself and am wondering when people are actually going to hear me.

Sincerely,

John Becker 24 Vickery Road Victoria, BC V9B 1M4