TOWN OF VIEW ROYAL REPORT TO COUNCIL - File a Notice on Title under Section 57 of the Community Charter

REPORT TO COUNCIL

TO: Mayor & Council DATE: February 24, 2015 FROM: Gary Faykes, Building Official MEETING DATE: March 3, 2015

File a Notice on Title under Section 57 of the Community Charter

RECOMMENDATION:

That pursuant to section 57 of the Community Charter, SBC 2003, c. 26, Council pass a resolution for the filing of a notice with the Land Registry Office against land with a civic address of 14A Helmcken Road, Victoria, BC and a legal description of Lot A, Section 9, Esquimalt District, Plan 35416, Parcel Identifier: 000-345-342 (the "Property")¹ for failure to comply with the Town of View Royal (the "Town")'s Safe Premises Bylaw No. 652, 2007 ("Safe Premises Bylaw"), Town's Property Maintenance Bylaw No. 512, 2013 ("Property Maintenance Bylaw"), and British Columbia Building Code, which contraventions relate to the construction or safety of the building on the Property ("Building").

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

This report illustrates the contraventions of the Town’s Safe Premises Bylaw, Property Maintenance Bylaw and Building Code, which relate to the construction or safety of the Building.

Overview

Philip Vivian Alcock and Janice Lynne Alcock are the registered owners of the Property.

The Building is a three story wood frame structure.

The current zoning of the Property is R-1B: Detached Residential (Medium) Lot.

Marijuana Grow Operation at the Property

On September 25, 2014 Westshore RCMP found a marijuana grow operation within the Building. Subsequently BC Hydro or its agent, and Town staff, including the Building Official, a Bylaw Enforcement Officer, Fire Inspector and Director of Protective Services, attended at the Property.

¹ Attached is a copy of a land title search dated 2015-02-23 of the Property

Removal of the Hazardous Conditions at the Property

Mr. and Mrs. Alcock failed, refused or neglected to complete the removal of the hazardous conditions at the Property by December 24, 2014 in accordance with a Schedule “B” Hazardous Conditions List issued under the Safe Premises Bylaw.

Condition of the Property

After September 25, 2014 and notice to Mr. and Mrs. Alcock of the posting of the Schedule “D” Notice on the front door of the building on the Property that no person may occupy the Building until clean up of the hazardous conditions at the Property has been completed, the Town received complaints about the Property and activities at the Property, including:

• the occupation of the Property.
• the unsightly state of the Property - garbage, furniture and belongings in the yards;
• vehicles and a motor home at the Property powered by a generator connected to the building on the Property and running for the most if not all day and through the night;
• gas fumes;
• numerous people coming and going to the Property, entering the building through an unlocked door, and people trespassing on to neighbour’s property/yards;
• a young woman in the back yard of the Property who appeared in medical distress and collapsed pulling a modified bicycle with gas engine over her head. There was gasoline leaking onto her and she was near a running generator with numerous open gasoline cans around her as well as numerous batteries.

After receiving numerous complaints about the Property, on October 21, 2014 the Fire Chief/Director of Protective Services drove down Helmcken Road near the Property and was confronted by a female under the influence of drugs and who was believed to be a tenant of the Building and occupant at the Property. When the Fire Chief stated that he would return to the Property tomorrow, the female stated “don't worry, we haven't burned it down yet, but we will”.

January 21, 2015 Inspection of the building on the Property

Following personal service of notice to Mr. and Mrs. Alcock on January 15, 2015, the Town’s Building Official, Bylaw Officer, Fire Inspector and Don Ballard Inspector with the BC Safety Authority attended at and inspected the Building on January 21, 2015. The inspection revealed that the Building is not in compliance with regulations, prohibitions and requirements under the Town’s Safe Premises Bylaw, Property Maintenance Bylaw and the Building Code. Contraventions of the Town’s Bylaws as well as the Building Code are discussed in detail in this Report.

In a February 6, 2015 Electrical Certificate of Inspection report, following the inspection of the Building on January 21, 2015, Don Ballard has indicated that “correction of non-compliances are required prior to occupation of the dwellings.”

Remediation of the Building to a condition that allows habitable occupancy requires among other things:

• clean up of the hazardous conditions at the Property in accordance with the guidelines of the IICRC or another recognized Canadian certification program;
• a structural review of the third floor addition to the Building from a British Columbia registered structural engineer;
• a certified electrician’s review and repair of the entire electrical system of the Building by permit and subsequent inspection by the British Columbia Safety Authority; and
• building and plumbing repairs to the Building to be undertaken through permits from the Town with subsequent inspection of the repairs by the Town’s Building Official.

Contraventions of the Building Code and Past Contraventions of the Town’s Secondary Suites Permit Bylaw No. 601 (“Secondary Suites Bylaw”) and Land Use Bylaw, 1990, No. 35 (“Land Use Bylaw”)

From my review of the Town’s property file about the Property, which incorporates the Capital Regional District’ (“CRD”)’s file prior to the Town’s incorporation on or about December 5, 1988, it appears that Mr. Alcock applied for a permit on November 24, 1988 (BP #32591 from the CRD) and was subsequently issued a permit for the construction of a third floor addition to the Property.

To the best of my knowledge, an occupancy permit was never issued to Mr. and Mrs. Alcock for the construction of the addition of the third floor and a final inspection to confirm that the third floor met the then current Building Code requirements was not completed.

From at least November 2011 to August 13, 2012 the building on the Property was in breach of section 40.2 of the Land Use Bylaw 1990, No. 35, and the Secondary Suites Permit Bylaw No. 601, 2005 as the Building contained more than one dwelling unit - there were four rooms equipped for the preparation and cooking of food - Mr. and Mrs. Alcock never submitted an application for and the Town never issued a Type 1 or Type 2 permit for a secondary suite under sections 4.1 and 4.2 of the Secondary Suites Permit Bylaw. Voluntary compliance was difficult to achieve.

Resources Expended, Arrears in Property Taxes and Special Investigation Fee

There has been numerous telephone calls to the police about the Property and activities at the Property.

Many hours of the Town’s staff have been diverted to: receiving, reviewing and responding to complaints about the Property, the special inspections of the Property on September 25, 2014 and January 21, 2015, and attempts to seek compliance from Mr. and Mrs. Alcock with the Town’s Bylaws.

Every opportunity has been granted to work with Mr. and Mrs. Alcock for compliance with the Town’s Bylaws with little or no success.

Mr. and Mrs. Alcock also have failed to pay property taxes for the Property as of February 23, 2015 in the amount of $6,588.66 plus interest for 2013 and 2014 property taxes. The special inspection fee from the Inspection on January 21, 2015 of $1,500 for which the Town sent to Mr. and Mrs. Alcock an invoice on January 30, 2015 is also still outstanding.

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER'S COMMENTS:

I support the recommendation.

DIRECTOR OF PROTECTIVE SERVICES COMMENTS:

Although there has finally been some efforts towards engagement of North West Environmental Group Ltd. (“NWEG”) (as of January 29, 2015) to inspect the Property to identify the scope of work required to address clean up of the hazardous conditions at the Property following the dismantling of a marijuana grow operation found within the Property on September 25, 2014, and after the deadline of December 24, 2014 for clean up of the hazardous conditions at the Property, the Building continues to be in breach of the Town’s Bylaws.

It is the Director's opinion that the owners of this Property have not been genuine in their desire to manage this Property appropriately, resulting in numerous calls for attendance at the Property by the Town’s staff service and other regulatory agencies.

This notice will assist in continuing bylaw enforcement with respect to the Property and assist in providing notice to tenants, occupiers or potential purchasers of the Property that the Property is in contravention of the Town’s Bylaws and Building Code relating to the construction and safety of the building on the Property.

I support the recommendation.

BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION:

The Property has been at the forefront of Building, Bylaw, Fire and the RCMP for a significant amount of time, unnecessarily demanding resources and staff time.

Third Floor Addition to the Building on the Property, Contraventions of the Building Code?

Review of the property file for 14A Helmcken Road indicates that there is a lack of supporting documentation that the third floor addition to the Building has passed any inspections or that Mr. and Mrs. Alcock received an occupancy permit.

On November 24, 1988 Mr. Alcock applied for and subsequently received a building permit from the CRD. After the incorporation of the Town of View Royal on or about December 5, 1988, the Town became responsible for building inspection of the Property. Correspondence from the then Chief Building Inspector to Mr. and Mrs. Alcock in 1989 and 1991 indicate that inspections were required and there was an issue with respect to the timing of completion of the construction of the building².

Unlawful Secondary Suites

Following the Town’s receipt of a complaint, the Town sought to inspect the Building in November 2011 about unlawful secondary suites. The inspection was unable to take place as there was no one available to allow access. A second letter was sent out on July 30, 2012 (notification letter attached) as a result of further complaints regarding secondary suites as well as noise. Follow up of the original complaint was also required and overdue because of limited staff time in the Bylaw Department. An inspection date of August 3, 2012 was given to provide sufficient notice of the inspection to Mr. and Mrs. Alcock and the tenants of the Building³. The date conflicted with Mr. Alcock’s schedule and as a courtesy staff consented to a date of August 9, 2012 to conduct the inspection. The inspection on August 9, 2012 revealed that the Property was in contravention of Land Use Bylaw and Secondary Suites Bylaw because four kitchens were in the Building/dwelling unit⁴.

² Attached is a copy of the planning file related to the Building Permit #32591 and the Town’s former Chief Building Inspector, Heinz Burki’s letters dated June 29, 1989 and April 2, 1991 and notes. ³ Attached is a copy of the November 7, 2011 and July 30, 2012 notices/letters of inspection of the Building. ⁴ Legislative Excerpts - Section entitled Land Use Bylaw and Secondary Suites Bylaw

In brief, section 40.2 of the Land Use Bylaw, prior to its repeal⁴, read in part: “(b) Secondary suites are only permitted in owner-occupied buildings. (...) (g) The owner of every building wishing to use the building for a permitted secondary suite use must obtain an annual secondary suite permit in accordance with Bylaw No. 601, 2005. (h) The Building Inspector or Bylaw Enforcement Officer may conduct inspections for the purposes of this Section.”

Mr. and Mrs. Alcock never submitted to the Town an application for and the Town has not issued a Type 2 permit under section 4.2 of the Town’s Secondary Suites Bylaw No. 601, 2005.

As a result of the inspection, a third letter was sent on August 13, 2012 to Mr. and Mrs. Alcock advising another inspection of the Building would take place on August 27, 2012 to ensure the Property was now in compliance⁵. Upon arrival of the date, the owner requested a change to accommodate his schedule and the inspection was moved to August 28, 2012. At the time of this inspection, three of the four kitchens had been disabled and the tenants allegedly lived as one family/household.

On September 28, 2012, at the request of the West Shore RCMP, the Town’s Building Inspector, Bylaw Officer and Fire Inspector attended the Property for a police related offence. No record of the offence is on hand as well no reports or memo’s to file were kept, however I photographed the Building and have filed them accordingly⁶. On this day, at the request of the Town, the BC Safety Authority attended the property and found the electrical system was compromised and the Inspector had the power to the structure rendered disconnected. As per the pictures and for concern of the residents, I placed a Do Not Occupy on the premises. With the assistance of the Safety Authority the Owner had the electrical system repaired to a minimum of standard and working interconnected smoke detectors installed, prior to the removal of my Order and allowing the occupants to reside in the Building once again.

By way of its February 18, 2013 letter⁷ the Town sought to inspect the Property again on February 25, 2013 as a result of receiving more complaints from the neighbourhood. The dwelling was not found to be in contravention of the Secondary Suite Bylaw. However the Fire Inspector was concerned with a chained and padlocked door as well as clutter that would impede exit from occupants should an emergency situation arise.

The premise was also inspected in January 9, 2014 under the Property Maintenance Bylaw due to an Unsightly Premise complaint. The property was found to be in contravention of this bylaw. The matter was a further event that took a significant amount of time both in compliance and staff time.

September 25, 2014 Inspection of the Property

Hazardous Conditions, Contraventions of Safe Premises Bylaw

On September 25, 2014 Westshore RCMP found a marijuana grow operation within the Building⁸. Upon request, Town of View Royal staff, including the Fire Chief, Building Official, Bylaw Enforcement Officer and Fire Inspector, attended at the Property along with BC Hydro or a Representative.

Mr. and Mrs. Alcock never submitted to the Town an application for and the Town has not issued a Type 1 permit under section 4.1 of the Town’s Secondary Suites Bylaw No. 601, 2005.

⁵ Attached is a copy of the August 13, 2012 notice/letter of inspection of the Building. ⁶ Attached are copies of the photographs of the Building on September 28, 2012. ⁷ Attached is a copy of the February 18, 2013 notice/letter of inspection of the Building. ⁸ Attached is a copy of Enzo Calla’s September 25, 2014 Memo to the Property File, Bylaw Enforcement Action Log notes dated September 25, 2014 and View Royal Fire Inspector photos.

On September 25, 2014 the Town sent to Mr. and Mrs. Alcock a copy of the Schedule “B” Hazardous Conditions List that required Mr. and Mrs. Alcock to perform and provide certifications that the hazardous conditions at the Property have been removed in accordance with the Town of View Royal’s Safe Premises Bylaw No. 652, 2007 (“Safe Premises Bylaw”)⁹. The deadline for removal of the hazardous conditions at the Property was December 24, 2014.

On September 25, 2014 Mr. and Mrs. Alcock were also notified that pursuant to the Safe Premises Bylaw a Schedule “D” Notice was posted on the front door of the Property restricting any entry or occupancy of the Property until such time that the requirements set out in the Schedule “B” Hazardous Conditions List were completed.

After September 25, 2014 and notwithstanding sections 4.1, 5.1 and 6.3(c) of the Safe Premises Bylaw, Mr. and Mrs. Alcock allowed, permitted, acquiesced or were willfully blind to the fact that people occupied the Property notwithstanding that hazardous conditions existed at the Property.

Mr. and Mrs. Alcock failed, refused or neglected to complete the removal of the hazardous conditions at the Property by December 24, 2014¹⁰.

Although Mr. and Mrs. Alcock engaged North West Environmental Group Ltd. on or about January 29, 2015 to do an inspection of the building on February 4, 2015 and provide an assessment of the scope of the work to be done, as of the date of this Report, the Town has not received NWEG’s report and the remediation of the hazardous conditions still has not been done.

Nuisance, Hazardous Conditions, Occupation of the Building of and at the Property, Unsightly Premises

A summary of some of the recent complaints¹¹, and communications with¹² and correspondence from RCMP¹³ about the occupation of, activities and condition of the Property are as follows:

⁹ Attached is a copy of Gary Faykes’ September 25, 2014 letter with attachments (Hazardous Conditions List and Schedule “D” Notice). See also Tab 7 for a copy of the Safe Premises Bylaw. ¹⁰ Attached is counsel for the Town’s December 25, 2014 to Mr. and Mrs. Alcock noting the failure to clean up the hazardous conditions at the Property by December 24, 2014. ¹¹ The complaints dated June 2, 2014 and July 30, 2014. All other complaints were phoned in and viewed as warranting investigation.. ¹² See notes of Enzo Calla dated November 14, 2014. ¹³ Attached is a copy of Constable Amy Rawlins of the West Shore RCMP’s October 30, 2014 e-mail to Enzo Calla

Issuance of Municipal Ticket Informations (“MTI’s”)

Between October 9, 2014 and November 13, 2014, the Town’s Bylaw Enforcement Officer issued 23 MTI’s¹⁴ for contraventions of the Safe Premises Bylaw, Noise Control Bylaw and Land Use Bylaw. To date, Mr. Alcock has not disputed or paid the fines noted in the MTI’s.

¹⁴ Attached are copies of the MTI’s. On January 6, 2015, Roger Batchelor contacted counsel for the Town and indicated that Mr. Batchelor was retained with respect to the MTI’s. No further response from Mr. Batchelor or Mr. Alcock has been received whether Mr. Alcock seeks to dispute the MTI’s notwithstanding the time limit for doing so has expired.

January 21, 2015 Inspection of the Building on the Property

After personal service of a notice/letter dated January 15, 2015 on Mr. and Mrs. Alcock of inspection of the Building¹⁵, the Town’s Building Inspector, Bylaw Officer and Fire Inspector as well as a British Columbia Safety Authority Electrical Safety Officer attended at the Property on January 21, 2015 to inspect the Building and determine whether all regulations, prohibitions and requirements are being met under the Town’s Safe Premises Bylaw, Property Maintenance Bylaw, Zoning Bylaw and Land Use Bylaw as well as the Community Charter¹⁶.

The January 21, 2015 inspection of the Building revealed, among other things, 23 contraventions of the Property Maintenance Bylaw, and numerous contraventions of the Building Code, highlights of which are as follows:

• Ground Floor:
  • Rubbish, filth and discarded waste was noted immediately upon entry and creates an unsafe condition in contravention of section 3.2 of the Property Maintenance Bylaw.
  • Unprotected insulation and vapour barrier installed within the ceiling space. The installation is failing and there is fluid buildup within the vapour barrier, in contravention of the Building Code. The liquid could not at the time of the inspection be identified and nevertheless should not be there.
  • The vapour barrier and insulation on the insulated areas of the external walls have been compromised resulting in contraventions of section 4.3.1 of the Property Maintenance Bylaw as well as the Building Code.
  • Extensive amounts of rodent feces are scattered everywhere. It should be noted that the problem probably escalated while the building has been unoccupied, but signs of rodent poisons and traps would indicate there was a previous issue with rodent infestation in contravention of section 3.4 of the Property Maintenance Bylaw.
  • Several windows are either missing or broken. The windows that are installed are not in good condition in contravention of sections 4.4.1 through 4.4.3 of the Property Maintenance Bylaw.
  • Electrical fixtures, outlets and wiring have been compromised, damaged or disconnected throughout the floor in contravention of section 4.14.1 of the Property Maintenance Bylaw.
  • Mould and water staining were witnessed throughout various areas of this floor potentially creating unsafe conditions in possible contravention of Safe Premises Bylaw and the Property Maintenance Bylaw.
  • The floor slab has been compromised by a hole in it. This creates an area for vermin to enter and also reveals an area that could be subject to soil gases as the soil gas barrier required by the Building Code may have been compromised, and in contravention of section 4.8.2 of the Property Maintenance Bylaw.

• Second Floor:

  • Immediately upon entering the second floor we encountered rubbish, filth and discarded waste creating an unsafe condition in contravention of section 3.2 of the Property Maintenance Bylaw.
  • The stove located on the second floor lacks an exhaust fan required in the Building Code and as such creates an unsafe condition and in contravention of section 3.1 of the Property Maintenance Bylaw.
  • The wall in one of the bedrooms has been opened up to accommodate the placement of a safe. During his process a ventilation pipe of sorts has been compromised resulting in a contravention of section 4.14.3 of the Property Maintenance Bylaw.
  • Flooring in one of the bedroom areas has been compromised resulting in a contravention of section 4.9.1 of the Property Maintenance Bylaw and section 9.30 of the Building Code.
  • Electrical outlets, fixtures and wiring have been compromised in various locations on this floor and may be inadequate for use resulting in possible contraventions of the British Columbia Electrical Code/Safety Act.

• Third Floor:

  • The floor system for the top (3rd) floor has been compromised with areas of sub flooring missing resulting in a contravention of section 4.1 of the Property Maintenance Bylaw. That which remains is questionable at best as it seems to be soft with more deflection than experienced on the other floors. The topping of this floor appears to be a roofing membrane material which leads me to believe this floor was an added on portion completed without proper permits or inspections.
  • The presence of standing water throughout the upper floor is an indication that there may be issues with the roofing system or roof drainage system in contravention of sections 4.5.1 and 4.5.2 of the Property Maintenance Bylaw.
  • The entire upper floor with the exception of the flooring system is non-insulated and is in contravention of section 9.36 of the Building Code. This is a fully accessible floor with signs of previous occupation.
  • It was witnessed that there is significant water staining throughout on the exterior walls and on the ceiling as well as a white mould or fungus growing in various areas. This could be a result of the leaking roof, the non-insulated walls and ceiling or as a result of activities unknown from prior occupation.
  • Electrical outlets, fixtures and wiring have been compromised in various locations on this floor and may be inadequate for use resulting in possible contraventions of the British Columbia Electrical Code/Safety Act.

• Exterior:

  • The exterior windows are in contravention of sections 4.4.1 and 4.4.3 of the Property Maintenance Bylaw.
  • There is a lack of required flashing in the roof of the Building in contraventions of the Building Code and section 4.5.1 of the Property Maintenance Bylaw.
  • The rear yard contains a structure that appears to have been a deck from the second floor. This structure presents a hazard as it can still be accessed, may no longer be structurally sound and contains no guard rails.

• Common Issues Through Building:

  • lack of a heating source. Ducting for a heating system was witnessed on the ground floor level, but a source of heat was not seen at this time, in contravention of sections 4.13.1 through 4.13.3 of the Property Maintenance Bylaw.
  • Mould growth was witnessed within the Building in multiple locations. Most notably was the ceiling of the third floor. This may or may not have been a result of the marijuana grow operation found within the Building on September 25, 2014. Further review of NWEG’s report, when available, with respect to the hazards present will be required as well as remedial action to counter damage to the Building created by the marijuana grow operation as well as the time the Building sat in an unheated and unmaintained condition.

In his February 6, 2015 report¹⁷, Don Ballard of BC Safety Authority indicated that the inspection of the Building failed and noted: with respect to service of the building that the rooms need to be cleaned out and service conductor connections need to be checked and that there are missing light fixtures, unterminated branch circuits/no boxes installed, missing outlet receptacles, and there is an unsecured upper panel in the main distribution.

¹⁵ Attached is a copy of the Director of Protective Services’ January 15, 2015 letter to Mr. and Mrs. Alcock. ¹⁶ Attached is Gary Faykes’ Inspection Report dated January 22, 2015 together with some photographs. The full complement of 98 pictures can be made available upon request.

Remediation Required

Remediation of the Building to a condition that allows habitable occupancy requires among other things:

• clean up of the hazardous conditions at the Property in accordance with the guidelines of the IICRC or another recognized Canadian certification program;
• a structural review of the third floor addition to the building from a British Columbia registered structural engineer;
• building repairs to be done with permits and in accordance with the current (2012) Building Code and the Town of View Royal Building Bylaw, No. 786, 2010;
• a certified electrician’s review and repair of the entire electrical system by permit and subsequent inspection by the British Columbia Safety Authority; and
• plumbing repairs to be undertaken through permits from the Town and by a certified plumber with subsequent inspection of the repairs by the Town’s Building Official; and
• a certified heating technician’s review of and repair of the heating system by permit with subsequent inspection of the repairs by the Town’s Building Official.

BUDGET IMPLICATIONS:

Implications to the Town will be limited to the costs of filing a Notice on title. Recovery of this cost can be made upon the owner applying to have the Section 57 removed and the Town’s costs reimbursed.

The Town is incurring legal costs associated with management and enforcement of issues on the Property.

¹⁷ Don Ballard’s February 6, 2015 report is attached.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Council may also consider continued enforcement against Mr. and Mrs. Alcock with respect to their Property such as:

• remedial action requirements under Division 12 of the Community Charter to:
  • declare that the building is in and creates unsafe conditions (sections 72 and 73 of the Community Charter) and the building is a nuisance as it is so dilapidated and unclean as to be offensive to the community (section 72 and 74 of the Community Charter); and
  • remedial action should be imposed - such as demolition (section 72(2) of the Community Charter).
• possible monetary adjustments to fines in MTI’s associated with Bylaw infractions. However, in view of Mr. Alcock’s failure to pay or dispute the previously issued MTI’s it is doubtful that issuance of further MTI’s would be useful in an attempt to seek Mr. and Mrs. Alcock’s compliance with the Town’s Bylaws.
• prosecution under a long-form Information pursuant to sections 267.1 of the Local Government Act, RBC 1996, c. 323, section 263.1 of the Community Charter, sections 4.1, 5.1, 6.3, 10.1 and 10.2 of the Safe Premises Bylaw and sections 2.11.1 through 2.11.3 of the Property Maintenance Bylaw. An advantage of a prosecution of Mr. and Mrs. Alcock, or any tenants or squatters in the Building or at the Property, by way of long-form information is that if Mr. and Mrs. Alcock are convicted, the Provincial Court Judge may, in addition to imposing a fine, make an order prohibiting the offenders from doing any act or engaging in any activity that may result in the continuation or repetition of the offence (including injunction relief) and may direct the offenders to take any action the court considers appropriate to remedy the harm resulting from the offence. However, the order may not exceed one year and the order is only effective against the person prosecuted. Accordingly, any squatters or occupants at the Property who are not prosecuted would not be subject to the order. The disadvantage with proceeding by way of long-form information is that it is costly and once service of the long-form information is effected on the accused, the matter is within the BC Provincial Court jurisdiction and a lengthy process governed by the Criminal Caseflow Management Rules comes in to effect which require numerous appearances before the court prior to a trial-initial appearance, arraignment hearing and trial confirmation hearings.

Proceeding with the filing of the notice under section 57 of the Community Charter against the Property does not preclude other enforcement options such as ticketing, prosecution by way of a long-form information or proceeding with remedial action requirements.

Section 57 of the Community Charter reads in part:

“Note against land title that building regulations contravened 57 (1) A building inspector may recommend to the council that it consider a resolution under subsection (3) if, during the course of carrying out duties, the building inspector (a) observes a condition, with respect to land or a building or other structure, that the inspector considers (i) results from the contravention of, or is in contravention of, (A) a municipal bylaw, (B) a Provincial building regulation, or (C) any other enactment that relates to the construction or safety of buildings or other structures, and

(ii) that, as a result of the condition, a building or other structure is unsafe or is unlikely to be usable for its expected purpose during its normal lifetime, or

(b) discovers that (i) something was done with respect to a building or other structure, or the construction of a building or other structure, that required a permit or an inspection under a bylaw, regulation or enactment referred to in paragraph (a) (i), and (ii) the permit was not obtained or the inspection not satisfactorily completed.

(2) A recommendation under subsection (1) must be given in writing to the corporate officer, who must (a) give notice to the registered owner of the land to which the recommendation relates, and (b) after notice under paragraph (a), place the matter before the council.

(3) After providing the building inspector and the owner an opportunity to be heard, the council may confirm the recommendations of the building inspector and pass a resolution directing the corporate officer to file a notice in the land title office stating that

(a) a resolution relating to that land has been made under this section, and (b) further information about it may be inspected at the municipal hall.

(4) The corporate officer must ensure that all records are available for the purpose of subsection (3) (b).

(5) If the registrar of land titles receives a notice under subsection (3) and payment of the prescribed fee, the registrar must make a note of the filing against the title to the land that is affected by the notice.

(...)

(8) Neither the building inspector nor the municipality is liable for damage of any kind for the doing of anything, or the failure to do anything, under this section or section 58 that would have, but for this subsection, constituted a breach of duty to any person.

(9) The authority under this section is in addition to any other action that a building inspector is authorized to take in respect of a matter referred to in subsection (1).”

CONCLUSION

Through the filing of a notice on title with the Land Registry Office, the Town will work towards compliance by Mr. and Mrs. Alcock with the Safe Premises Bylaw, Property Maintenance Bylaw and Building Code until compliance is achieved, tenants and occupiers or potential purchasers of the Property will have notice of the contraventions of the Town’s Bylaws and Building Code which relate to the construction and safety of the building on the Property.

PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:

Gary Faykes, Building Official

REVIEWED BY:

Paul Hurst, Director of Protective Services