Izaz v. The City of Surrey, 2022 BCPC 331

Citation: Izaz v. The City of Surrey 2022 BCPC 331 Date: 20220623 File No: C87191 Registry: Surrey IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Small Claims BETWEEN: MOHAMMED IZAZ CLAIMANT AND: CITY OF SURREY DEFENDANT ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE J. LOPES Appearing on their own behalf: M. Izaz Counsel for The City of Surrey: W. Aujla Place of Hearing: Surrey , B.C.

Dates of Hearing: January 31, April 20, 2022 Date of Judgment: June 23, 2022 [ 1 ] These are my reasons for judgment after the trial in this matter. Introduction [ 2 ] Mr. Izaz has brought an action against the City of Surrey for the cleanup and fees imposed by the City of Surrey after they undertook a cleanup in relation to one of his properties. Factual Background [ 3 ] Mr. Izaz owns a property at [omitted for publication] Avenue, in Surrey. Hereinafter, I will refer to it as "the property." [ 4 ] The property was the subject of a public complaint on April 30th, 2017.

On that day, Officer Dhanda from the City of Surrey Bylaw Enforcement Department attended the property. Officer Dhanda found the property to be unsightly. Mr. Izaz, as the property owner, was notified by registered mail that the property was required to be cleaned up. [ 5 ] The City of Surrey Bylaw Enforcement Department and Mr. Izaz exchanged correspondence about the property. Mr. Izaz informed the City that it was the tenants of the property that had control of the property. The City informed Mr.

Izaz that he was responsible for the property as the owner. [ 6 ] Officer Dhanda left the file and Officer Kooner took it over on March 2nd, 2018. Officer Kooner visited the property and spoke to the tenants. Officer Kooner decided that the property was still in an unsightly condition. Officer Kooner did not communicate with Mr. Izaz to update him. Officer Kooner testified that he felt uncomfortable communicating with Mr. Izaz due to problematic communications between City officers and Mr. Izaz in the past. [ 7 ] Officer Kooner visited the property again on January 25th, 2019.

He observed the property and found it to be unsightly. He spoke to the tenant and advised them that the property would be cleaned up at the owner's expense. [ 8 ] Officer Kooner, based on the original notice sent to Mr. Izaz and the current condition of the property, made arrangements for the property to be cleaned up. This occurred on March 14th, 2019. A contractor cleaned up the property. An invoice was sent to Mr. Izaz for the costs. The cost was $4,905.50. Nature of the Action [ 9 ] Mr. Izaz has brought an action against the City of Surrey for the amount he was charged for the cleanup, plus interest and fees.

The basis of his action is that the City of Surrey wrongfully entered and cleaned up his property without proper notice, and he suffered damages in the amount that he was required to pay for the cleanup. [ 10 ] The City of Surrey argues that Mr. Izaz's claim must fail, as it discloses no action at law, the action was brought outside of the six-month limitation period, and that this court has no jurisdiction to make injunctive or declaratory orders. [ 11 ] The background outlined previously by me is based on the uncontested evidence heard at the trial. The issue in this trial is whether Mr.

Izaz has a valid cause of action. [ 12 ] Issue Number 1: Does Mr. Izaz's pleadings constitute a valid cause of action in this court? [ 13 ] Mr. Izaz seeks the reversal of fees imposed pursuant to City bylaws. The Small Claims Act provides that this court has jurisdiction to hear claims for debt or damages, recovery of personal property, specific performance of an agreement relating to personal property or services, or relief from opposing claims to personal property (see s. 3). [ 14 ] The fees imposed on Mr. Izaz for the cleanup of his property are not a debt or damages as contemplated by the Act .

His claim does not fall under the remaining heads of jurisdiction. Essentially, Mr. Izaz is asking this court to grant injunctive or declaratory relief. This court has no jurisdiction to do so. Mr. Izaz should have been aware of this when he filed his Notice of Claim because, in a similar action brought by Mr. Izaz and his wife in Bi v. The Surrey City (sic), 2017 BCPC 386 . The court held the following at paragraph 31, quote: Finally, this Court also does not have authority to grant damages in lieu of an injunction or a declaratory order.

Simply claiming for damages as an alternative remedy, or otherwise, will not change the nature of the remedy being sought or provide jurisdiction to this Court, if the remedy is actually that of an injunction or a declaratory order ( Hill v. Vernon (City) , [1987] B.C.J. No. 2135 and Mort ). [ 15 ] Similarly, courts have held that the reversal of fees imposed pursuant to a city bylaw is not a claim in debt or damages and dismissed the claim for want of jurisdiction: see Khani-Hanjani v. Surrey (City) , 2012 BCPC 346 .

The claim, if based on an allegation that the City improperly exercised its statutory powers in carrying out the cleanup and charging the claimant fees to do so, must be brought by way of a petition to judicially review the actions of the municipality, which must be heard before the Supreme Court of British Columbia: see the decision in Sawatsky v. Abbotsford (City) , 2019 BCPC 255 . [ 16 ] Mr. Izaz has not pled a cause of action that I have any jurisdiction to hear. His claim is based on an allegation that the City of Surrey acted illegally by entering his property and cleaning it up.

He has claimed a reversal of the fees imposed. This is not a claim for debt or damages. Furthermore, I have no jurisdiction to review the actions of the City in the manner claimed, as the City acted under its statutory powers. Any review of those actions must be heard in Supreme Court.

[ 17 ] Issue 2: The Statute of Limitations. [ 18 ] Mr. Izaz filed his Notice of Claim on February 8th, 2021. The cleanup of his property occurred on March 14th, 2019, and he was invoiced for the cleanup on April the 11th, 2019. [ 19 ]

Section 735 of the Local Government Act , RSBC 2015, sets out that all actions against a municipality for the unlawful doing of anything must be commenced within six months after the cause of action first arose. [ 20 ] Giving Mr. Izaz the benefit of the position that the statute of limitations began to run when he received the invoice or notice for the cleanup, although not necessarily conceding that this was the date, as it could have been the date of the cleanup work itself, the limitation to bring any action was October 11th, 2019. Consequently, I find that Mr.

Izaz's claim was not brought within the time allowed by the limitation period set out in the Local Government Act . Conclusion [ 21 ] I find that, based on the evidence and the relevant legal authorities, Mr. Izaz's claim must be dismissed, as he has not proven on a balance of probabilities a cause of action that this court has jurisdiction to hear. Furthermore, Mr. Izaz failed to bring the action within the limitation period. [ 22 ] The claim is dismissed.

Costs [ 23 ] The defendant, City of Surrey, has claimed fees, costs, expenses, and an order that the claimant be ordered to pay 10 percent of the amount claimed, that would be $525.36, pursuant to Rule 20(5) of the Small Claims Rules , as the claimant proceeded through trial with no reasonable basis for success. [ 24 ] I find that as Mr.

Izaz was a claimant in a similar action against the City of Surrey, which was dismissed in 2017, and that he provided no legal basis or relevant factual basis for bringing the claim outside of the limitation period, he proceeded through trial with no reasonable basis for success. [ 25 ] I order that Mr. Izaz pay to the City of Surrey $525.36 pursuant to Rule 20(5) of the Small Claims Rules . [ 26 ] Further, I order that Mr. Izaz pay to the City of Surrey fees, costs, and expenses. This amount is to be determined, as it was not set out in the pleadings. [ 27 ] Mr.

Aujla, are you in a position to deal with costs today, or do we need a payment hearing? [ 28 ] CNSL W. AUJLA: Yes I can, Your Honour. I can hand this up to the court. [PROCEEDINGS] [ 29 ] THE COURT: All right. So, I am going to order that the claimant pay to the City of Surrey their fees in a total of $224.45. I am going to use the lesser amount at 25 cents per page for the photocopying expenses at $192.25. So, the total amount owing from the claimant to the defendant for fees and disbursements will be $416.70. [ 30 ] Both that amount and the amount ordered pursuant to Rule 20(5), I will give Mr.

Izaz 60 days' time to pay. (ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT CONCLUDED)