Riemer v. City of Prince George Date:, 2014 BCPC 379

Citation: Riemer v. City of Prince George Date: 20140818 2014 BCPC 0379 File No: 1343528 Registry: Prince George IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: MICHAEL DAVID RIEMER CLAIMANT AND: CITY OF PRINCE GEORGE DEFENDANT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE E. L. BAYLIFF Counsel for the Claimant: Self Counsel for the Defendant: M. Houg Date of Hearing: August 6, 2014

Date of Judgment: August 18, 2014 [ 1 ] Michael David Riemer sues the City of Prince George for damages. He says the City led him to believe that he could make renovations to a burned out mobile home located in a mobile home park within City limits. Then, after he had spent in excess of $10,000 on materials and labour on the project, the City changed its mind and made a stop work order. As a result of this he lost the value of his labour and the materials which had already gone into the construction. [ 2 ] The City’s position is that their staff members did not mislead Mr. Riemer.

The City argues that there is reason to believe Mr. Riemer is not telling the truth about what he says he was told by Planning Department staff on September 6 th , 2011. Even if the court finds that Mr. Riemer was honestly confused about what he was told, the City argues that he has failed to establish that he was provided with incorrect information by their staff. [ 3 ] The burden of proof is on the Claimant to establish the claim on the balance of probabilities. This means that Mr.

Riemer must prove that it is more probable than not that he was provided with incorrect information by the Planning Department staff on September 6 th , 2011, and that he relied on such incorrect information to his detriment. [ 4 ] I have heard the evidence of Mr. Riemer and three City employees, Ms. Bayliss, Ms. Vinson and Mr. Nickel. I have also reviewed the letters and other documents contained in the binders filed by the parties and marked as Exhibits 1 and 2. [ 5 ] I have concluded that Mr.

Riemer has failed to meet the burden of proof which rests upon him - the evidence fails to establish that it is more probable than not that he was provided with incorrect information by City staff. I must, therefore, dismiss Mr. Riemer’s Claim. [ 6 ] I find that Mr. Riemer genuinely believed he could do the construction on the burned out mobile without a building permit and without City involvement or oversight. However, I cannot find that Mr. Riemer believed this because he was provided with incorrect information by City staff. [ 7 ] I will now explain the reasons for my decision in more detail. [ 8 ] Mr.

Riemer testified that, on September 6 th , 2011, he went to the Planning Department at City Hall. He explained to the clerk at the front counter that he was planning to buy a burned out mobile home located at the Sunrise Trailer Park on Lansdowne Road in Prince George.

He told her that he planned to rebuild the trailer. “The lady right away said “you cannot get a permit to rebuild a trailer” and also that you have to hire a private inspector as the city inspectors are not involved.” [ 9 ] He left the office that day believing that the City was “not involved” in regulating what he planned to do with the burned out mobile.

As he later said in his letter of February 17 th , 2012, he formed the impression that “…this project was not the City’s jurisdiction.” Based on this understanding he went ahead and bought the burned out mobile, and building supplies, and put many hours into rebuilding the structure. His plan was to create a passive solar home on the Fraser River. Mr. Riemer was understandably devastated when, on December 8 th of that year, the City slapped a “stop work” notice on the project. [ 10 ] I find that the City employees who dealt with Mr. Riemer at the counter on September 6 th , 2011 were Ms. Bayliss and Ms. Vinson.

This is proven to my satisfaction from their testimony and also from the time sheets found at tabs 12 and 13 of Exhibit 2. [ 11 ] Ms. Bayliss testified about her recollection of the conversation on September 6 th , 2011. Mr. Riemer asked what was involved in getting a permit. Once it became clear to her that the work he was planning would involve structural modifications to a damaged mobile home, she told him “no permit could be obtained” from the City for the work. She recalled that Mr.

Riemer kept asking “why” and she responded more than once that it was because CSA certification is required for structural modifications to a mobile home. She recalled that Mr. Riemer said something about just going ahead and doing the work and hiring a private inspector to review it and she responded that would be up to him, but “the City would not be involved”. Later in her evidence she said that she told Mr. Riemer that a building

permit could not be obtained from the City for the sort of work he planned but “I did not say to him that a permit would not be required”. By this, I understood Ms. Bayliss to mean that she told Mr. Riemer a building permit could not be obtained for the sort of job he had in mind, but she did not say that the City would take no interest in any such work. [ 12 ] Ms. Vinson was the other clerk on duty at the front counter of the Planning Department that day. She had more experience than Ms. Bayliss. She recalled listening to Ms. Bayliss and Mr. Riemer talking at the counter.

She thought the conversation went on for as long as 20 minutes. She testified that her impression was that Mr. Riemer “…did not seem to want to hear what [Ms. Bayliss] was telling him…”. This accords with Ms. Bayliss’ recollection that Mr. Riemer kept asking “why” it was not possible to get a building permit for the re-building of a burned out mobile home. Finally, Ms. Vinson said, she went up to the counter herself and reiterated that “you cannot get a permit for anything inside a mobile home because it is no longer structurally sound”. As for the discussion of hiring a “private inspector” to review the work Mr.

Riemer planned, Ms. Vinson testified that this idea did not originate with either her or Ms. Bayliss, since a private inspector has nothing to do with City building permits. [ 13 ] Both sides accuse the other of being untruthful about their recollections of this September 6 th , 2011 conversation. Mr. Riemer argues that Ms. Bayliss’ and Ms. Vinson’s recollection of the conversation has been coloured and altered by things they subsequently learned from Mr. Nickel, Senior Building Inspector, and others, about this issue. For its part, the City argues that Mr.

Riemer’s recollection of the conversation has been coloured and altered by things he subsequently learned. [ 14 ] I cannot find that either Mr. Riemer or the City employees, Ms. Bayliss and Ms. Vinson, are deliberately lying about the September 6 th , 2011 conversation. I find that each of these three people did their best to remember, after the fact, what was said and they related this to the court. The problem is that they simply remember events differently. As a result, the court is left in a state of uncertainty. It is simply not clear to me that Mr.

Riemer’s recollection of what was said is more accurate than the recollection of Ms. Bayliss and Ms. Vinson. [ 15 ] My decision that the Claim must be dismissed is based on my conclusion that the evidence fails to establish that it is more probable than not that Mr. Riemer’s version of the conversation on September 6 th , 2011 is the correct one. I do think it worthwhile to add that, had I not been able to decide the case on this basis, I would also have found that it was not reasonable of Mr. Riemer, in such an important matter as this, to rely on the advice of front counter clerks such as Ms. Bayliss and Ms.

Vinson, rather than on the advice of a properly qualified building inspector such as Mr. Nickel. [ 16 ] With the wisdom of hindsight it is clear that this unfortunate event could have been avoided if either, and preferably both, parties had carried out their communications in writing before any money, or time, was invested in the project. [ 17 ] Another argument advanced by Mr. Riemer relies on the doctrine of estoppel.

He argues that many people who live in mobile home parks in the City of Prince George have made structural modifications to their mobile homes - most often by changing or adding to the roof structure of the home - and the City has not slapped any of those people with a stop work order. He says that the City is estopped from taking a different position with him and thus was barred from stopping work on his major re-build of the burned out mobile home. [ 18 ] In my view there is insufficient evidence that Mr.

Riemer relied on the fact that other mobile home owners had made structural modifications without City involvement. His evidence was that his primary reliance was on the conversation with Ms. Bayliss and Ms. Vinson on September 6 th , 2011. He did say that he was told by the maintenance man at the trailer park, and possibly also by another resident, that the City did not concern itself with construction within a trailer park.

However, there is just insufficient detail for me to find that the City, knowing that structural modifications were being made, had clearly indicated, by their past conduct, that such changes could be made without City involvement. Estoppel requires something more than talk within the community. There is insufficient evidence that the advice Mr. Riemer says he received from the maintenance man and another resident amounted to anything much more than uninformed talk within the community. [ 19 ] Finally, Mr.

Riemer argues that there is evidence of confusion and changing positions on the part of the City about exactly what is required in order to legally conduct a major re-build of a damaged mobile home. He still has an interest in acquiring an inexpensive home this way and feels very frustrated that he still cannot figure out what the City requires, and why. He points out that when he met with Mr. Nickel on December 7 th or 8 th , 2011, Mr. Nickel told him verbally that he needed to hire a structural engineer to approve his re- build of the burned out mobile which was located within a mobile home park.

However, when Mr. Nickel wrote to him on February 22 nd , 2012 he said something different. He said that it was only if the mobile home was moved to private land that the rebuild could take place and that such re-build would have to be under the supervision of a structural engineer. Mr. Riemer points out that the relevant information circular “Policy on Structural Modifications and/or Additions to Manufactured Homes” is different again in that it does not say that structural modifications can only be made to mobile homes located on private land , thereby leaving the reader with the

impression that such modifications may also be made to mobile homes located within mobile home parks. [ 20 ] I agree with Mr. Riemer that these pieces of information appear to be somewhat contradictory. They are certainly confusing. However, despite this evidence of confusion on the part of the Planning Department on the issue of structural modifications to mobile homes, I am still unable to conclude that Mr. Riemer was provided with incorrect information by City staff on September 6 th , 2011. As I said earlier, it seems to me to be more a case of mis-communication and mis-understanding. [ 21 ] In

summary, I cannot find that the evidence establishes that Ms. Bayliss and Ms. Vinson provided Mr. Riemer with wrong or mis-leading information on September 6 th , 2011 to the effect that the City would take no interest in or jurisdiction over structural modifications he planned to make to a burned out mobile home in the Sunrise Trailer Park. The Claim is dismissed. ________________________________ E. L. Bayliff Provincial Court Judge