City of Vancouver v. Bains, 2018 BCPC 400

Citation: City of Vancouver v. Bains 2018 BCPC 400 Date: 20180601 File No: 36083 Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA CITY OF VANCOUVER v. SATNAM SINGH BAINS and SWARAN BAINS ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF JUDICIAL JUSTICE MAKHDOOM Appearing for the Accused: S.S. Bains Counsel for City of Vancouver : D. Howieson Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C. Date of Hearing: June 1, 2018 Date of Judgment: June 1, 2018 [ 1 ] THE COURT: The evidence before me is quite clear with respect to the order issued by the City, which was then sent to the

property owners in a valid, proper manner. There is no evidence that the order, dated 1st of February, 2017, was not received. In that order, the accuseds were required to either apply for a permit or to remove the illegal alterations made to the subject property no later than March 31 st , 2017. [ 2 ] There is there is a proof beyond a reasonable doubt that neither one of those two requirements were met. No evidence to the contrary was adduced by the accuseds. Consequently I find both accused guilty on Count Number 1. [ 3 ] Same would go for Count Number 2.

Witness for the City, Inspector Lowry, detailed the deficiencies respecting the electrical wiring. I believe him. There is no evidence contrary to what he said. I am accepting his testimony and I find the accuseds guilty on Count Number 2. [ 4 ] Count Number 3, I am not convinced that access was not allowed. Access was allowed; there’s some conflict in testimony of the witnesses for the city. Further to those conflicts, there is credible evidence from Mr. Bains that he made sure that all access is provided. He did express some concern when the city inspector attended the subject property. Mr.

Bains recalled one time the inspectors who went in his elderly mother's bedroom, taking her pictures and of the room. He considered that as a breach of his family privacy. His mother, one of the two accused, is an elderly woman, not keeping good health, difficulty with dementia and so on and it was something that did indeed compromise her privacy, perhaps may even have injured her dignity. The City officials had no need for doing that. I believe Mr. Bains, that he did allow access.

Consequently on Count Number 3, I am entering an acquittal. [ 5 ] Count Number 4 concerns the development permit -- that the occupancy of the subject property at Euclid Avenue has carried on since June of 1956 and that a valid development permit was not expired. In order for occupancy to occur, a development permit must expire followed by issuance of an occupancy permit. [ 6 ] The Bains’ have not been occupying the place since 1956, they purchased the place in 2012. At the time, the property was occupied.

They bought a building in that condition. [ 7 ] Of course, subsequent to that, they have done things that were offensive and today they have been found guilty on two of those counts. Respectfully, I am not convinced that the provisions set out in s. 6.4(

b) of the city bylaw 3575 were infringed upon by the Bains occupying the property. Consequently I will enter an acquittal on Count 4 as well. (REASONS FOR JUDGMENT CONCLUDED)