B.C. court rejects couple's 'self-serving' bid to keep illegal suites

The federal government has confirmed it will play a long-term role in affordable housing, ending several years of uncertainty over whether Ottawa would continue helping low-income families pay for their accommodation.

A judge has ordered the owners of a property in Surrey to demolish an addition and a laneway house that they built in "flagrant violation" of city bylaws, rejecting their argument that the move would be "wasteful" amid the housing crisis.

Justice John Gibb-Carsley ruled on the case Tuesday, saying he had "no hesitation" in finding in favour of the City of Surrey and rejecting the owners' bid to keep the illegal structures intact and "retroactively legalize" them.

The court heard that Jagmohan Singh Sidhu and Gagandeep Kaur Sidhu were first ordered to stop work on the property in November of 2021 after a city inspector confirmed they had not obtained any building permits.

By March of 2022, a city official who visited the property saw that construction "had advanced significantly." Subsequent letters advising the Sidhu's that they needed to stop construction unless and until they obtained permits were returned to the city, prompting an official to visit the property again and post a stop work notice and a copy of the letter on the front door.

At a subsequent visit, city inspectors noticed that the stop-work notice had been "obscured" and that workers were moving and assembling furniture, according to the decision.

"Instead of stopping work or seeking a proactive remedy for the situation, the respondents continued building in violation of the stop work notice and bylaws," the decision says.

In October of 2022 – nearly a year after the first stop-work notice – Jagmohan allowed inspectors access to the property. A two-bedroom suite on the upper level of the laneway house was occupied by tenants while the lower level was empty. Jagmohan told the inspectors he planned to use the space as a gym.

The city told the court that the unpermitted construction ran afoul of zoning bylaws by "grossly exceeding the square footage allowed on the property." In addition, the extension was built on a septic field "which raises serious concerns regarding (its) stability."

HOUSING CRISIS IS NOT AN EXCUSE, JUDGE SAYS

The Sidhus countered by saying that the structures – though admittedly illegal – was compliant with the city's building code and that they contained one two-bedroom rental suite and another one-bedroom unit.

The presence of these rental spaces, they told the court, was a factor that should be considered as part of their bid to keep and remediate the structures.

"They argue that given the housing shortage in the Lower Mainland, it is wasteful to destroy what they contend are perfectly good rental units. They cite the government of British Columbia’s Homes for People: An action plan to meet the challenges of today and deliver more homes for people, as support of the government’s appetite for building more houses and rental units," Gibb-Carsley wrote.

The judge rejected this argument as "self-serving and unsupported" and noted that the lack of permits and inspections meant that the units were potentially unsafe.

"The respondents argue the court should give them an opportunity to retroactively remedy the structures because an order to demolish the structures will exacerbate British Columbia’s housing crisis. I will not accept that the Government of British Columbia, as part of its Homes for People Plan, wishes to encourage the unlawful construction of dwellings in the province as part of the solution," he wrote.

"I conclude that the respondents flouted the city’s bylaws in a deliberate attempt to increase the size—and likely value—of their property by building the structures that they then rented out to produce income."

Gibb-Carsley also noted that the couple would have known that permits and inspections were required, given that they followed the rules when they constructed their home on the property. The fact that Jagmohan is a realtor was cited as further evidence that the pair would have been familiar with building regulations.

"The respondents’ actions are flagrant and deliberate," the judge wrote.

"The respondents gambled that they could expand the buildings on the property and create rental units without obtaining permits and not be caught by the city. They lost that bet."

The judge said that ordering the demolition required him to weigh the public interest against the potential hardship to the Sidhus.

"I accept that the public interest favours the demolition of the structures as opposed to condoning unlawful and potentially unsafe building and rental practices," the decision says, noting that the only hardship that was evident would be to the tenants who would have to move out.

Ordering the Sidhus to remove the structures, the judge said, was also necessary because bringing them into compliance would have been impossible.

The couple has also been ordered not to do any more work on the property and not to allow anyone to occupy the addition or laneway house.

The owners will have to apply for a permit to demolish the structures – at their own expense – within 15 days of the judgment and will be required to complete the work within 60 days of it being issued.