'Unsightly' under-construction home must be finished or demolished, B.C. court rules

The Osoyoos, B.C., property at the centre of a lawsuit can be seen in this undated image from an online listing for the property next door, which is for sale as of Sept. 17, 2024. (Image credit: realtor.ca)

A B.C couple has been ordered to stop living in a motorhome on the property where their under-construction home – which they were first given a permit to build more than six years ago – has become an “eyesore,” according to a recent court decision.

The Town of Osoyoos took Murray and Kathy Bloom to court earlier this year, claiming the couple was in violation of multiple municipal bylaws and seeking a number of injunctions in response. Among those were an order for the couple to stop occupying the property and another requiring them to bring it into compliance.

In addition, the town asked the court to authorize the demolition of the would-be home and the impoundment of the RV in the event the couple defied those orders.

The state of the property

In her decision, Justice Anita Chan described pictures submitted as evidence that showed the state of the property – which the owners began building in 2018.

“The photos show an incomplete building with missing windows and doors, vast interior areas open to the elements, no siding, thin weathered looking wooden strips erected as fencing on the top floor, with construction materials strewn about outside,” the decision said.

An inspector’s report, submitted to the town council, described the contraventions of the B.C. Building Code.

“These included no roofing, no cladding, lack of windows and doors, lack of handrails and guards, no insulation and no fire safety systems. The building inspector outlined concerns about the integrity of the structure as the house was still in the framing stage and has not had protection from the elements since construction began,” the court heard.

Still, the couple had been living on the property since August of 2022, either in their RV or inside the incomplete structure. The municipality had received numerous complaints about the “unsightly” appearance of the property and the couple living there in the RV, according to the judge.

Attempts to enforce bylaws

The couple’s most recent building permit expired in February of 2023 and a town inspector issued a stop work order and a do not occupy order in June of that year.

Two months later, inspectors went to the property to deliver a notice of inspection and a letter from the town council setting a deadline for the motorhome’s removal.

The inspection date and removal deadline were set for Aug. 25, 2023, and the decision describes what happened when city officials showed up that day.

“The motorhome was still present. A handwritten notice was posted at the front door of the building. The notice read ‘Notice: No Trespassing. No Admittance Except By Your Agreement to Our Terms of Service. Entry Constitutes Agreement.’ Mr. Bloom was present and refused entry for the inspection. No inspection was conducted,” the decision said.

The ‘notice and demand’

Roughly two weeks later, the Blooms sent the town a “notice and demand” in which they described themselves as “equitable owners of private property” and, essentially, argued the town could not impose or enforce its bylaws.

“Your presumption that your bylaws have any force or effect over the equitable owners of private property is incorrect and must be accompanied by contractual evidence. You have seven days to produce the law and evidence that compels compliance of any bylaw,” it read, in part.

In addition, the couple provided the town with a list of fees they would charge if it continued to take action – including a fee of $7,500 for posting any orders on the property, a fee of the same amount for entering the property, and a fee of $25,000 per hour for “every attempt to force compliance with bylaws requiring a court appearance.” The notice also said the Blooms said they would only apply for a building permit if the town paid them $32,000.

The couple’s defence, in part, relied on this notice and demand, which the judge said they seemed to believe “absolves them of any wrongdoing.” Chan rejected that argument, finding it was not “based on any legal authority” and that the town has the power to “enact and enforce bylaws.”

The decision

Based on the evidence, the judge found the Blooms were in violation – in multiple ways – of the building bylaw, the zoning bylaw, the water bylaw and the sewer bylaw.

They also breached the good neighbour bylaw by “allowing the property to be unsightly, in an unfinished and deteriorating condition.”

In granting the town the orders sought, Chan noted officials had taken multiple steps to try to gain compliance before initiating court proceedings. Those included issuing orders, getting a lawyer to send demand letters, meeting with the Blooms, taking the matter to a council meeting, and shutting off the property’s water supply.

“The respondents have not complied,” Chan said.

The decision was handed down on Sept. 11 and the Blooms were ordered to bring the property into compliance, following timelines laid out by the town in a “remedial action requirement.” If they do not do so, the town is able to impound the RV and demolish the home – at the couple’s expense. Further, the Blooms were ordered not to occupy the property or to carry out any further unpermitted construction.