Sukhdev Singh and Kashmir Singh Sahota have been fined $6,000 after a judge found them in contempt of an interlocutory order to not occupy or use rental properties in Surrey.
The properties are the subject of a yet-to-be-heard petition from the City of Surrey.
The city alleges in its petition that the respondents failed to obtain required building and occupancy permits as well as city inspections related to renovating and occupying a residential property at 6072 133A St. they bought in 2021, and did 含羞草研究社渆xtensive含羞草研究社� renovations on to build three separate rental units then rented them out.
Justice John Gibb-Carsley noted in his that the City of Surrey claims that the respondents ignored 含羞草研究社渞epeated efforts含羞草研究社� to have them comply with bylaws.
含羞草研究社淭he steps taken by the City of Surrey prior to filing the petition included posting 含羞草研究社榮top work含羞草研究社� notices at the property, warning the respondents several times to halt the renovations and to not occupy or use the property, and issuing bylaw infraction tickets to the respondents,含羞草研究社� the judge noted in B.C. Supreme Court in New Westminster.
On April 14, 2022, city hall obtained the interlocutory injunction from Justice Kenneth Ball and on Sept. 22, 2022, Gibb-Carsley found Singh and Sahota in contempt of the April order.
含羞草研究社淚 have concluded that, in the circumstances of this case, the appropriate penalty is a fine of $6,000 for the breach of the April order,含羞草研究社� Gibb-Carsley decided. 含羞草研究社淔urther, if the property remains occupied on January 1, 2023, the respondents shall pay an additional fine of $13,000, unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the City of Surrey or by further order of this Court. I also award the City of Surrey special costs for the contempt proceedings in respect of the April order.含羞草研究社�
He also noted in his reasons for judgment that the respondents have been using the upper floor of the house 含羞草研究社渁s a fourth rental unit for tenants,含羞草研究社� in effect, converting a single-family structure 含羞草研究社渋nto an unauthorized and unpermitted 4-plex含羞草研究社� contrary to Surrey bylaws and the British Columbia Building Code.
含羞草研究社淚n the circumstances of this case, where it appears the respondents have blatantly disregarded municipal permitting requirements that are intended to promote and protect the public by establishing minimum standards for safety, I find there is an added element of a public interest,含羞草研究社� the judge said. 含羞草研究社淚n my view, builders who flout municipal building codes and the permitting process should be deterred from doing so.含羞草研究社�
READ ALSO: Surrey councillor presents motion to curb illegal, unauthorized construction
The City of Surrey sought a penalty of $5,000 for each of the respondents, totalling $10,000, as well as another penalty of $10,000 if the occupants of the addition and secondary suite didn含羞草研究社檛 vacate the property by Dec. 1, 2022.
The judge noted the respondents were 含羞草研究社渇rank含羞草研究社� in their submissions to the court, acknowledging they were in breach of the bylaws and the court order.
含羞草研究社淭he respondents stated that they 含羞草研究社榥ever thought it would get this far,含羞草研究社櫤卟菅芯可鐫 Gibb-Carsley noted. 含羞草研究社淭hey said that so many other people in Surrey are doing the same thing含羞草研究社攖hat is, building and renting suites without permission含羞草研究社攖hat they did not think this would happen. They advised that they have spent thousands of dollars on fees for lawyers and engineers and have made sincere efforts to obtain the required building permits from the City of Surrey, albeit after they had already renovated the property and rented it to the occupants of the addition and the secondary suite.含羞草研究社�
Singh and Sahota told the court they have been trying for months to get the tenants to leave and were only recently secured an agreement for them to move out by Dec. 31. 含羞草研究社淭hey say the occupants are resistant to moving because the respondents charge a low rent and that it is very difficult to find similar rental accommodations in the Lower Mainland,含羞草研究社� Gibb-Carsley noted.
含羞草研究社淭he respondents further informed the court that they are suffering financial hardship in their other businesses and asked the court to have leniency in the penalty imposed.含羞草研究社�
Gibb-Carsley found Singh and Sahota 含羞草研究社渏ointly and severally含羞草研究社� liable for the $6,000 fine.
In 2021, Surrey council directed city staff to investigate 含羞草研究社渆nhanced enforcement, prosecution and public awareness含羞草研究社� in an effort to tackle illegal and unauthorized construction in the city, with an eye to 含羞草研究社渕itigate loss of life, destruction of property含羞草研究社� and ensure compliance with bylaws.
含羞草研究社淚 know we have all been inundated with emails from people含羞草研究社檚 concerns about illegal construction,含羞草研究社� Coun. Jack Hundial told council before it passed his related motion,. He also called on staff to look into how other cities are dealing with this.
Coun. Mandeep Nagra said at the time that stop work orders 含羞草研究社渁re getting ignored all the time, just people rip them up and throw them away. I get a number of phone calls on a daily basis of illegal construction and unauthorized additions and all that.含羞草研究社�
tom.zytaruk@surreynowleader.com
Like us on Follow us on and follow Tom on
