v6.01 2026-06-23 VoterAppeal

πŸ—³οΈ Saanich Municipal Election: October 17, 2026 β€” Your vote can bring the change our community needs! Help pick your next Council! Save Our Saanich β†’

Saanich Is Spending More on Enforcement
Than Ever β€” and Satisfaction Has Collapsed

Bylaw enforcement should keep residents safe and treat people fairly. Instead, costs are up while satisfaction has fallen to record lows β€” and there is no independent oversight of how these powers are used. Here's what it's costing you, and what you can do about it.

Sign the Petitions Vote for Change $290K–$447K in Enforcement Costs The $50 Ticket That Costs $100 Learn More
Litigation Status Recent Developments β€” Current to June 2026
Several proceedings before the courts and tribunals Β· Allegations in filed claims are unproven
9
Active Proceedings
5
Personal Defendants
$290–447K
Documented Cost (FOI)
19%
Building Satisfaction 2024
29%
Bylaw Satisfaction 2024
Chronological Record β€” April 10, 2026
Morning
Civil
Notice of Civil Claim Filed β€” VLC-S-S-262461 β€” Vancouver Registry β€” Five Personal Defendants

A Notice of Civil Claim was filed in the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, Court File VLC-S-S-262461, naming current and former District of Saanich officials as personal defendants. Among the current officials named are Angila Bains, Roy Thomassen, and Greg Nelson.

The claim advances allegations of misfeasance in public office, negligence, and defamation. The allegations are unproven and are before the court.

Court File: VLC-S-S-262461 | Vancouver Registry | Filed: April 9, 2026
Mid-Morning
Civil
Angila Bains and Roy Thomassen Personally Served at 770 Vernon Avenue

Process servers attended 770 Vernon Avenue β€” the Saanich municipal hall β€” and personally served Angila Bains (Director of Legislative and Protective Services / Corporate Officer) and Roy Thomassen (Manager of Inspection Services) with the Notice of Civil Claim.

Service of the further defendants named in the claim is being effected in the ordinary course.

Bains is the Corporate Officer who remained silent at Council on November 20, 2023 when service was returned unclaimed, who is alleged to have made a July 14, 2025 Council statement regarding life safety that is now pleaded as defamation (the allegation is unproven and before the court). Thomassen's inspection methodology was found by the BC Supreme Court in Kinney v. Saanich, 2025 BCSC 1132, to be "conclusory and without an evidentiary foundation."
Morning
Regulatory
BC Human Rights Tribunal Complaint Active β€” CS-009036

A complaint before the BC Human Rights Tribunal in File CS-009036 is active and was amended on June 8, 2026 to add a retaliation complaint. The complaint is unproven and is before the Tribunal.

HRT File: CS-009036 | Status current to June 2026
2:00 PM
Public
Mayor Murdock Handed Sealed Letter at Press Conference β€” Seven Facts, No Response Sought

Mayor Dean Murdock was handed a sealed letter at his afternoon press conference documenting a set of public-record facts: the active legal proceedings then on the public record; the personal Notices of Civil Claim filed against current and former officials; external bylaw prosecution costs booked to General Government and the subject of an active OIPC access matter; the active OIPC investigation into whether the CAO directed the FOI function to obstruct access to records about his own appointment; BC Stats 2024 satisfaction scores of 19% and 29% for Building and Bylaw; and the June 30, 2024 repeal and replacement of the bylaw provisions at issue under the Province's small-scale multi-unit housing legislation (Bill 44).

The letter closed: "I am not seeking a response to this letter. I am ensuring that the elected head of this institution cannot later say he was unaware."

Active Proceedings β€” Current to June 2026

Several proceedings concerning the enforcement at 938 Ambassador Avenue are before the courts and tribunals. Allegations in filed but undecided proceedings are unproven and are before the court or tribunal.

The two bylaw provisions on which the prosecution proceeded have since been repealed and replaced. Effective June 30, 2024, the Province's small-scale multi-unit housing legislation (Bill 44) and the District's implementing zoning bylaw brought the relevant zoning into a new framework.

File Description Status
187353-1 District of Saanich bylaw prosecution. Matter before the Provincial Court. No comment is offered pending the hearing; this page will be updated with the court's disposition once it is released. Before Court
S-S-252067 BC Supreme Court claim alleging inducement of breach of contract and interference. Allegations unproven and before the court. Active
NEW-S-S-259553 BC Supreme Court petition (New Westminster Registry) seeking cancellation of the section 57 notice registered against the property title under the Community Charter. Affidavits filed; hearing date to be set. Active
NEW-S-S-251545 BC Supreme Court breach of contract claim (New Westminster Registry) arising from the collapsed 2022 property sale. Allegations unproven and before the court. Active
VLC-S-S-262461 Personal claim β€” Notices of Civil Claim against current and former District officials. Filed April 9, 2026; served on current officials. Misfeasance, negligence and defamation alleged; unproven and before the court. Filed Apr 9
CS-009036 BC Human Rights Tribunal complaint, amended June 8, 2026 to add a retaliation complaint. Unproven and before the Tribunal. Active
BOA-025-2025 Building Officials' Association of BC professional-conduct complaint concerning inspection methodology of the kind rejected in Kinney v. Saanich, 2025 BCSC 1132. Complaint pending; not adjudicated. Active
INV-F-26-00458 OIPC access matter concerning disclosure of external bylaw prosecution-counsel billing booked to General Government. Solicitor billing detail redacted in the FOI release (RFS 328898). Active
INV-F-26-01103 OIPC investigation into the handling of an FOI request for CAO recruitment records (FOI 2026-60), including whether access to those records was obstructed. Investigation active. Active
🏠

If You've Been Targeted, We Understand

Many Saanich property owners have faced aggressive enforcement, surprise inspections, and costly demandsβ€”often for issues their neighbors never face. You may feel alone, but you're not. We're documenting cases, sharing resources, and building a community to fight for fair treatment. Your story matters. Your rights matter.

πŸ’¬ Tell Us Your Story, We're Listening
Understanding the Issue

Strong Powers, No Independent Oversight

Saanich bylaw officers have extraordinary powers over your homeβ€”but zero independent oversight.

The Problems

  • πŸšͺ
    Warrantless Home Entry
    Bylaw officers can enter your dwelling without judicial authorizationβ€”powers even police don't have.
  • πŸ’°
    $100K+ Liens, No Appeal
    Section 57 property encumbrances have no independent review. A $100 ticket gets an adjudicator; a six-figure lien does not.
  • βš–οΈ
    Court-Rejected Methods
    Kinney v. Saanich (2025 BCSC 1132): methodology was "conclusory and without evidentiary foundation."
  • 🚫
    Zero Oversight
    750 BC bylaw officers, 0 face independent civilian oversight. Complaints? They investigate themselves.

What We're Asking For

  • 1
    Independent Oversight
    Extend OPCC jurisdiction to bylaw officers under Police Act s.36, so complaints aren't investigated in-house. Legal argument filed β†’
  • 2
    Value for Taxpayers
    Review and roll back the 2021 expansion that grew enforcement powers and costs without adding accountability. Costs up ~200%; satisfaction down.
  • 3
    Vote October 2026
    Three councillors who approved the expansion are up for re-election. Ask candidates where they stand.
  • 4
    Accountability for Conduct
    Where serious enforcement irregularities are alleged, they should be reviewed by an appropriate independent body rather than the department itself.
About

Who We Are

A resident-led, public-interest initiative β€” not a political party and not a single complaint.

Saanich Building & Bylaw Reform is run by Saanich residents and property owners who became concerned about how the District's building and bylaw enforcement powers are being used β€” and about the lack of independent oversight of those powers.

Our aim is straightforward: fair treatment for residents, responsible use of taxpayer money, and accountability through the ordinary democratic and legal channels available to any citizen. We build our case on the public record β€” council decisions, budgets, BC Stats survey results, court rulings, and freedom-of-information releases β€” and we work alongside aligned community groups, including Save Our Saanich.

If you share these concerns, the most useful things you can do are simple: sign the petitions, ask candidates where they stand, and vote in October 2026.

Take Action

Sign All 3 Petitions

Each petition targets a different aspect of reform. Sign all three to maximize your impact.

πŸ“’ THREE PETITIONS β€” Sign All Three to Maximize Your Impact!

Each targets a different level: Staff Accountability β€’ Provincial Oversight β€’ Policy Reform

Your Petition Progress
1
2
3
(0 of 3 signed)

Petition #1: Immediate Suspension & RCMP Investigation

Demand that Mayor and Council immediately suspend Brent Reems, Angila Bains, and Roy Thomassen, along with all Building bylaw investigations, pending an external RCMP investigation into documented misconduct and ongoing public harm.

⚠️ Individuals to Suspend / Named Defendants (as of April 10, 2026):
  • Brent Reems β€” Chief Administrative Officer (central to the enforcement-expansion model; subject of OIPC investigation INV-F-26-01103)
  • Angila Bains β€” Director of Legislative & Protective Services / Corporate Officer (named defendant; misfeasance, negligence and defamation alleged β€” unproven and before the court)
  • Roy Thomassen β€” Manager of Inspection Services (inspection methodology rejected in Kinney v. Saanich, 2025 BCSC 1132; BOABC complaint pending; named defendant)
  • Greg Nelson β€” Bylaw Enforcement Officer (named defendant; allegations unproven and before the court)

Your Letter to Saanich Council

Dear Mayor Murdock and Council, I am writing to demand the IMMEDIATE suspension of Brent Reems (CAO), Angila Bains (Director of Legislative & Protective Services / Corporate Officer), and Roy Thomassen (Manager of Inspection Services), along with ALL active Building bylaw investigations, pending an external RCMP investigation. EVIDENCE OF MISCONDUCT AND ONGOING PUBLIC HARM: 1. COURT-REJECTED METHODOLOGY: The BC Supreme Court in Kinney v. Saanich (2025 BCSC 1132) found that Building Official Roy Thomassen's inspection methodology was "conclusory and without evidentiary foundation." This same discredited methodology has been applied to ALL 16 Section 57 propertiesβ€”every enforcement action is legally suspect. 2. UNQUALIFIED PERSONNEL: Bylaw Enforcement Officers without Building Act s.10 qualifications have been making Building Code compliance decisionsβ€”a direct violation of provincial law. A formal BOABC ethics complaint has been filed against Roy Thomassen and Dennis Mirabelli. 3. DEFECTIVE SERVICE AND PROCEDURAL MISCONDUCT: Corporate Officer Angila Bains authorized service by registered mail onlyβ€”ignoring known legal counselβ€”and remained silent at Council when the mail was returned unclaimed, depriving a property owner of the opportunity to be heard. This constitutes potential misfeasance in public office. 4. EXPOSED TAXPAYERS TO $290K-$447K IN WASTED COSTS: The bylaw prosecution cost $179K-$272K and the civil case cost $111K-$175Kβ€”for permit paperwork violations with NO demonstrated safety hazards. 5. SELECTIVE AND RETALIATORY ENFORCEMENT: 1206 Judge Place waited 28 YEARS. 1090 Lodge Ave was closed as "compliant" in 2015 then reopened ONLY when listed for sale. Meanwhile, 938 Ambassador Ave received a search warrant within 10 months. This pattern suggests enforcement is arbitrary, retaliatory, or tied to property transactionsβ€”not public safety. 6. ONGOING HARM: While Council deliberates, these officials CONTINUE to pursue enforcement actions using discredited methods. Every day of delay exposes more residents to harm and the District to additional liability. [Your personal perspective will be added here if provided] Until an external RCMP investigation determines whether misconduct occurred, these individuals must be placed on administrative leave and all active investigations suspended. I will be actively working to ensure candidates' positions on bylaw enforcement accountability are central to the October 2026 municipal election. Respectfully but firmly, [Your Name] [Your Address] [Your Email]

β€” Sign below to add your name to the petition β€”

⚠️ Please select an address in British Columbia to sign this petition.
38

community members have signed

Petition #2: Independent Oversight for Bylaw Officers

Join us in requesting that the Police Complaint Commissioner extend oversight to bylaw enforcement officersβ€”bringing accountability that benefits everyone.

βš–οΈ Legal Action Underway: A formal legal request has been submitted to Commissioner Rajan arguing that the OPCC already has jurisdiction over bylaw officers under Police Act s.36. The letter demands confirmation within 15 days or judicial review will be sought. Read the full legal request β†’

Your Letter to Commissioner Rajan

Dear Commissioner Rajan, I am writing to formally request that the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner assert and exercise its jurisdiction over bylaw enforcement officers appointed under Section 36 of the Police Act. WHY OPCC OVERSIGHT IS LEGALLY REQUIRED AND URGENTLY NEEDED: 1. POLICE ACT JURISDICTION: Section 36 authorizes municipalities to appoint bylaw enforcement officers who operate "under the direction of the chief constable." These officers are functionally part of the policing apparatus and should be subject to civilian oversight. 2. SIGNIFICANT POWERS WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY: Saanich bylaw officers exercise extraordinary powers: entry into private dwellings, issuing orders resulting in $50,000+ liens, initiating bylaw prosecutions, and executing search warrantsβ€”with ZERO independent oversight. 3. DOCUMENTED PATTERN OF ABUSE: The BC Supreme Court in Kinney v. Saanich (2025 BCSC 1132) found enforcement methodology was "conclusory and without evidentiary foundation." 4. NO EXISTING ACCOUNTABILITY: Unlike police officers, bylaw officers have no independent complaint process, no civilian oversight body, and no public accountability for misconduct. [Your personal perspective will be added here if provided] The residents of British Columbia deserve the same protections from bylaw enforcement officers that they receive from police officers. Sincerely, [Your Name] [Your Address] [Your Email]

β€” Sign below to add your name to the petition β€”

⚠️ Please select an address in British Columbia to sign this petition.
52

community members have signed

Petition #3: Repeal the 2021 Enforcement Expansion Bylaws

Call on Council to repeal the May 2021 bylaws that dramatically expanded bylaw enforcement authority without accountability. These bylaws were passed on the recommendation of then-Director Brent Reems.

Bylaws to Repeal:

Your Letter to Saanich Council

Dear Mayor Murdock and Council, I am writing to demand the immediate repeal of the May 2021 bylaws that dramatically expanded bylaw enforcement authority without any corresponding accountability measures. THE BYLAWS THAT MUST BE REPEALED: β€’ Bylaw 9692 β€” Bylaw Notice Enforcement Amendment β€’ Bylaw 9693 β€” Noise Suppression Amendment β€’ Bylaw 9695 β€” Boulevard Regulation Amendment β€’ Bylaw 9696 β€” Officers & Administrative Structure Amendment β€’ Bylaw 9697 β€” Nuisance Bylaw Amendment β€’ Bylaw 9698 β€” Noxious Weeds Amendment β€’ Bylaw 9600 β€” Unsightly Premises Bylaw WHY THESE BYLAWS HAVE FAILED: 1. EXPOSED TAXPAYERS TO MASSIVE COSTS: Since 2021, Saanich has spent an estimated $290,000-$447,000 on just TWO enforcement casesβ€”for permit paperwork violations with NO demonstrated safety hazards. 2. COURT-REJECTED METHODOLOGY: The BC Supreme Court found enforcement methodology was "conclusory and without evidentiary foundation." The expansion gave more power to officials now proven to use deficient methods. 3. DECLINING SATISFACTION: Despite a 200% budget increase since 2017, resident satisfaction has DECLINED. The $50 ticket costing $100 to produce exemplifies this failed model. 4. NO ACCOUNTABILITY: These bylaws transferred powers with ZERO oversight mechanisms or appeal process improvements. [Your personal perspective will be added here if provided] I will be actively working to ensure bylaw enforcement accountability is central to the October 2026 municipal election. Respectfully but firmly, [Your Name] [Your Address] [Your Email]

β€” Sign below to add your name to the petition β€”

⚠️ Please select an address in British Columbia to sign this petition.
47

community members have signed

The Record

Understanding Who Supported These Policies

These individuals have played significant roles in expanding enforcement powers without corresponding accountability measures. As engaged citizens, we can advocate for different approachesβ€”and in the case of elected officials, we can vote for change.

CP

Colin Plant

Councillor

Long-serving councillor who recommended Section 57 notices when they were first introduced and supported the enforcement budget expansion (Report 1970-20). He cited liability protection as the rationale.

  • First to recommend Section 57 enforcement notices
  • Supported Report 1970-20 budget expansion
  • Cited liability protection as the rationale
  • Up for re-election in October 2026
πŸ—³οΈ Elected position β€” Your vote matters!
TPB

Teale Phelps Bondaroff

Councillor

Councillor who moved motions supporting expanded enforcement authority.

  • Moved approval of Section 57 notices
  • Supported enforcement budget expansion
  • Backed policies without oversight provisions
πŸ—³οΈ Elected position β€” Your vote matters!
SB

Susan Brice

Councillor

Councillor who cited public-safety grounds in supporting enforcement expansion, including seconding Section 57 notice approvals and voting for increased enforcement budgets.

  • Seconded Section 57 notice approvals
  • Cited public safety as justification for enforcement actions
  • Supported enforcement expansion measures
  • Voted for increased enforcement budgets
πŸ—³οΈ Elected position β€” Your vote matters!
JB

Judy Brownoff

Councillor

Councillor who cited public-safety grounds in supporting Section 57 enforcement expansion and voted for increased enforcement budgets.

  • Supported Section 57 enforcement expansion
  • Cited public safety as justification
  • Voted with the majority on the enforcement model
  • Voted for increased enforcement budgets
πŸ—³οΈ Elected position β€” Your vote matters!
BR

Brent Reems

Chief Administrative Officer

Former Director of Building, Bylaw, Licensing & Legal Services (2017). Appointed CAO 2023. The architect of enforcement expansion.

  • Authored Report 1970-20 ($739K expansion)
  • Created system where $100 in staff time writes $50 tickets
  • Oversaw 200% budget increase with declining satisfaction
DR

Doug Roberts

Manager of Legislative Services (Retired April 2025)

Former Manager of Legislative Services; retired from the District in April 2025. Named as a personal defendant in VLC-S-S-262461. The allegations are unproven and are before the court.

  • Current status: retired from the District of Saanich in April 2025; subsequently took a role with the Town of View Royal
  • Former Manager of Legislative Services (to April 2025)
  • Involved in the development of the enforcement-expansion model now under public scrutiny
  • Named defendant β€” allegations unproven and before the court
RT

Roy Thomassen

Manager of Inspection Services / Chief Building Official, RBO, ACBOA

Prepared 87.5% of all Section 57 reports. Subject of a formal BOABC professional-conduct complaint (December 2025) alleging that unqualified Bylaw Enforcement Officers were permitted to make Building Code determinations contrary to Building Act s.10(2); the complaint is pending and not adjudicated. Presented to Council on July 14, 2025 the inspection methodology later rejected by the BC Supreme Court in Kinney v. Saanich, 2025 BCSC 1132. Personally served at 770 Vernon Avenue on April 10, 2026 (VLC-S-S-262461).

  • Prepared 14 of 16 Section 57 reports
  • Methodology rejected by BC Supreme Court in Kinney v. Saanich, 2025 BCSC 1132
  • Presented rejected methodology to Council July 14, 2025 without disclosure
  • Allowed unqualified BEOs to make Building Code decisions
  • Formal BOABC complaint filed for Rules & Ethics violations (BOA-025-2025)
  • Served personally at municipal hall April 10, 2026
DM

Dennis Mirabelli

Senior Building Official

Subject of a formal BOABC professional-conduct complaint (December 2025) alongside Roy Thomassen; the complaint is pending and not adjudicated. Participated in the July 2023 enforcement action.

  • Participated in the July 2023 enforcement action
  • Named in the pending BOABC complaint
  • Associated with the inspection methodology rejected in Kinney v. Saanich, 2025 BCSC 1132
DRi

Dean Ridley

Senior Manager of Bylaw and Licensing (Left Saanich April 2025)

Former Senior Manager of Bylaw and Licensing; no longer employed by the District of Saanich as of April 2025. Named as a personal defendant in VLC-S-S-262461. The allegations are unproven and are before the court.

  • Current status: departed the District of Saanich in April 2025; per his LinkedIn profile, now works in enforcement with the BC Ministry of Forests
  • Former Senior Manager of Bylaw and Licensing (to April 2025)
  • Coordinated between the Bylaw and Building departments
  • Named defendant β€” allegations unproven and before the court
GN

Greg Nelson

Bylaw Enforcement Officer (Currently on Authorized Leave)

Bylaw Enforcement Officer who participated in the July 2023 enforcement action at the property. Named as a personal defendant in VLC-S-S-262461. The allegations are unproven and are before the court.

  • Bylaw Enforcement Officer involved in the July 2023 enforcement action
  • No BOABC Building Act s.10 certification
  • Named defendant β€” allegations unproven and before the court
AB

Angila Bains

Director of Legislative & Protective Services / Corporate Officer

Holds the statutory office of Corporate Officer. Approved Report 161050 recommending the Section 57 notice. Made a July 14, 2025 Council statement regarding life safety on the property that is now pleaded as defamation in VLC-S-S-262461; the allegation is unproven and before the court. Personally served at 770 Vernon Avenue on April 10, 2026 (VLC-S-S-262461).

  • Approved Report 161050 recommending Section 57 notice
  • Authorized service by registered mail only β€” ignoring known legal counsel
  • Remained silent at Council (Nov 20, 2023) about returned mail
  • July 14, 2025 "life safety" statement pleaded as defamation
  • Subject of civil claim: misfeasance, negligence, defamation
  • Served personally at municipal hall April 10, 2026

Change Is In Your Hands

Municipal elections give us the power to choose leaders who share our values of fairness, transparency, and accountability. Research candidates, ask questions about their positions on bylaw reform, and make your voice heard at the ballot box.

Policy Failures

Saanich's Own Policy Is Being Violated

Council adopted a Bylaw Enforcement Policy on September 17, 2018 that establishes clear standards. Officers are ignoring it.

Policy Section 2.1 β€” Voluntary Compliance First

"The primary goal of enforcement action is to achieve voluntary compliance with District bylaws through communication, education and non-penalty enforcement, including providing a reasonable timeframe to comply."

⚠️ VIOLATION: At 938 Ambassador Ave, officers obtained a search warrant within 10 months and filed bylaw charges β€” without meaningful attempts at voluntary compliance.

Policy Section 2.4 β€” Discretion Must Be Consistent

"Bylaw Enforcement Staff will exercise discretion in accordance with the following criteria... The scale, nature and duration of the contravention; The amount of time that has elapsed since the contravention occurred..."

⚠️ VIOLATION: 1206 Judge Place waited 28 years (1994-2022). 588 Whiteside waited 9 years. 938 Ambassador got immediate aggressive action. No consistent criteria applied.

Policy Section 2.5.1 β€” Priority #1 is Health and Safety

"Health and safety – an alleged bylaw violation may adversely impact the environment or public health and safety. These violations will be investigated and enforced as soon as possible..."

⚠️ VIOLATION: If 1206 Judge Place was truly a safety issue, why did they wait 28 years? The court found the "safety" claims were "conclusory and without evidentiary foundation."

Policy Section 1.7 β€” Vexatious Complaints Must Be Rejected

"Vexatious complaints will not be acted on. A vexatious complaint is a complaint that is made for retaliatory or bad faith purposes..."

⚠️ VIOLATION: 1090 Lodge Ave was closed as "compliant" in 2015. Reopened only when the property was listed for sale in 2020, suggesting enforcement tied to property transactions rather than genuine violations.

Call to Action: Mayor and Council Must Enforce Their Own Policy

We're not asking for new rulesβ€”we're asking Council to hold staff accountable to the standards they already adopted in 2018. Voluntary compliance first. Consistent discretion. Evidence-based safety claims. Rejection of vexatious complaints. The policy exists. Enforce it.

Section 57 Analysis

16 Properties. One Official. No Oversight.

Section 57 of the Community Charter allows municipalities to place notices on property titles. The same official who investigates also determines compliance "to their satisfaction."

87.5%
Reports by Thomassen
14 of 16 properties
<10 min
Avg Council Time
Per property approval
28 years
Longest Case
1206 Judge Place
$100K+
Typical Cost
Per property owner
# Property Council Date Report By Key Issue
13901 Ansell RdFeb 3, 2020β€”Deck permit expired 2014
21299 Camrose CresFeb 3, 2020BarbourDeck encroachment
35435 Kiowa RdFeb 3, 2020β€”Horse operation
4588 Whiteside StFeb 3, 2020Barbour9-year enforcement (2011)
5389 Obed AveOct 18, 2021ThomassenAccessory building
61396 Mt Douglas Cross RdOct 18, 2021ThomassenAg building to duplex
73979 Locarno LaneOct 18, 2021ThomassenUnpermitted renovation
84037 Lakehill PlaceOct 18, 2021ThomassenMultiple illegal suites
94029 Glanford AveJan 10, 2022ThomassenRenovations, asbestos
10960 Lakeview AveJan 10, 2022ThomassenExpired permit (2010)
111090 Lodge AveJan 10, 2022ThomassenClosed 2015, reopened on sale
121206 Judge PlaceMay 30, 2022Thomassen28-year saga (1994-2022)
135390 Old West Saanich RdMay 30, 2022ThomassenAddition without permits
14938 Ambassador AveJuly 4, 2022ThomassenSearch warrant, bylaw charges
153838 Epson DriveNov 20, 2023Thomassenβ€”
164573 Prospect Lake RdNov 20, 2023Thomassenβ€”

What the Court Said

"[The evidence] is conclusory and without evidentiary foundation" β€” Justice Kevin Loo, Kinney v. Saanich, 2025 BCSC 1132. This same methodology was applied to all 16 properties.

The Numbers Tell a Story

More Spending, Less Satisfaction

These trends show why change is neededβ€”and why it's achievable with the right leadership.

$1.5M
Annual Budget (2024)
↑ 200% from 2018
19%
Building Satisfaction
↓ from 55% in 2018
29%
Bylaw Satisfaction
↓ from 50% in 2018
9
Active Proceedings
As of June 2026
Saanich Building & Bylaw Enforcement Cost vs Resident Satisfaction 2017-2023 β€” budget increased while resident satisfaction declined

The Data Speaks: As budgets soared after 2019, resident satisfaction plummeted. Download PDF β†’

🎫

The $50 Parking Ticket That Costs You $100

Here's the result: under the current enforcement model, it costs Saanich taxpayers roughly $100 in bylaw officer time to issue a $50 ticket β€” meaning the District can lose money on enforcement. This is what happens when enforcement expansion prioritizes authority over efficiency.

Forensic Cost Analysis

The True Cost of Enforcement Without Oversight

Independent forensic analysis estimates roughly $290,000–$447,000 in public cost across just two enforcement cases. The full external bylaw prosecution-counsel billing, booked to General Government, is the subject of an active OIPC access matter after the billing detail was redacted in the FOI release.

Documented Public Expenditure β€” Forensic Estimate

$290K–$447K
Across two enforcement cases β€” booked to the District; cost recovery only a fraction of the amount spent
Bylaw Prosecution

District of Saanich Bylaw Prosecution (2022–2025)

$179K–$272K

Forensic cost estimate β€” booked to General Government

  • Forensic estimate: $179K–$272K
  • Booked to: General Government
  • Full external prosecution-counsel billing: subject to active OIPC access matter (INV-F-26-00458)
  • Bill 44 framework: bylaw provisions at issue repealed and replaced effective June 30, 2024
  • No safety hazard demonstrated
  • Officers lacked Building Act s.10 qualifications
πŸ“„ Full Cost Analysis (PDF)
Civil Enforcement

BC Supreme Court Case (2025 BCSC 1132)

$111K–$175K

Injunction action against single rural property owner

  • Municipal burden: $98K–$156K (89%)
  • Provincial burden: $13K–$19K (11%)
  • Outcome: Partial success only
  • 3 injunctions obtained β€” cost per injunction: $37K–$58K
  • Cost recovery: Only 5–11% via court tariff
  • Building Code claims ALL dismissed
  • Evidence deemed inadequate by Justice Loo
πŸ“„ Full Cost Analysis (PDF)

Pattern of Systemic Failure

  • Guaranteed Financial Loss: In both cases, actual costs far exceed any potential recovery. Taxpayers lose money regardless of outcome.
  • Evidentiary Failures: Building inspection evidence was found inadequate in the civil case β€” the same methodology was used in the bylaw prosecution.
  • Qualification Concerns: Enforcement officers pursued these cases without required Building Act s.10 certifications.
  • No Safety Hazards: Neither property posed demonstrated risks to public safety. These are paperwork violations, not dangerous conditions.
  • Proportionality Question: Spending $100K–$270K per case to address permit paperwork at individual properties warrants serious policy review.
  • Resource Drain: These two cases alone consumed a significant portion of Saanich's annual bylaw enforcement budget while resident satisfaction plummeted.
⚠️

This Is What Happens Without Proper Oversight

When enforcement officers lack proper qualifications and oversight, and when there's no meaningful check on prosecutorial discretion, taxpayers bear the cost of decisions that never should have been made. The 2021 bylaws removed accountability. The October 2026 election can restore it.

Documents

Evidence & Resources

Informed citizens make better decisions. Explore the documentation.

Your Vote Is Your Power

October 17, 2026 β€” Saanich Municipal Election

Real, lasting change comes through the ballot box. Councillors Plant, Phelps Bondaroff, and Brice supported enforcement expansion without accountability. You have the power to choose leaders who share your values of fairness, transparency, and accountability.

Together, we can elect a Council that prioritizes fairness, transparency, and accountability for all residents.

Get In Touch

Contact Us

Have questions, want to share your story, or interested in getting involved? We'd love to hear from you.

Share Your Story

Have you dealt with Saanich building or bylaw enforcement β€” a notice on your title, an unexpected order, a permit dispute, or a cost you didn't see coming? Your experience helps show how these powers affect ordinary residents. Email us a few details (with your permission to share). We will never publish your name or identifying details without your explicit consent.

Share your experience β†’

πŸ“§

Email Us

For questions, sharing your story, media inquiries, or to get involved

SaanichBylawReform@Gmail.com

πŸ›οΈ

Contact Saanich Council

Mayor: mayor@saanich.ca

Council: council@saanich.ca

βš–οΈ

Contact the OPCC

Email: info@opcc.bc.ca

Phone: 1-877-999-8707