v5.44 2025-01-29 BannerUpdate

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†’

Together, We Can Restore Accountability
& Freedom in Saanich

We believe in a Saanich where residents are treated fairly, where enforcement serves the community, and where individual freedoms are protected. Bylaw enforcement should build trust, not break it. Change is possibleβ€”and it starts with us.

Sign the Petitions πŸ—³οΈ Vote for Change πŸ’° $447K Enforcement Costs πŸ’° $100 Ticket Scandal Learn More
🏠

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

Your Rights Are Being Violated

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.

βœ… The Solutions

  • 1
    Independent Oversight
    Extend OPCC jurisdiction to bylaw officers under Police Act s.36. Legal argument filed β†’
  • 2
    Suspend & Investigate
    Place implicated officials on leave pending RCMP investigation of enforcement irregularities.
  • 3
    Repeal 2021 Expansion
    Roll back 7 bylaws that expanded powers without accountability. Costs up 200%, satisfaction down.
  • 4
    Vote October 2026
    Three councillors who approved this expansion are up for re-election. Your vote matters.
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:
  • Brent Reems β€” Chief Administrative Officer (architect of failed system)
  • Angila Bains β€” Director of Legislative & Protective Services / Corporate Officer (service failures, statutory non-compliance)
  • Roy Thomassen β€” Manager of Inspection Services (court-rejected methodology, BOABC ethics complaint)

πŸ“¨ 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 criminal 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 criminal 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

πŸ›‘οΈ 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†’

πŸ“¨ 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 criminal 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

βš–οΈ 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:

πŸ“¨ 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 Perpetrators

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 the first time they were introduced. Claims to be "protecting Saanich from liability" but has instead created far greater liability exposure through aggressive, court-rejected enforcement practices.

  • First to recommend Section 57 enforcement notices
  • Supported Report 1970-20 budget expansion
  • His "liability protection" claim has backfired spectacularly
  • Has not addressed constituent concerns about overreach
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 hides behind the catch-all justification of "Public Safety" to support enforcement expansionβ€”misunderstanding its meaning and infringing on all residents' rights in the process.

  • Seconded Section 57 notice approvals
  • Uses "Public Safety" to justify any enforcement action
  • Supported enforcement expansion measures
  • Voted for increased enforcement budgets
πŸ—³οΈ Elected position β€” Your vote matters!
JB

Judy Brownoff

Councillor

Like Susan Brice, Councillor Brownoff mistakenly hides behind the catch-all of "Public Safety" to justify enforcement overreachβ€”fundamentally misunderstanding its meaning and infringing on residents' constitutional rights.

  • Supported Section 57 enforcement expansion
  • Uses "Public Safety" as blanket justification
  • Failed to question enforcement methodology
  • 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)

LGCEA member who helped develop the enforcement expansion policies now costing taxpayers. Retired from Saanich in April 2025.

  • LGCEA member advising Council on enforcement policy
  • Involved in developing Report 1970-20
  • Benefits professionally from expanded enforcement
RT

Roy Thomassen

Manager of Inspection Services, RBO, ACBOA

Prepared 87.5% of all Section 57 reports. Subject of formal BOABC ethics complaint (December 2025) for allowing unqualified Bylaw Enforcement Officers to make Building Code determinations in violation of Building Act s.10(2)β€”an abuse of his professional powers.

  • Prepared 14 of 16 Section 57 reports
  • Methodology rejected by BC Supreme Court in Kinney v. Saanich
  • Allowed unqualified BEOs to make Building Code decisions
  • Formal BOABC complaint filed for Rules & Ethics violations
  • No separation between accuser and judge
  • Named in Petition #1 for suspension
DM

Dennis Mirabelli

Senior Building Official

Subject of formal BOABC ethics complaint (December 2025) alongside Roy Thomassen. Participated in warrant execution and enforcement actions using discredited methodology.

  • Participated in July 2023 warrant execution
  • Named in BOABC formal complaint
  • Used methodology rejected by BC Supreme Court
  • Allowed unqualified personnel to make Building Code decisions
DRi

Dean Ridley

Building & Bylaw Official (Left Saanich April 2025)

Directed enforcement actions and coordinated between Bylaw and Building departments. Played key role in accelerating warrant execution when property was listed for sale. No longer employed by the District of Saanich as of April 2025.

  • Directed scheduling with Building Officials
  • Coordinated aggressive enforcement actions
  • Internal emails show acceleration of warrant for property sale
AB

Angila Bains

Director of Legislative & Protective Services / Corporate Officer

Holds statutory office of Corporate Officer with mandatory duties under Community Charter s.57(4). Approved Report 161050 recommending Section 57 notice and signed notice letters. Subject of formal demand for s.57(4) compliance (January 2026).

  • Approved Report 161050 recommending Section 57 notice
  • Authorized service by registered mail onlyβ€”ignoring known legal counsel
  • Present at Council meeting; remained silent about service deficiency
  • Did not disclose that registered mail was returned unclaimed
  • Subject of civil notice for misfeasance in public office

🌟 Change Is In Your Hands

Municipal elections give us the power to choose leaders who share our values of fairness, transparency, accountability, and freedom. 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.

πŸ“œ 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 criminal charges β€” without meaningful attempts at voluntary compliance.

πŸ“œ 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.

πŸ“œ 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."

πŸ“œ 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.

πŸ›οΈ 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, criminal charges
153838 Epson DriveNov 20, 2023Thomassenβ€”
164573 Prospect Lake RdNov 20, 2023Thomassenβ€”

βš–οΈ 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
$739K
Report 1970-20
Single expansion request
Saanich Building & Bylaw Enforcement Cost vs Resident Satisfaction 2017-2023 β€” showing budget increases while satisfaction declined after Reems was hired

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 punchline: under the Reems plan, it costs Saanich taxpayers approximately $100 in bylaw officer time to write a $50 parking ticket. That's rightβ€”we're losing money on every ticket. This is what happens when enforcement expansion prioritizes authority over efficiency. Your tax dollars at work!

Forensic Cost Analysis

The True Cost of Enforcement Without Oversight

Two cases. Combined public expenditure: nearly half a million dollars. No safety hazards addressed.

Combined Public Expenditure

$290K–$447K
On just two enforcement actions β€” with questionable outcomes
Criminal Prosecution

Provincial Court Case (2022–2025)

$179K–$272K

37-month prosecution for permit paperwork violations

  • Municipal burden: $142K–$215K (79%)
  • Provincial burden: $38K–$57K (21%)
  • 9 counts filed β€” cost per count: $20K–$30K
  • Maximum potential fines: $70,300
  • Cost-to-recovery ratio: 2.6:1 to 3.9:1
  • 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)

πŸ“Š 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 criminal 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.

πŸ—³οΈ 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 freedom, fairness, and transparency.

Together, we can elect a Council that prioritizes fairness, transparency, and freedom 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.

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

RESTRICTED ACCESS

Section 57 Class Action Portal

Case No. 2025-BCSC-SA-0057 | Affected Property Owners v. District of Saanich

πŸ”’

Secure Connection Verified

TLS 1.3 | 256-bit encryption | Microsoft Azure AD | SOC 2 Type II Compliant

βš–οΈ

Class Member Authentication

Enter your credentials to access case documents

Microsoft Secured by Microsoft Authenticator

Open Microsoft Authenticator app β†’ Select "Saanich Class Action" β†’ Enter the 6-digit code

Forgot password?

By signing in, you agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy

Need assistance accessing your account?

Contact Class Coordinator: SaanichBylawReform@Gmail.com

Setup Microsoft Authenticator Β· Account Recovery

πŸ“‹ Not yet a registered class member?

If you are a Saanich property owner affected by Section 57 enforcement actions, you may be eligible to join this class action. Sign a petition or contact the Class Coordinator for eligibility information.

Microsoft Protected by Microsoft Authenticator | Azure AD Integration

Portal Version 2.1.4 | Last Updated: December 2025 | System Status