Strong Powers, No Independent Oversight
Saanich bylaw officers have extraordinary powers over your home, but zero independent oversight.
The Problems
-
πͺ
Entry Demands Backed by Daily Fines
The Community Charter lets Saanich into an occupied home only with your consent, after 24 hours' written notice with the reasons, with a warrant, where there is a significant risk to health or safety, or to inspect compliance with the rules that apply to the home (s.16(5)). And Saanich's bylaws make refusing entry an offence: obstruction carries fines of up to $10,000 with each day a separate offence, plus up to three months imprisonment and prosecution costs (Building Bylaw 9529 s.4.7; Zoning Bylaw 8200 s.11, expanded 2021). This is practice, not theory: the District's own file notes, released under freedom of information, record an officer answering a resident's refusal with an on-the-spot obstruction ticket threat, and the District's written inspection notices pair entry demands with the full $10,000 per day penalty recital. Consent demanded under threat of accumulating daily fines is not free consent. If bylaw knocks: what the law says. -
π°
Six-Figure Notices, No Independent Appeal
A Section 57 notice on your title can cost six figures to clear. The only appeal is back to the Council that voted for it, then to the BC Supreme Court. A $100 ticket gets an independent adjudicator; a notice on your home does not. -
βοΈ
Court-Rejected Methods
Saanich v. Kinney, 2025 BCSC 1132: at para. 62 the Court held that the building official's deposed statement was "conclusory and without an evidentiary foundation" and declined to find the alleged Building Code contraventions proven. -
π«
No Independent Discipline
No independent body can discipline a bylaw officer. The Police Complaint Commissioner covers police, not bylaw officers. The BC Ombudsperson can investigate, but can only recommend.
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. Net bylaw enforcement cost has more than tripled since 2018, and resident ratings are down. -
3
Reconsider at Council
Ask Council to review the 2021 enforcement expansion against its own 2018 Bylaw Enforcement Policy and report publicly on the results. -
4
Accountability for Conduct
Where serious enforcement irregularities are alleged, they should be reviewed by an appropriate independent body rather than the department itself.
Who We Are
A resident-led, public-interest initiative, 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, 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: council decisions, budgets, BC Stats survey results, court rulings, and freedom-of-information releases.
If you share these concerns, the most useful things you can do are simple: read the source documents, read the election briefings, and vote on 17 October.
20 Homes With a Notice on Title, and Nowhere to Appeal
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."
Council minutes record notices on title for twenty properties between February 2020 and June 2025. Three owners have asked council to remove one: Camrose Crescent in 2020, Old West Saanich Road in 2022, and 938 Ambassador Avenue in 2025. All three were refused, the last 9–0. The table below covers the 16 files reviewed in detail as of August 2026.
Across British Columbia
A search of council and board minutes across the province, completed October 10, 2026, found 766 council or board decisions on Section 57 notices in 65 municipalities and regional districts, and 568 properties with a notice filed.
Capital Region, properties with a notice filed
- Central Saanich: 47 (2013 to 2026)
- CRD electoral areas: 57 (2020 to 2024)
- Saanich: 20 (2020 to 2025)
- Sooke: 20 (2000 to 2014)
- North Saanich: 10
- Oak Bay: 9 (2009 to 2019)
- Victoria: 8 (2016 to 2020)
- Colwood: 7 (2013 to 2016)
- View Royal: 5
- Langford: 2 (2025)
Counted from council and board resolutions directing a notice to be filed, once per property in each municipality. These are minimums: a municipality where none was found may still have filed notices. Sooke's 2000 to 2003 filings were made under the predecessor section, Municipal Act s.700.
| # | Property | Council Date | Report By | Approved By | Key Issue |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3901 Ansell Rd | Feb 3, 2020 | Barbour | Reems | Deck permit expired 2014 |
| 2 | 1299 Camrose Cres | Feb 3, 2020 | Barbour | Reems | Deck encroachment |
| 3 | 5435 Kiowa Rd | Feb 3, 2020 | Barbour | Reems | Horse operation |
| 4 | 588 Whiteside St | Feb 3, 2020 | Barbour | Reems | 9-year enforcement (2011) |
| 5 | 389 Obed Ave | Oct 18, 2021 | Thomassen | Reems | Accessory building |
| 6 | 1396 Mt Douglas Cross Rd | Oct 18, 2021 | Thomassen | not located | Ag building to duplex |
| 7 | 3979 Locarno Lane | Oct 18, 2021 | Thomassen | Reems | Unpermitted renovation |
| 8 | 4037 Lakehill Place | Oct 18, 2021 | Thomassen | Reems | Multiple illegal suites |
| 9 | 4029 Glanford Ave | Jan 10, 2022 | Thomassen | Hargraves | Renovations, asbestos |
| 10 | 960 Lakeview Ave | Jan 10, 2022 | Thomassen | Acting Director, name not printed | Expired permit (2010) |
| 11 | 1090 Lodge Ave | Jan 10, 2022 | Thomassen | not located | Closed 2015, reopened on sale |
| 12 | 1206 Judge Place | May 30, 2022 | Thomassen | Hargraves | 28-year saga (1994-2022) |
| 13 | 5390 Old West Saanich Rd | May 30, 2022 | Thomassen | Hargraves | Addition without permits |
| 14 | 938 Ambassador Ave | Nov 20, 2023 | Thomassen | Bains | Search warrant, bylaw charges |
| 15 | 3838 Epsom Drive | Nov 20, 2023 | Thomassen | Director, Legislative & Protective Services | |
| 16 | 4573 Prospect Lake Rd | Nov 20, 2023 | Thomassen | Bains |
How the last two columns were filled. Each name is read from the signature block of the District's own report to Council for that property, in the council agenda package for the date shown. "Report By" is the officer in the Prepared by block; "Approved By" is the officer in the Approved by block. The reports for 1396 Mt Douglas Cross Road and 1090 Lodge Avenue were not located in the agenda packages searched, so their approver is not stated here. The report for 960 Lakeview Avenue carries the office of Acting Director but no printed name. Every report also carries a separate endorsement line signed by the Chief Administrative Officer or Administrator of the day. In all fourteen reports located, Brent Reems signed either as the approving Director or as the endorsing Chief Administrative Officer.
What the Court Said
The building official's deposed statement was "conclusory and without an evidentiary foundation", because he gave no dimensions or measurements and did not set out the Building Code requirements he relied on. Justice Loo, The Corporation of the District of Saanich v. Kinney, 2025 BCSC 1132, at para. 62. The same official authored the staff reports for 12 of the 16 properties in the table above. Whether the same deficiency affects those files has not been decided by any court.
Saanich Wrote Its Own Enforcement Policy. Compare It With the Files.
Council adopted a Bylaw Enforcement Policy on September 17, 2018 that establishes clear standards. Officers are ignoring it.
Policy Section 2.1: 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, without meaningful attempts at voluntary compliance.
Policy Section 2.4: 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: Priority #1 is Health and Safety
"Health and safety β 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..."
A fair question: the council record for 1206 Judge Place describes a file that ran from 1994 to 2022. If health and safety were really engaged, the policy says the matter should have been investigated and enforced as soon as possible. No court has ruled on this file, so please read this as a question about how the policy is being applied, and not as a finding about anyone.
The Provincial Benchmark: BC Ombudsperson Special Report No. 36 (2016)
The Ombudsperson published its Bylaw Enforcement Best Practices Guide in March 2016. Saanich adopted its Bylaw Enforcement Policy in September 2018, two and a half years later, with the benchmark on the table.
Measured against the guide's five best practices checklists, the 2018 policy adopts the discretion framework and most of the complaints framework, but omits three fairness safeguards: documented investigation and evidence standards, written reasons for enforcement decisions, and any appeal or independent review mechanism. Each omission corresponds to a documented failure: the evidentiary foundation rejected in Saanich v. Kinney, 2025 BCSC 1132; Section 57 notices issued without stated reasons or appeal rights; and compliance measured "to the satisfaction of the District" rather than by independent review.
Who Reviews the Administration?
A search of every open council minute from 2023 to date finds no item pairing the Chief Administrative Officer with a performance review, evaluation, or oversight. On September 20, 2022 Council directed staff to report on regular performance reviews of the CAO. He has never been reviewed.
The one review the public can see runs the other way. In March 2024 the CAO personally reviewed the enforcement operations conducted under the model developed in his former directorate and reported no violations of the 2018 policy, the Community Charter, or the Ombudsperson's best practices guide. The 2018 policy itself, delivered by that directorate, contains no independent review, so complaints about enforcement route back up the same chain that made the decisions. Accountability the public cannot see is indistinguishable from no accountability. That is what an independent, external review would fix.
Policy Section 1.7: 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.
What Has Actually Happened, in Order
A plain record of the steps taken and the decisions made, current to August 2026. Where a case has been filed but not decided, the allegations in it are unproven and that is said each time.
The timeline
Every entry below has a date. Court file numbers are given at the end of each entry so you can look them up yourself.
The Provincial Court found the property owner not guilty on six of the nine charges, guilty on two, and stopped the ninth because it covered the same conduct as one of the others.
The two charges that stuck were about having more than one home on the lot and about a secondary suite. Both of those bylaw provisions were repealed and replaced on 30 June 2024, when the Province's small-scale multi-unit housing legislation came into effect.
Provincial Court file 187353 · Reasons for Judgment, 19 February 2026
A claim was filed in the BC Supreme Court naming current and former District staff as individuals rather than naming the District, including Angila Bains, Roy Thomassen and Greg Nelson.
The claim alleges misfeasance in public office, which means a public official knowingly using their power improperly, along with negligence and defamation. None of it has been proven. It is before the court.
BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry · File VLC-S-S-262461 · Filed 9 April 2026
Process servers attended 770 Vernon Avenue and personally handed the claim to Angila Bains, the Corporate Officer, and Roy Thomassen, the Manager of Inspection Services.
Ms. Bains told Council on 23 June 2025 that the notice on the property title addresses contraventions said to "impact life and safety". That statement is one of the things at issue in the claim, and it is unproven. Separately, in Saanich v. Kinney, 2025 BCSC 1132, the BC Supreme Court held at paragraph 62 that Mr. Thomassen's sworn statement on Building Code compliance was "conclusory and without an evidentiary foundation", and refused to find the alleged Code breaches proven.
Service on the remaining defendants followed in the ordinary course
Mayor Dean Murdock was handed a letter at his afternoon press conference setting out seven facts already on the public record.
The seven: the proceedings then filed; the personal claims against officials; external prosecution costs booked to General Government and the subject of an access complaint; an OIPC investigation into the handling of records about the CAO's own appointment; the 2024 BC Stats scores of 19 per cent and 29 per cent; and the June 2024 repeal of the bylaw provisions the prosecution relied on. The letter said it sought no reply, only that the record show the head of the institution had been told.
An existing complaint at the BC Human Rights Tribunal was amended to add a retaliation complaint.
The complaint is unproven and is before the Tribunal.
BC Human Rights Tribunal · File CS-009036
The court imposed $1,200 on each of the two guilty counts, $2,400 in total, due 24 July 2026. Further orders about the property were pronounced out loud at the hearing.
The fines were paid under protest and without prejudice to an appeal under the Offence Act. The registry's record of the fines is a Form 19.
Court file 1201:187353-1 · Victoria Law Courts
A letter went to candidates in the October 2026 local election setting out the documentary record on building and bylaw enforcement, with 26 exhibits attached in full.
The exhibits are complete, unedited copies of public documents: the Ombudsperson's 2016 best practices guide, the District's 2018 enforcement policy, the January 2021 service delivery report, the May 2021 bylaw amendments and the minutes that carried them, seven years of financial filings, and the 2021 and 2024 resident surveys.
Everything currently open
Nine matters are under way. Anything described as alleged has not been decided by a court or tribunal.
| What it is | Where, and the file number | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|
| The bylaw prosecution | Provincial Court, file 1201:187353-1 | Decided. Not guilty on six counts, guilty on two, one stayed. Fined $2,400 on 24 June 2026. Paid under protest, pending an appeal under the Offence Act. |
| Getting the notice off the title | BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, NEW-S-S-259553 | Filed. Asks the court to cancel the section 57 notice registered against the property. Affidavits are in. A hearing date has not been set. |
| Claim against officials personally | BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, VLC-S-S-262461 | Filed 9 April 2026 and served. Alleges misfeasance in public office, negligence and defamation. Unproven and before the court. |
| Claim about interference with the sale | BC Supreme Court, S-S-252067 | Filed. Alleges the District induced a breach of contract and interfered with the sale. Unproven and before the court. |
| Claim against the 2022 buyers | BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, NEW-S-S-251545 | Filed. A breach of contract claim arising from the collapsed 2022 sale of the property. Unproven and before the court. |
| Human rights complaint | BC Human Rights Tribunal, CS-009036 | Filed, and amended on 8 June 2026 to add retaliation. Unproven and before the Tribunal. |
| Are unqualified staff making Building Code decisions? | Building Officials' Association of BC, BA-026-2026 | Under investigation by the Registrar. An earlier complaint, BOA-025-2025, was closed on 11 June 2026 without two of its three allegations being investigated; the third was referred on. Particulars were delivered 25 June 2026. No findings yet. |
| Access to the outside lawyer's billing | Information and Privacy Commissioner, FOI 2025-240 | Under review. The District released the records with the billing amounts blacked out. The spending sits under General Government rather than the bylaw budget. |
| Access to records about the CAO's own appointment | Information and Privacy Commissioner, INV-F-26-01103 | Under investigation, including whether access to those records was obstructed. |
One thing worth knowing. The two bylaw provisions the prosecution was built on no longer exist in that form. They were repealed and replaced on 30 June 2024, when the Province's small-scale multi-unit housing legislation and the District's own implementing zoning bylaw came into effect.