Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• City of Surrey alleged unauthorized residential construction in violation of its building bylaw.

• Officials relied on internal City records they did not author or identify, without submitting the original documents.

• Chambers judge ruled this evidence inadmissible hearsay and dismissed the petition.

• City's adjournment request to remedy evidentiary deficiencies was denied as improper and untimely.

• On appeal, the Court upheld that hearsay evidence is inadmissible in final order proceedings.

• The appeal was dismissed; the chambers judge was found to have acted correctly and fairly.

Facts of the case

In Surrey (City) v. Kallu, 2025 BCCA 19, the City of Surrey sought declaratory and injunctive relief against Amandeep Singh Kallu, a homeowner accused of constructing unapproved additions to his house. Mr. Kallu had been issued a permit in 2020 for a single-family dwelling, which was completed in 2021. In 2022, City inspectors noted what they believed were unauthorized structures: a rear addition and an enclosed second-storey deck.

The City demanded the removal of the additions and, after Mr. Kallu refused, initiated a petition in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The City presented affidavits from its staff who had reviewed internal records to determine what construction was permitted. However, the actual permitting records were never submitted, and the authors of the original decisions were not called as witnesses.

The hearing and trial court decision

The chambers judge ruled that the officials’ affidavits, which relied on unproduced City records, constituted inadmissible hearsay. He emphasized that none of the witnesses had direct knowledge of what was authorized under the permit and that the City had not qualified the records under a recognized exception such as the business records rule. The judge held that final relief cannot be granted based on hearsay and dismissed the petition. The City’s request for an adjournment to submit further evidence was denied, with the judge stating that litigants are expected to present their best case from the outset.

Grounds for appeal

The City appealed, arguing that its evidence should not have been considered hearsay and that the judge erred in refusing to grant an adjournment. It contended that the affidavits simply described observable facts from within City records and that the hearing judge mischaracterized their purpose. The City also argued that it had been caught off guard by Mr. Kallu’s response and should have been permitted to correct the deficiencies in its case.

The Court of Appeal’s reasoning

The British Columbia Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal. It held that the chambers judge correctly characterized the affidavits as hearsay. The Court emphasized that the City officials were offering second-hand interpretations of documents not identified or authenticated, and that this was inadmissible for proving the truth of what had been authorized. The Court rejected the City's argument that it was relying on the documents merely to describe their contents, noting that it was clear the City was trying to prove that the structures exceeded what had been permitted.

The Court also upheld the refusal to adjourn. It noted that the City had made a strategic decision to rely on limited evidence and that it could not now complain after its approach failed. The judge had acted within his discretion, and there was no basis for appellate interference.

Final outcome

The appeal was dismissed. The Court confirmed that the chambers judge acted properly in excluding the hearsay evidence and denying the adjournment. Costs were awarded to Mr. Kallu, who remained the successful party throughout the proceedings.