Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The respondent violated municipal bylaws by operating unlicensed businesses unrelated to farming on rural-zoned agricultural land.

• Recreational vehicles (RVs) were unlawfully used for lodging and accommodation on the property.

• More than one secondary suite existed on the property, breaching zoning restrictions allowing only one.

• The court rejected Saanich’s claim regarding unauthorized construction due to lack of specific evidence.

• Alleged occupancy without a permit was dismissed for insufficient proof.

• Only admissible, first-hand evidence was considered; hearsay and conclusory affidavits were excluded from findings.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and parties involved

The case was brought by the District of Saanich against Nancy Anne Kinney, the owner of a 17-acre rural property located within the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) and zoned A-1 Rural. The property contained multiple structures, including a large house divided into suites, garages, workshops, and serviced RV sites. The District alleged numerous zoning, licensing, and building code violations. The petition was filed on March 23, 2023, heard on April 14 and 17, 2025, and judgment was delivered on June 18, 2025.

Key allegations and legal issues

Saanich alleged that Kinney was (1) allowing unpermitted and unlicensed businesses to operate on the property, (2) permitting the use of RVs for lodging or accommodation, (3) allowing more than one secondary suite in the main dwelling, (4) permitting occupancy without required occupancy permits, and (5) constructing or altering buildings without the necessary permits or in violation of the British Columbia Building Code.

The legal framework primarily relied on provisions in the Community Charter, the Local Government Act, Saanich’s Zoning Bylaw, Business License Bylaw, and Building Bylaw, alongside provincial agricultural regulations such as the Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act and the Agricultural Land Reserve Use Regulation.

Court’s findings on each issue

The court found that several businesses were operating on the property without proper licenses and outside the permitted agricultural scope. Evidence from municipal officials showed commercial sales of patio furniture, indoor vehicle storage, and operation of a metal workshop, none of which qualified as allowed land uses or registered home occupations. The court ruled this use contravened zoning and licensing bylaws.

As for the RVs, multiple units were observed with full utility hookups and clear signs of residential use. Although the respondent argued that some RVs were for farm workers or agritourism purposes, the court concluded that most were used as full-time residences, which violated zoning restrictions. While some agritourism accommodation is allowed under provincial regulations, it must be seasonal and limited, which was not the case here.

Regarding secondary suites, the evidence confirmed the main house had at least three separate self-contained units. The zoning bylaw permits only one secondary suite per property. Therefore, the presence of more than one was a clear violation.

The allegations concerning occupancy without permits and unpermitted construction were dismissed. The court found insufficient evidence proving that Kinney had constructed or altered the buildings without proper permits or that the buildings were occupied in violation of permit requirements. Conclusory statements by inspectors without detailed measurements or reference to code standards were deemed inadequate.

Evidentiary considerations

The court emphasized the need for firsthand, admissible evidence. Testimony about searches for permits was accepted where witnesses had personally reviewed municipal records. However, hearsay accounts from inspections or third-party complaints were excluded. Statements by municipal staff about building code violations were also discounted where they lacked evidentiary detail.

Outcome and orders

The court granted permanent injunctions prohibiting Kinney from:

• Using RVs for lodging except as allowed under agritourism rules,

• Maintaining more than one secondary suite,

• Operating any business not qualifying as a licensed home occupation.

Applications for orders requiring decommissioning of suites or remediation were dismissed. The court awarded costs to the District of Saanich at Scale B, payable by Kinney, but did not award any damages. The injunctions were suspended until midnight July 31, 2025, allowing time for compliance.