Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Respondent corporation admitted to commencing and continuing construction without required building permits.

• Evidence showed three structures were built or renovated unlawfully: a primary structure, an accessory building, and modular homes.

• Stop work orders and infraction notices were repeatedly ignored or removed between 2021 and 2024.

• The court considered whether demolition was necessary versus allowing retroactive compliance.

• Expert evidence indicated concealed work required significant demolition and retroactive compliance was not viable.

• Public interest in safety and bylaw enforcement outweighed claims of hardship and community purpose.

Facts and outcome of the case

The case arose when the Fraser Valley Regional District (FVRD) sought court orders against 13HE13 Holdings Corp., the registered owner of a property in Hope, British Columbia. Bylaw officers discovered that extensive construction and renovations were being carried out on the property without the required building permits. The unpermitted work included major reconstruction of a primary structure, the construction of an accessory building, and modifications to modular homes. Despite repeated stop work orders, infraction notices, and warnings beginning in 2021, construction continued through late 2024.

The respondent conceded it had undertaken construction without permits but asked the court for more time to bring the buildings into compliance. They argued that professional inspections and reports could still make compliance possible without full demolition. Evidence presented by the FVRD, however, demonstrated that much of the work had been concealed without proper inspections and that significant demolition would be required even to test whether the buildings could meet safety standards. The court accepted this evidence, finding that retroactive compliance was neither realistic nor legally permissible under the permitting framework, which relies on inspections throughout the building process.

The FVRD sought statutory injunctions under the Local Government Act and the Community Charter, including demolition orders. The court confirmed that once a clear breach of a bylaw is proven, injunctions must be granted unless exceptional circumstances exist. It rejected the respondent’s position that hardship or community purposes justified postponing demolition, stressing that public safety and bylaw integrity outweighed those considerations.

The court granted all relief sought by the FVRD. This included declarations of contravention, prohibitions on further construction and occupancy of unpermitted structures, and an order requiring the respondent to apply for demolition by July 2025 with demolition to be completed by November 2025. Costs were awarded to the petitioner on the ordinary scale, consistent with the usual rule that the successful party receives costs. No damages were awarded, as the case concerned regulatory enforcement rather than compensation.