Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Classification of the firewood shed on a trailer frame as a “structure” under the Fraser Valley Regional District Building Bylaw and Zoning Bylaw, triggering permit and setback requirements.
• Reasonableness of the bylaw adjudicator’s decision on the evidence, including photographs and site inspections, that the object was a storage shed/structure rather than a trailer.
• Characterization of the bylaw breaches as continuing violations, defeating the six-month limitation period defence under s. 5 of the Local Government Bylaw Notice Enforcement Act.
• Allegations of procedural unfairness in the bylaw adjudication hearing because there was no transcript or recording, and whether the reasons adequately explained jurisdiction and findings.
• Scope of the adjudicator’s jurisdiction, including his references to the Motor Vehicle Act, and whether those references improperly grounded his authority.
• Availability of mandamus compelling regional district officials to issue a building permit or provide further explanations, and whether the preconditions for such a remedy were met.

Facts of the case

The dispute arises from a complaint made in May 2023 about an object on the property of the petitioner, Susan Linda Geddert, in Lake Errock, British Columbia. The property is within the boundaries of the Fraser Valley Regional District (FVRD) and zoned Rural Residential 1 (RR-1). The object was built on an ICBC trailer frame and used as a firewood storage shed. In materials filed for the judicial review, the petitioner described it variously as “the legally built firewood storage shed on a 34-foot ICBC trailer frame” and a “firewood shed built on an MVA trailer.” The core factual controversy throughout was whether this object remained a “trailer” or had become a “structure” or “storage shed” within the meaning of the applicable building and zoning bylaws. In June 2023, FVRD bylaw officer Sam Sidal conducted a site visit and concluded that the object was a structure. He advised the petitioner that it fell under the FVRD Building Bylaw and Zoning Bylaw, and that because the shed exceeded a specified size threshold it required a building permit and also had to comply with setback requirements from the interior side yard boundary. The shed had been constructed on the trailer base and, after the modification, was not being moved; the evidence suggested it had effectively become stationary. The bylaw officer explained that the shed exceeded 215 square feet and thus triggered the building permit requirement, and that it did not meet the interior side yard setback of 1.5 metres required for RR-1 properties. Over the following months, the FVRD communicated with the petitioner numerous times, attempting to secure voluntary compliance. Written correspondence in September 2023 confirmed that FVRD officials viewed the object as an “accessory structure” built without a permit and in breach of setback rules. The Manager of Inspection Services, Bill Ozeroff, further clarified by email that the structure had been built on a steel frame, that the frame functioned as a form of foundation, and that the object fell under the BC Building Code and FVRD bylaws, notwithstanding its trailer origin. The officials indicated a willingness to work with the petitioner on possible solutions, including moving the structure or seeking variances. The petitioner, however, maintained that the object was properly characterized as a trailer, emphasizing the presence of wheels and the original frame, and arguing that it was governed by the Motor Vehicle Act regime rather than local building and zoning controls.

Regulatory framework and bylaws at issue

The case centres on the interaction of several legal instruments. First, the Local Government Bylaw Notice Enforcement Act establishes the bylaw notice regime and creates the adjudication system for contested notices. It also sets a six-month limitation period in s. 5 for bylaw notices, subject to how the alleged contravention is characterized in time. Second, the Fraser Valley Regional District Building Bylaw No. 1188, 2013 contains key definitions and prohibitions. “Structure” is broadly defined as a construction of any kind fixed to, supported by, or sunk into land or water, with certain exclusions such as landscaping and paving. The bylaw also adopts terms from the BC Building Code. Critically, s. 6.1 provides that no person may commence or continue construction, alteration, or other related work on any building or structure, including excavation, until a building official has issued a valid permit, unless the work falls within specified exemptions. Third, the Fraser Valley Regional District Zoning Bylaw No. 1638, 2021 defines “accessory building or structure” as a building or structure that is incidental and subordinate to a permitted use on the lot, and “storage shed” as a detached accessory building. “Structure” in the zoning bylaw is also defined broadly as any construction fixed to, supported by, or sunk into land or water, including buildings and fences, but excluding surfacing or paving. For RR-1 properties such as the petitioner’s, the zoning bylaw requires a minimum interior side yard setback of 1.5 metres. Fourth, the Fraser Valley Regional District Bylaw Offence Notice Enforcement Bylaw No. 1415, 2017 designates contraventions of s. 6.1 of the Building Bylaw and the relevant zoning setback provisions (including s. 9.14) as offences enforceable by way of Bylaw Notice. The adjudicator was required by s. 21 of the Local Government Bylaw Notice Enforcement Act to decide the bylaw dispute on a balance of probabilities; if satisfied that the contraventions occurred, the adjudicator was obliged to confirm the penalty in the bylaw notice, and if not, to cancel it.

Proceedings before the bylaw adjudicator

After repeated attempts to resolve the matter informally, the FVRD escalated enforcement. On June 13, 2024, it issued two Bylaw Offence Warning Notices referencing the Building and Zoning Bylaws, with a deadline for selecting a compliance option. When no resolution was achieved, FVRD staff issued two Bylaw Enforcement Notices (BENs) on or about July 30, 2024: BEN No. 68784 alleged a breach of the Building Bylaw, and BEN No. 68785 alleged a breach of the Zoning Bylaw. The petitioner disputed both notices through the bylaw adjudication system. At the March 7, 2025 hearing before the Upper Fraser Valley Bylaw Adjudicator, the adjudicator had before him the BENs, photographs taken by FVRD officials, additional photographs provided by the petitioner, and an extensive documentary record of communications between the parties since June 2023. The petitioner filed substantial written materials and made oral submissions, again asserting that the object was a trailer, not a structure. The FVRD argued that on the evidence the object was clearly a storage shed or structure fixed on a steel foundation, and that it contravened both the building permit requirement and the side yard setback. In his written decision dated March 11, 2025, the adjudicator concluded that the object was a structure. He placed weight on the photographs, which showed construction consistent with a shed built for storage, open-air siding, and a building erected on a steel base rather than a mobile trailer. He noted the history of the item as a mobile living unit whose camper portion had been demolished and replaced by a shed-like superstructure. He also referred to the potential application of Motor Vehicle Act requirements had the object still been used as a mobile trailer, indicating that a re-inspection or re-certification would likely have been necessary in that scenario. On the whole of the evidence, he found that the contraventions alleged in the BENs had been established on a balance of probabilities and upheld the penalties. The petitioner then sought judicial review of that adjudication in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

Judicial review and standard of review

The judicial review came before Justice Lawn. The petitioner, who appeared self-represented, argued that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction because he relied on the Motor Vehicle Act, and that the case therefore fell within the Court’s jurisdiction under s. 22(1) of the Local Government Bylaw Notice Enforcement Act. She also argued the matter was out of time under the six-month limitation period, that the hearing was procedurally unfair because it was not recorded and no transcript was provided, and that the FVRD’s conduct warranted an order of mandamus. The FVRD, represented by counsel, submitted that the applicable standard of review was reasonableness under the Supreme Court of Canada’s framework in Vavilov and as applied in British Columbia decisions such as Pringle v. Peace River (Regional District). On that standard, the Court’s task was not to decide the issue afresh but to determine whether the adjudicator’s decision, in context, fell within a range of reasonable outcomes based on the facts and law. Justice Lawn accepted that the standard of review was reasonableness. The Court emphasized that a reviewing court must look at the decision in its full factual and legal context and ask whether it is fundamentally flawed—irrational, illogical, or unjustified. The burden rested on the petitioner to demonstrate unreasonableness.

Whether the adjudicator’s decision was reasonable

The Court identified the central legal and evidentiary question: whether the object on the petitioner’s property was a “structure” within the meaning of the Building and Zoning Bylaws. It was not necessary for the adjudicator to definitively determine whether the object could be registered or certified as a trailer under the Motor Vehicle Act, or whether a temporary operating permit might be obtained from ICBC. Justice Lawn reviewed the evidence that had been available to the adjudicator, including the photographs and correspondence. The adjudicator had noted that the object’s design, style, and construction were consistent with a storage shed. The open-air siding and the way the building sat on a steel foundation suggested a fixed structure rather than a road-worthy trailer or motor vehicle. The adjudicator also appeared to accept that the camper portion had been demolished and replaced with a dedicated storage superstructure, and that the object had not been moved for some time. The Court found that the adjudicator’s references to the Motor Vehicle Act were properly understood in context: they were responsive to the petitioner’s submissions that the object was a trailer and to the possibility that, if inspected and permitted as a trailer, that might have supported her characterization. There was no evidence before the adjudicator of a re-inspection, re-certification, or active trailer registration. Justice Lawn rejected the notion that the object fell into a regulatory gap—untouched by the Motor Vehicle Act because not registered, and also exempt from FVRD bylaws simply because it sat on an old trailer frame. On a fair reading of the decision, even if the Motor Vehicle Act discussion were set aside, the adjudicator had made clear factual findings based on the photographic evidence that the object met the broad definitions of “structure” and “storage shed” in the zoning scheme and building regime. The Court held that these findings and conclusions were open to the adjudicator on the record and that his reasoning comfortably satisfied the reasonableness standard. There was no basis to interfere with the conclusion that the shed was a structure subject to the Building Bylaw and Zoning Bylaw.

Limitation period and continuing contravention

The petitioner argued that the bylaw notices were issued out of time because the original site visit had occurred in June 2023, the first warning letter was sent in October 2023, and the BENs were not issued until July 30, 2024—more than six months after the initial enforcement steps. She relied on the six-month limitation in s. 5 of the Local Government Bylaw Notice Enforcement Act. The FVRD responded that the contraventions were continuing in nature: the shed remained in its non-compliant location on the property and continued to be used in breach of setback and building permit requirements. Justice Lawn agreed with the FVRD’s position. Because the shed remained on the property in breach of the bylaws at the time the BENs were issued, the violation was properly characterized as ongoing. On that analysis, the six-month limitation did not bar the bylaw notices. The limitation argument was therefore rejected.

Procedural fairness at the adjudication hearing

Another issue was whether the bylaw adjudication hearing was procedurally unfair. The petitioner complained that there was no audio recording or transcript of the hearing and that, in her words, the verdict was based on memory without proof of what had been said. She also suggested that the adjudicator’s written reasons failed to cite any FVRD bylaws establishing jurisdiction. Justice Lawn set these concerns against the statutory design of the bylaw notice adjudication system. The regime is intended to provide a streamlined, accessible process that avoids the formalities of court litigation. Prior authorities, such as Hildebrand v. Penticton (City) and Yard Investment Inc. v. Langley (Township), had recognized that a more informal model can be entirely appropriate for municipal disputes, provided the process remains fair in substance. In this case, the adjudicator issued written reasons one week after the hearing. He had extensive written materials from both sides, including voluminous documents from the petitioner herself, and his decision turned largely on documentary evidence and photographs rather than nuances of oral testimony. His reasons identified the legal framework, including reference to the Local Government Bylaw Notice Enforcement Act and the standards in s. 21. He explained his understanding of his authority: that he was to decide on a balance of probabilities and either confirm or cancel the bylaw notices depending on his findings. Justice Lawn held that the absence of a transcript or recording did not, in this context, amount to unfairness. The reasons, though succinct, were adequate to explain the basis of the decision and the jurisdictional foundation. Overall, the hearing was found to have met the requirements of procedural fairness.

Mandamus and allegations about FVRD officials

The petitioner also sought an order of mandamus against several FVRD employees, including bylaw officers, supervisors, and the CAO. She asserted that over 21 months they had refused to (1) prove the FVRD’s jurisdiction to demand demolition of the shed, (2) explain precisely how the two bylaw violations arose, and (3) engage with her to clarify the interpretation of the bylaws and the alleged contraventions. She also alleged that officials refused to show her the basis for FVRD jurisdiction over a previously insured movable trailer. The FVRD argued that the mandamus request was defective and misconceived. In particular, mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that requires a clearly defined public legal duty to perform a specific act owed to the applicant, a refusal to perform that duty, and an absence of other adequate remedies. They further submitted that, absent a completed building permit application with supporting documents, the Court could not compel the regional district to issue a building permit, relying on the Court of Appeal’s reasoning in English v. Richmond (City). Justice Lawn agreed that an order compelling issuance of a building permit was not available on these facts. There was no completed permit application before the Court, and therefore no foundation for requiring the FVRD to exercise its discretionary permitting powers in a particular way. Turning to the broader allegations about communications and explanations, the Court reviewed the full sequence of correspondence. From June 2023 onward, FVRD officials consistently communicated that they regarded the object as an accessory structure requiring a building permit and as being in breach of setbacks. Written materials, including the September 26, 2023 letter and subsequent emails, set out the relevant bylaw references, explained the nature of the violations, and indicated that the BC Building Code applied. Warning notices in June 2024 expressly named the Building and Zoning Bylaws, and later communications attached the full text of those bylaws. Officials repeatedly expressed a willingness to work with the petitioner and encouraged her to explore routes to compliance, including the possibility—raised tentatively and conditional on Motor Vehicle Act and ICBC requirements—that if the unit could be properly registered and licensed, it might be arguable as a trailer. Justice Lawn accepted that some of these comments may have created confusion for the petitioner and that she clung to her conception of the object as a trailer. However, the Court concluded that, taken as a whole, the FVRD’s written and oral communications were clear: they regarded the object as a structure subject to local bylaws and in violation of both building permit and setback rules. The officials had no ongoing legal duty to provide further interpretive advice or extended explanation beyond what was already given. They could not be faulted for failing to do more, and the legal criteria for mandamus were not met.

Overall outcome and monetary consequences

Justice Lawn ultimately held that the adjudicator’s decision was reasonable in both outcome and justification. The finding that the firewood shed on the trailer frame constituted a “structure” and an accessory storage shed under the FVRD’s Building and Zoning Bylaws was upheld. The characterization of the contraventions as continuing violations meant that the six-month limitation period under the Local Government Bylaw Notice Enforcement Act did not bar the Bylaw Enforcement Notices. The allegations of procedural unfairness failed, as did the application for mandamus and the broader complaints about the conduct of FVRD officials. The petition for judicial review was therefore dismissed. The successful party in the proceeding is the Fraser Valley Regional District. The Court did not fix a specific monetary amount for damages or costs in the reasons, instead directing that if the parties could not agree on costs, they could file brief written submissions within 10 days. The underlying administrative decision left the bylaw penalties in place, but the judgment does not state the dollar value of those penalties. As a result, the exact total monetary amount ordered or ultimately payable in favour of the successful party cannot be determined from this decision.