Strong Powers, No Independent Oversight
Saanich bylaw officers have extraordinary powers over your home—but zero independent oversight.
The Problems
-
🚪
Entry Demands Backed by Daily Fines
For your home, the law requires your consent or a warrant. But 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. -
💰
$100K+ Liens, No Appeal
Section 57 property encumbrances have no independent review. A $100 ticket gets an adjudicator; a six-figure lien does not. -
⚖️
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. -
🚫
Zero Oversight
750 BC bylaw officers, 0 face independent civilian oversight. Complaints? They investigate themselves.
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 → -
2
Value for Taxpayers
Review and roll back the 2021 expansion that grew enforcement powers and costs without adding accountability. Costs up ~200%; satisfaction 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, sign the petitions, and write to Council.
Every Council Meeting, Searchable in Seconds
Saanich publishes its own record. It just does not make it findable. So we did.
That is roughly 170 million characters of text, and about 510 hours of recorded speech with every second stamped to the meeting and the moment it came from. Type in a phrase, and seconds later you can see who said it, when they said it, and what item was in front of Council at the time.
All of it is the District's own material, already published at saanich.ca and in the council video archive. We did not create any of it and we do not own it. What we did was make it findable, because searching the District's own site for something said out loud in a meeting four years ago is close to impossible.
The search box is not on this website yet. Until it is, just ask us. Name a topic, a date, an address, a councillor or a phrase, and we will send you back what the record says and the document it came from. It is free, there is nothing to sign up for, and it works just as well for trees, parking, taxes, housing or a rezoning nobody can remember the reasons for.
It also works against us. If we have got something wrong anywhere on this site, the same index will show you that in about ten seconds, and we would rather you found it than took our word for it.
Counts read from the index on 5 August 2026. The index was last rebuilt on 4 August 2026, so meetings transcribed since that date are not yet included in these numbers. Document coverage runs from January 2016; recorded speech coverage begins 11 September 2017, the earliest meeting in the District's published video archive.
Sign All 3 Petitions
Each petition targets a different aspect of reform. Sign all three to maximize your impact.
📢 THREE PETITIONS — Sign All Three to Maximize Your Impact!
Each targets a different level: Staff Accountability • Provincial Oversight • Policy Reform
Petition #1: Independent Review of Bylaw Enforcement
Ask Mayor and Council to commission an independent, external review of Building and Bylaw enforcement operations, and to pause contested enforcement files until that review reports publicly.
- Brent Reems — Chief Administrative Officer (central to the enforcement-expansion model; subject of OIPC investigation INV-F-26-01103)
- Angila Bains — Director of Legislative & Protective Services / Corporate Officer (named defendant; misfeasance, negligence and defamation alleged — unproven and before the court)
- Roy Thomassen — Manager of Inspection Services (inspection methodology rejected in Kinney v. Saanich, 2025 BCSC 1132; BOABC matter under investigation by the Registrar (BA-026-2026); named defendant)
- Greg Nelson — Bylaw Enforcement Officer (named defendant; allegations unproven and before the court)
Your Letter to Saanich Council
Dear Mayor Murdock and Council, I am ask that Council commission an independent, external review of Building and Bylaw enforcement operations. The documented record: 1. EVIDENCE REJECTED BY THE COURT: In Saanich v. Kinney, 2025 BCSC 1132, the BC Supreme Court held at para. 62 that the deposed statement of the District's building official, Roy Thomassen, was "conclusory and without an evidentiary foundation", because it gave no dimensions or measurements and did not set out the Building Code requirements relied on. At para. 67 the Court agreed that the District's Building Code evidence consisted of conclusory statements for which the foundation was insufficient. Council records show that the same official authored the staff reports for 14 of the 16 Section 57 properties listed on this site. No court has decided whether the same evidentiary deficiency affects those files. That is one reason an independent review is needed. 2. UNQUALIFIED PERSONNEL: Bylaw Enforcement Officers without Building Act s.10 qualifications have been making Building Code compliance decisions—a direct violation of provincial law. This issue is now under investigation by the BOABC Registrar under the Building Act (file BA-026-2026). 3. DEFECTIVE SERVICE AND PROCEDURAL MISCONDUCT: Corporate Officer Angila Bains authorized service by registered mail only—ignoring known legal counsel—and remained silent at Council when the mail was returned unclaimed, depriving a property owner of the opportunity to be heard. This constitutes potential misfeasance in public office. 4. THE COST TO RATEPAYERS: Our revised estimate of the public cost of these two enforcement files is $555,000 to $1,028,000. The District's own financial filings show $447,510 paid to the barrister who conducted the prosecution across six years. Neither property was shown to pose a safety hazard. 5. SELECTIVE AND RETALIATORY ENFORCEMENT: 1206 Judge Place waited 28 years. 1090 Lodge Ave was closed as "compliant" in 2015 then reopened only when listed for sale. Meanwhile, 938 Ambassador Ave received a search warrant within 10 months. This pattern suggests enforcement is arbitrary, retaliatory, or tied to property transactions—not public safety. 6. ONGOING HARM: While Council deliberates, these officials CONTINUE to pursue enforcement actions using discredited methods. Every day of delay exposes more residents to harm and the District to additional liability. [Your personal perspective will be added here if provided] Until an independent review reports, contested enforcement files should be paused. Respectfully but firmly, [Your Name] [Your Address] [Your Email]
— Sign below to add your name to the petition —
community members have signed
Petition #2: Independent Oversight for Bylaw Officers
Join us in requesting that the Police Complaint Commissioner assert his existing jurisdiction over bylaw enforcement officers appointed under section 36 of the Police Act, giving residents the same independent oversight that already applies to police.
Your Letter to Commissioner Rajan
Dear Commissioner Rajan, I am writing to formally request that the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner assert and exercise its jurisdiction over bylaw enforcement officers appointed under Section 36 of the Police Act. WHY OPCC OVERSIGHT IS LEGALLY REQUIRED AND URGENTLY NEEDED: 1. POLICE ACT JURISDICTION: Section 36 authorizes municipalities to appoint bylaw enforcement officers who operate "under the direction of the chief constable." These officers are functionally part of the policing apparatus and should be subject to civilian oversight. 2. SIGNIFICANT POWERS WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY: Saanich bylaw officers exercise extraordinary powers: entry into private dwellings, issuing orders resulting in $50,000+ liens, initiating bylaw prosecutions, and executing search warrants—with no independent oversight. 3. EVIDENCE REJECTED BY THE COURT: In Saanich v. Kinney, 2025 BCSC 1132, the BC Supreme Court held at para. 62 that the building official's deposed statement was "conclusory and without an evidentiary foundation". 4. NO EXISTING ACCOUNTABILITY: Unlike police officers, bylaw officers have no independent complaint process, no civilian oversight body, and no public accountability for misconduct. [Your personal perspective will be added here if provided] The residents of British Columbia deserve the same protections from bylaw enforcement officers that they receive from police officers. Sincerely, [Your Name] [Your Address] [Your Email]
— Sign below to add your name to the petition —
community members have signed
Petition #3: Repeal the 2021 Enforcement Expansion Bylaws
Call on Council to repeal the May 2021 bylaws that dramatically expanded bylaw enforcement authority without accountability.
- Bylaw 9692 — Bylaw Notice Enforcement Amendment
- Bylaw 9693 — Noise Suppression Amendment
- Bylaw 9695 — Boulevard Regulation Amendment
- Bylaw 9696 — Officers & Administrative Structure Amendment
- Bylaw 9697 — Nuisance Bylaw Amendment
- Bylaw 9698 — Noxious Weeds Amendment
- Bylaw 9600 — Unsightly Premises Bylaw
Your Letter to Saanich Council
Dear Mayor Murdock and Council, I am writing to demand the immediate repeal of the May 2021 bylaws that dramatically expanded bylaw enforcement authority without any corresponding accountability measures. THE BYLAWS THAT MUST BE REPEALED: • Bylaw 9692 — Bylaw Notice Enforcement Amendment • Bylaw 9693 — Noise Suppression Amendment • Bylaw 9695 — Boulevard Regulation Amendment • Bylaw 9696 — Officers & Administrative Structure Amendment • Bylaw 9697 — Nuisance Bylaw Amendment • Bylaw 9698 — Noxious Weeds Amendment • Bylaw 9600 — Unsightly Premises Bylaw WHY THESE BYLAWS HAVE FAILED: 1. THE COST TO RATEPAYERS: Since 2021, our revised estimate of what these two enforcement files have cost the public is $555,000 to $1,028,000, for permit paperwork matters where no safety hazard was demonstrated. 2. EVIDENCE REJECTED BY THE COURT: In Saanich v. Kinney, 2025 BCSC 1132, the BC Supreme Court held at para. 62 that the building official's deposed statement was "conclusory and without an evidentiary foundation". The 2021 expansion enlarged the powers exercised by the same enforcement group. 3. DECLINING SATISFACTION: Despite a 200% budget increase since 2017, resident satisfaction has DECLINED. The $50 ticket costing $100 to produce exemplifies this failed model. 4. NO ACCOUNTABILITY: These bylaws transferred powers with no oversight mechanisms or appeal process improvements. [Your personal perspective will be added here if provided] Respectfully but firmly, [Your Name] [Your Address] [Your Email]
— Sign below to add your name to the petition —
community members have signed
More Spending, Less Satisfaction
These trends show why change is needed—and why it's achievable with the right decisions at the council table.
The Data Speaks: As budgets soared after 2019, resident satisfaction plummeted. Download PDF →
The True Cost of Enforcement Without Oversight
Revised 5 August 2026. Our compilation from District budgets, Statements of Financial Information, court records and freedom of information releases now estimates roughly $555,000 to $1,028,000 in public cost across two enforcement files. The earlier figure of $290,000 to $447,000 stopped at December 2025 and counted the prosecution only. It left out everything that has happened since, and it left out the civil and tribunal proceedings the District is now a party to arising from the same file. The invoice-level billing detail was withheld in the response to freedom of information request 2025-240 and is before the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.
Documented Public Expenditure — Estimate
District of Saanich Bylaw Prosecution (2022–2025)
Cost estimate — booked to General Government
- Estimate: $388K–$766K, revised 5 August 2026 to run to the appeal now on foot and to include the civil and tribunal proceedings arising from the same file
- Booked to: General Government
- Verified from the District's own filings: $447,510 paid to the barrister who conducted this prosecution, across the six Statements of Financial Information from 2019 to 2025 that we have obtained. The 2023 filing is not yet in hand.
- Bill 44 framework: bylaw provisions at issue repealed and replaced effective June 30, 2024
- No safety hazard demonstrated
- Officers lacked Building Act s.10 qualifications
BC Supreme Court Case (2025 BCSC 1132)
Injunction action against single rural property owner
- Municipal burden: $148K–$234K (89%)
- Provincial burden: $19K–$28K (11%)
- Outcome: Partial success only
- 3 injunctions obtained — cost per injunction: $56K–$87K
- Cost recovery: Only 5–11% via court tariff
- Building Code claims ALL dismissed
- Evidence deemed inadequate by Justice Loo
Pattern of Systemic Failure
- Guaranteed Financial Loss: In both cases, actual costs far exceed any potential recovery. Taxpayers lose money regardless of outcome.
- Evidentiary Failures: In the civil petition against another property owner the Court found the District's building inspection evidence insufficient to prove the alleged Building Code contraventions. Whether the same deficiency affects other files has not been decided.
- Qualification Concerns: Enforcement officers pursued these cases without required Building Act s.10 certifications.
- No Safety Hazards: Neither property posed demonstrated risks to public safety. These are paperwork violations, not dangerous conditions.
- Proportionality Question: Spending between $167,000 and $766,000 per case to address permit paperwork at individual properties warrants serious policy review.
- Resource Drain: These two cases alone consumed a significant portion of Saanich's annual bylaw enforcement budget while resident satisfaction plummeted.
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 – 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 Kinney v. Saanich, 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. Whether any review has occurred in closed session cannot be determined from the public record: council closed meeting portions under the general employee matters ground (Community Charter s.90(1)(a)) 28 times in 2023 through 2025, but closed items are not attributed by subject.
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.
16 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."
| # | 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 14 of the 16 properties in the table above. Whether the same deficiency affects those files has not been decided by any court.
The People Behind the Decisions, From the Public Record
This section documents, from the public record, the staff reports, administrative decisions, and enforcement actions behind the expansion of enforcement powers, and the officials who carried them out. Sources: council minutes, staff reports, budgets, court records, regulatory filings, and freedom-of-information releases.
Brent Reems
Chief Administrative OfficerFormer Director of Building, Bylaw, Licensing & Legal Services (2017). Appointed CAO 2023. The architect of enforcement expansion.
- Authored Report 1970-20 ($739K expansion)
- Created system where $100 in staff time writes $50 tickets
- Oversaw 200% budget increase with declining satisfaction
Angila Bains
Director of Legislative & Protective Services / Corporate OfficerHolds the statutory office of Corporate Officer. Approved Report 161050 recommending the Section 57 notice. Made a June 23, 2025 statement to Council that the Section 57 notice addresses contraventions said to "impact life and safety" on the property; that statement is at issue in VLC-S-S-262461. The allegations are unproven and before the court.
- Approved Report 161050 recommending Section 57 notice
- Authorized service by registered mail only — ignoring known legal counsel
- Remained silent at Council (Nov 20, 2023) about returned mail
- June 23, 2025 statement to Council that the notice addresses contraventions said to "impact life and safety"
- Subject of civil claim: misfeasance, negligence, defamation
Doug Roberts
Manager of Legislative Services (Retired April 2025)Former Manager of Legislative Services; retired from the District in April 2025. Named as a personal defendant in VLC-S-S-262461. The allegations are unproven and are before the court.
- Current status: retired from the District of Saanich in April 2025; subsequently took a role with the Town of View Royal
- Former Manager of Legislative Services (to April 2025)
- Involved in the development of the enforcement-expansion model now under public scrutiny
- Named defendant — allegations unproven and before the court
Roy Thomassen
Manager of Inspection Services / Chief Building Official, RBO, ACBOAPrepared 87.5% of all Section 57 reports. Subject of a formal BOABC professional-conduct complaint (December 2025, BOA-025-2025) alleging that unqualified Bylaw Enforcement Officers were permitted to make Building Code determinations contrary to Building Act s.10(2). The complaint file was closed June 11, 2026; the delegation allegation was referred to the BOABC Registrar as file BA-026-2026 (Building Act ss.10(2) and 10(3)) and is now under investigation by the Registrar. Presented to Council on July 14, 2025 the inspection methodology later rejected by the BC Supreme Court in Kinney v. Saanich, 2025 BCSC 1132.
- Prepared 14 of 16 Section 57 reports
- Methodology rejected by BC Supreme Court in Kinney v. Saanich, 2025 BCSC 1132
- Presented rejected methodology to Council July 14, 2025 without disclosure
- Allowed unqualified BEOs to make Building Code decisions
- BOABC complaint BOA-025-2025 closed June 11, 2026; delegation allegation now under investigation by the Registrar as BA-026-2026
Dennis Mirabelli
Senior Building OfficialSubject of a formal BOABC professional-conduct complaint (December 2025, BOA-025-2025) alongside Roy Thomassen. The complaint file was closed June 11, 2026 without adjudication of the allegations concerning him. Participated in the July 2023 enforcement action.
- Participated in the July 2023 enforcement action
- Named in BOABC complaint BOA-025-2025 (file closed June 11, 2026)
- Associated with the inspection methodology rejected in Kinney v. Saanich, 2025 BCSC 1132
Dean Ridley
Senior Manager of Bylaw and Licensing (Left Saanich April 2025)Former Senior Manager of Bylaw and Licensing; no longer employed by the District of Saanich as of April 2025. Named as a personal defendant in VLC-S-S-262461. The allegations are unproven and are before the court.
- Current status: departed the District of Saanich in April 2025; per his LinkedIn profile, now works in enforcement with the BC Ministry of Forests
- Former Senior Manager of Bylaw and Licensing (to April 2025)
- Coordinated between the Bylaw and Building departments
- Named defendant — allegations unproven and before the court
Greg Nelson
Bylaw Enforcement Officer (Currently on Authorized Leave)Bylaw Enforcement Officer who participated in the July 2023 enforcement action at the property. The exercise of building official functions by uncertified personnel is at issue in Building Act file BA-026-2026, now under investigation by the BOABC Registrar (ss.10(2) and 10(3)); no findings have been made. Named as a personal defendant in VLC-S-S-262461. The allegations are unproven and are before the court.
- Bylaw Enforcement Officer involved in the July 2023 enforcement action
- No BOABC Building Act s.10 certification
- Under investigation in Building Act file BA-026-2026 (BOABC Registrar); no findings made
- Named defendant — allegations unproven and before the court
Robert Carrie
Bylaw Enforcement Officer (Left Saanich)Former Saanich Bylaw Enforcement Officer involved in the 2022–2023 investigation at the property. The exercise of building official functions by uncertified personnel is at issue, alongside Greg Nelson, in Building Act file BA-026-2026, now under investigation by the BOABC Registrar (ss.10(2) and 10(3)); no findings have been made.
- Former Bylaw Enforcement Officer; involved in the 2022–2023 investigation
- Under investigation in Building Act file BA-026-2026 (BOABC Registrar); no findings made
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.
Everything Here Comes From a Document You Can Read Yourself
And if we ever get something wrong, we would genuinely like to hear about it. Here is our open invitation.
Where our facts come from
Every factual statement on this site comes from a document you can get hold of yourself: a council agenda, minute or meeting video, a bylaw, a District budget or Statement of Financial Information, a BC Stats survey, a published court judgment, or a record released under freedom of information. Where something is our own analysis or an estimate, we say so, and we put the document beside it so you can make up your own mind. We would far rather you checked than took our word for it.
Our open invitation
If you see something on this site you think is wrong, please tell us. Point us to the statement, and to the document if you have it. We will look it up and we will take it seriously. If we got it wrong, we will fix it, and we will say so. If it turns out to be right, the source stays published beside it and you can judge for yourself.
That invitation is open to everyone. Neighbours, Council, District staff, and anyone named anywhere on this site are all equally welcome to take us up on it. Nobody here is being asked to answer an anonymous accusation. The documents are public, the links are on the page, and our name and address are at the bottom of it.
Write to SaanichBylawReform@Gmail.com and put Accuracy in the subject line. We read everything that comes in.
Things we are careful not to claim
- Some of this is still before the courts. Where a claim has been filed and not yet decided, we say so. Nothing in a filed claim is proven simply because it has been filed.
- We only call something a court finding when a court actually decided it, and we give the paragraph number so you can read the words for yourself.
- When a report, an affidavit or a pleading says something, we describe it as that person or body taking that position, not as a fact.
- Where the records are incomplete, or a request for records is still outstanding, we say so plainly rather than fill in the gap.
Evidence & Resources
Informed citizens make better decisions. Explore the documentation.
Bylaw Prosecution Cost Analysis
Revised estimate: $388K–$766K, with $447,510 in payments to prosecution counsel verified from the District's own filings
CostsCivil Case Cost Analysis (Dec 2025)
Revised estimate: $167K–$262K for injunctions at a single rural property, partial success only
NEW - CostsBOABC Ethics Complaint (Dec 2025)
Formal complaint re Building Act violations (BOA-025-2025, closed June 11, 2026; delegation allegation now under investigation by the BOABC Registrar as BA-026-2026)
NEW - ComplaintOPCC Jurisdiction Request (Nov 2025)
Legal request for OPCC oversight of bylaw officers under Police Act s.36 — with judicial review notice
NEW - LegalBylaw Enforcement Policy (Sept 2018)
Official Saanich Council policy requiring voluntary compliance first
Policy — Official SourceSection 57 Research Report
Analysis of 16 properties and enforcement patterns
ResearchKinney v. Saanich (2025 BCSC 1132)
BC Supreme Court decision
LegalReport 1970-20
$739,000 enforcement expansion request
EvidencePolice Act — Section 36
Bylaw officer authority
LegislationCommunity Charter
Warrantless entry powers s.16(5)(e)
LegislationContact Us
Have questions, want to share your story, or interested in getting involved? We'd love to hear from you.
Share Your Story
Have you dealt with Saanich building or bylaw enforcement — a notice on your title, an unexpected order, a permit dispute, or a cost you didn't see coming? Your experience helps show how these powers affect ordinary residents. Email us a few details (with your permission to share). We will never publish your name or identifying details without your explicit consent.
Email Us
For questions, sharing your story, media inquiries, or to get involved