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.