The adage about a man’s home being his castle apparently doesn’t apply to a partly built house in Osoyoos, as homeowners have found. And when that adage intersected with one about the futility of fighting city hall, city hall came out on top, with a B.C. Supreme Court judge allowing its request for an order that would allow the town to demolish the house and remove the owners’ motorhome if they don’t comply.
The south Okanagan resort town of Osoyoos went to court against Murray and Kathy Bloom, who began building on Oleander Drive in 2018, renewing their building permit three times. But the house is still unfinished after six years, stuck at the framing stage without doors, windows or siding, while the Blooms live in a motorhome on the property, Justice Anita Chan wrote after a one-day hearing in B.C. Supreme Court.
Several neighbours complained about an “eyesore” and the town considered the project in violation of several bylaws, including its Good Neighbour bylaw, according to the judgment. The town asked the court to have the owners found in breach of the bylaws, to prohibit the owners from living on the property and to require them to get the proper permit, it said.
The Town's Efforts to Stop Construction
The town first issued a “stop work” and a “do not occupy” order in June 2023, four months after the last permit extension expired. That July, the town sent a letter listing the bylaw infractions and demanded the Blooms apply for a permit and stop living on the property, according to judgment. The Blooms agreed to remove the motorhome a month later, after town council passed a resolution authorizing it to begin legal proceedings if it weren’t gone by Aug. 25, 2023.
But instead, the couple removed the bylaw notices, posted a no-trespassing sign, and refused to let the inspector on the property, it said. They later doubled down by sending the town a handwritten “notice and demand” letter that in legal language says the town had no legal contract with the owners and its bylaws didn’t apply, the judgment said. And the Blooms demanded $7,500 for each time a town employee entered the property or posted a notice, $25,000 each time they had to attend court for a bylaw infraction and $32,000 if the town forced it to apply for a permit, said the judgment.
Owners' Refusal to Comply
A building inspector in September, 2023, listed B.C. Building Code violations, including lack of roof, siding, windows, doors, handrails, insulation, fire safety systems, and concerns about the structural integrity of the building, and gave owners a year to fix, Chan wrote. The town in its evidence included a breach of the Good Neighbour bylaw, which requires that no owner “shall cause, suffer or permit the real property to become or remain unsightly.”
The Blooms argued their permit was valid until August 2024, but Chan determined that was a misreading of the bylaw and she further ruled their “notice and demand” did not absolve them of wrongdoing, as they seemed to believe, because it “it is not based on any legal authority.” Chan ruled: “There is ample evidence the respondents have breached the various bylaws” and the one-year construction timetable requirement, as well as the Good Neighbour bylaw.”
The Court's Decision
She also said the town had tried other measures before going to court and the Blooms “have not complied,” she said. She also noted they said delays had been caused by problems with aging parents and forest fires. She gave the couple 30 days to comply with the zoning and sewers bylaws and more time to comply with others. If they fail, Osoyoos is authorized to impound the motorhome and demolish the building at the Blooms’ expense, she wrote. The couple was also ordered to pay the town’s $4,500 in legal fees.
Legal Battle Continues
A message was left with Mayor Sue McKortoff. The Blooms could not be found. This situation highlights the complexities of property rights and local governance, and it will be interesting to see how the legal battle unfolds. The case raises questions about the limits of individual property rights and the responsibilities of homeowners to comply with local bylaws. The court’s decision could set a precedent for similar cases in the future.
While the owners may have encountered challenges with aging parents and forest fires, the judge emphasized that they had a responsibility to comply with the town’s building regulations. The case serves as a reminder that local authorities have the right to enforce regulations in order to ensure the safety and well-being of residents. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for future construction projects and property disputes in Osoyoos and other communities.
The case also highlights the potential for conflict between local authorities and property owners when there are disagreements over building codes and property rights. It is likely that this case will continue to be closely watched as the owners decide whether to appeal the court’s decision.
