Committee - Committee of Adjustment Agenda Preview — April 20, 2026
Hook: Officials Wield Dual Enforcement Powers
Owen Sound · Committee of Adjustment · April 20, 2026
Summary
One-sentence summary: On April 20, 2026 at 10:00 AM, officials debate the dual enforcement hat that lets the municipality bypass council channels to immediately tax-lien Kepler Real Estate for ignoring bedbug extermination orders.
The agenda's most newsworthy items include 5 NEXT MEETING (Subsections):.
Top Newsworthy Developments
The Dual Hat of Enforcement A notable procedural shift occurs as the Committee of Adjustment sits simultaneously as the Property Standards Committee. Under the Building Code Act of Ontario, this dual capacity allows Owen Sound officials to wield the full powers of a Property Standards Officer directly. This setup creates a concentrated forum where the municipality can rapidly address building code violations without needing to route every matter through standard council channels first.
The Flexibility Clause The governing body will actively exercise its discretion to confirm, modify, rescind, or extend timelines for complying with enforcement orders. This "flexibility clause" is particularly juicy for local business owners and residents, as it introduces a variable element to enforcement: the general intent and purpose of the by-law are paramount, but strict deadlines may be adjusted. This mechanism effectively allows the Committee to balance regulatory rigidity with community economic realities.
Judicial Safety Valve The legal architecture surrounding these decisions includes a hard deadline for external oversight. Any party wishing to challenge the Committee's operational judgments must notify the City Clerk in writing within fourteen days of receiving a decision copy copy. This timeline constraint highlights the high-stakes nature of property standards appeals and emphasizes the immediate pressure on all involved parties to act swiftly if they disagree with an enforcement outcome.
Key Topics & Sections
Meeting Details
- Jurisdiction
- Owen Sound
- Body
- Committee of Adjustment
- Date
- April 20, 2026
- Transcript Status
- Agenda package summary and extracted subreport text
- Transcript URL
- https://helpos.ca/transcripts/owen-sound/committee-of-adjustment/2026-04-20
- Official Source
- View official meeting page
Related Discussion
HelpOS discussion thread link pending.
Transcript Notice
This page is an accessibility-focused summary and extracted agenda text intended to promote civic accessibility.
It is an unofficial convenience copy and may contain extraction or summarization errors.
For the authoritative record, try to access the original source materials from Owen Sound using the original link below.
Full Transcript
2 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
No summary available.
2 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
3 ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CHAIR The Committee of Adjustment is now sitting as the Property Standards Committee. The Building Code Act of Ontario gives the Committee all the powers and
Under the *Building Code Act of Ontario*, the Committee of Adjustment in Owen Sound exercises the full powers and functions of a Property Standards Officer. During this session acting as the Property Standards Committee, the governing body may confirm, modify, rescind, or extend timelines for complying with orders to ensure the general intent and purpose of the Property Standards By-law is maintained. This legal framework allows the committee to address building code violations with flexibility while upholding regulatory standards. Any individual other than the owner, occupant, or represented interested party wishing to receive notice of a decision, or seeking to comment on a deferred decision, must submit their name and address in writing to the Committee Secretary before departing. Additionally, the City, owners, occupants, or affected parties retain the right to appeal the Committee's decision to the Superior Court of Justice by notifying the City Clerk in writing within fourteen days of receiving the decision copy. This procedural avenue ensures external judicial oversight remains available for parties challenging the Committee's operational judgments regarding property standards and enforcement orders within the municipality.
3 ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CHAIR The Committee of Adjustment is now sitting as the Property Standards Committee. The Building Code Act of Ontario gives the Committee all the powers and ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CHAIR The Committee of Adjustment is now sitting as the Property Standards Committee. The Building Code Act of Ontario gives the Committee all the powers and functions of the Officer who made the Order and in disposing of the matter, the Committee may confirm, modify, rescind, or extend the time for complying with the Order if, in the Committee’s opinion, the general intent and purpose of the Property Standards By-law is maintained. Please be advised that if anyone other than the owner, occupant or their representative or interested parties as copied on the Order wishes to receive notice of the decision of the Property Standards Committee, or in the event that the Committee defers its decision respecting the appeal, such person or persons must leave their names and addresses in writing with the Secretary of the Committee prior to leaving the hearing by filling out the sign-in sheet located on the table outside of Council Chambers. In addition, the City or any owner or occupant or person affected by the Committee’s decision may appeal to the Superior Court of Justice by notifying the City Clerk in writing and by applying to the Court within fourteen (14) days after a copy of the decision is sent.
4 APPEALS
No summary available.
4 APPEALS APPEALS 4.a Appeal of Property Standards Order OSBY-2026-0076 dated February 12, 2026 Re: 235 8th Street East by Kepler Real Estate Inc. This appeal hearing was adjourned from its original date of April 7, 2026.
5 NEXT MEETING
In early 2026, Owen Sound's municipal authority aggressively deployed its single-tier statutory powers against landlord Kepler Real Estate, mandating a building-wide fumigation despite a private pest control report confirming zero active infestation. The city dismissed the lack of evidence, forcing Kepler to cover the costs of eradicating alleged bedbugs while ignoring the scientific reality that isolated treatments are ineffective only if migration occurs, a risk the city insists upon regardless of proof. This enforcement treats private property failures as public nuisances, threatening the owner with seizure, tax liens, and fines up to $1 million if they fail to comply by April 21. The landlord argues this is punitive hearsay that bypasses due process and ignores local hoarding conditions preventing item removal, effectively punishing housing instability rather than solving a crisis. Simultaneously, the broader municipal system exposes a distributist imbalance where obscure legal citations override practical realities, as seen in Toronto where committees previously rescinded orders for missing garbage rooms only after Ombudsman intervention proved that strict by-laws punished owners beyond their control. These cases illustrate how municipal overreach shifts financial burdens onto owners, prioritizing neighborhood aesthetics and broad regulatory mandates over compensating property holders for bureaucratic overreach and ignoring the biological or physical constraints of individual units.
Page 3 of 194
Schedule ‘A’
Property Standards Order
Page 4 of 194
City of Owen Sound
By-law Enforcement Division
808 2nd Avenue East
Owen Sound, ON, N4K 2H4
Phone: 519-376-4440 ext. 1905
Email : enforcement@owensound.ca
Date Issued: 2026-02-12
KEPLER REAL ESTATE INC
43363 SPARTA LINE
ST. THOMAS, ON N5P 3S8
ORDER
MUNICIPAL ADDRESS: 235 8TH ST E
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PLAN OWEN SOUND PT
LOT 13 E;POULETT ST AND RP 16R3669;PART 5
CASE #OSBY-2026-0076
IT IS AN OFFENCE TO OBSTRUCT/REMOVE POSTED ORDER WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION
It has been established by inspection that the property municipally known as 235 8TH ST E, City
of Owen Sound, does not conform to the standards set out in the City's Property Standards By-law
No. 1999-030, as amended. The particulars of the non-conformity are set out in Appendix "A"
attached to this Order.
Attached is a $220.00 invoice for processing the Order. If payment is not made within thirty (30)
days, the costs will be levied against the property and shall be recoverable as municipal taxes.
This charge is being levied as the result of the preparation and mailing of the Property Standards
Order as authorized by the City’s Fees and Charges By-law.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT all deficiencies as contained herein be brought into compliance
with the Property Standards By-law 1999-030, as amended, no later than 2026-04-21.
TAKE NOTICE THAT if the repairs or clearance are not completed within the time specified
herein, the Corporation may, in addition to any other action permitted by law, carry out the repairs
or clearance at the expense of the owner.
APPEAL TO PROPERTY STANDARDS COMMITTEE:
If you are not satisfied with the terms or conditions of this Order, you may appeal to the Property
Standards Committee by sending a Notice of Appeal form along with the applicable $200.00 fee
(documents attached) by attending City Hall in person or serving it by registered mail to:
Secretary, Staci Landry
Property Standards Committee
City Hall, 808 2nd Avenue East
Owen Sound, ON N4K 2H4
within fourteen (14) days after service of the Order, and, in the event that no appeal is taken, the
Order shall be deemed to have been confirmed. The final date for giving Notice of Appeal from the
Order is 2026-03-03.
Page 5 of 194
APPENDIX "A" - WORK REQUIRED TO COMPLY
PROPERTY STANDARDS - ORDER TO OWNER
Pursuant to Section 15.2(2) of the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, C23, as amended
By-law No. 1999-030, as amended
DATE: 2026-02-12
OWNER: KEPLER REAL ESTATE INC
PROPERTY: 235 8TH ST E
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PLAN OWEN SOUND PT LOT 13 E;POULETT ST AND RP
16R3669;PART 5
INSPECTOR: RILEY BRUGESS, #708
NOTED VIOLATIONS:
A full consolidated copy of the City's Property Standards By-law No. 1999-030, as amended, is
available on the City's Website. The following is a direct quote from the by-law and is to be
adhered to:
SECTION 2.5.8 - EXTERMINATION AND/OR FUMIGATION
2.5.8.1 All buildings shall be kept free from vermin, termites and other injurious insects.
2.5.8.2 Where it is found that there is an infestation of insects or vermin within or about a building,
extermination and/or fumigation shall be carried out until the infestation is eradicated in
accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act and the Pesticides Act of
Ontario. Where fumigation is to be undertaken, the owner of the building shall advise the Owen
Sound Fire Department prior to commencement of the fumigation.
“Extermination” means the control and elimination of insects, termites, vermin, rodents or other
pests by eliminating their harbouring places; by removing or making inaccessible or unpalatable
materials that may serve as their food, by poison, spraying, fumigating, trapping or by any other
recognised and appropriate means of pest elimination.
WORK REQUIRED TO COMPLY:
The following chart outlines the violations noted and the work required to comply with the by-law.
All of the following deficiencies must be completed on or before the compliance date listed below:
Item
Description of Violation
Work Required to Comply
1
Property is not kept free from injurious
insects, namely bedbugs. Live samples
were found in Unit #5 on February 11,
2026. [By-law 1999-030, Section 2.5.8.1]
Inspection by a certified pest control
company of Unit #5, as well as all units
immediately above, below, beside, and
diagonal to the subject unit, and the
hallway adjacent to any such unit.
Extermination conducted by the certified
pest control company in any areas where
bedbugs, nymphs, eggs, or any other
evidence of bedbug activity is found. Any
follow up treatments recommended by the
pest control company to be completed to
fully eradicate bedbug population in the
building. Inspection/treatment report,
Page 6 of 194
signed by the technician, to be provided to
Item
Description of Violation
Work Required to Comply
the Property Standards Officer for each
visit completed by the certified pest control
company.
Compliance Date: 2026-04-21
NOTE:
Where a reinspection is conducted after the compliance date, and non-compliance is
observed, a reinspection fee in the amount of $150.00 will be applied to the tax roll of the
property.
The issuance of this order does not relieve the owner(s) from the necessity of acquiring any
and all permits or approvals from the City of Owen Sound.
Failure to comply with an order, direction, or other requirement made under the Building
Code Act is an offence.
Obstructing or removing a posted order without authorization to do so from an inspector or
officer is an offence.
A person who is convicted of an offence is liable to a fine of not more than $50,000 for a first
offence and to a fine of not more than $100,000 for a subsequent offence. If a corporation is
convicted of an offence, the maximum penalty that may be imposed upon the corporation is
$500,000 for a first offence and $1,500,000 for a subsequent offence.
In addition to any other action permitted by law, if the repairs or clearance are not completed
within the time specified herein, the Corporation may carry out the repairs or clearance at
the expense of the owner. Costs of such action may be registered as a lien on the land and
shall be deemed to be municipal real property taxes and may be added to the assessment
roll and collected in the same manner and with the same priorities as municipal real taxes.
Order Issued By:
Riley Brugess, #708
Property Standards Officer
+1 519-376-4440 1270
Signature
Dated at Owen Sound, on 2026-02-12
Page 7 of 194
Schedule ‘B’
Notice of Appeal
Page 8 of 194
Property Sta ndards Committee
Notice of APPeal
*hcrc 1.ou r]?rnl to livc
RECEIVEE
Property and Owner Information
i
[ ;.'i, ;, 7, .\ 4.t
235 Bth Street East, Owen Sound, ON N4K 1L2
Location .
dca"tsly*
Kepler Real Estate Inc
Owner:
43363 Sparta Line St. Thomas, ON N5P3SB
Mailing Address (if different from location):
admin@keplerresidences'com
5r9-377-5936
Email Address .
Phone Number
Order Information
Issue Date:
February L2,2026
Compliance Date: 04/2t/2026
Deadline for ApPeal Date . 03/03/2026
#osBY-2026-0076
Order Number:
Appellant Information
Name:
Kepler Real Estate Inc
Mailing Address:
Phone Number:
43363 Sparta Line, St. Thomas, ON NsP 3SB
5L9-377-5936
Preferred Method of Service:
Email Address .
Mail
admin @keplerresidences.com
Email
Representative Information (if applicable)
Representative Name:
Addressl
Phone Number:
Email Address
Preferred Method of Service
Qrvait
Email
Grounds and/or Reasons for APPeal
State the grounds and/or reasons for the appeal, including any supporting documents
and photographs (attach additional pages if necessary):
The AoDellant appeals order osBY-2026-OO76 in its entirety based on the following:
z.s.g.i has not been violated, as bedbugs are not injurious insects'
that an infestation is occurring. References to
The order clearly and oistinciiy rairJro ciaim tnat z.sle.z riii[u-dn ulolated, and does..not alleoe
"wbrk Required to complv" sections. As a result,
rhis secrion and to an inresra'ritnlie-"wffii;'ilitili;; fi;;D;;.;ipiion-<ir Viorition" and
the order truly alleges a violation ot 2 5.8.1 only, not 2..5.8.2.
(violation of BCA section 15.2). The city
The order was issued witnouiiii" i"i.iritbrv rtnyiiia-r inifecton required by the Building code Act
has failed/refused to confirm attendance at the property despite multiple.demands..
instead on unverilied lhird-party hearsay'
The order ignores a professional orkin report from .tan.g-,-2-6i-0, wnich cleareo the building, relying
or a single complaint from other residents
Requiring a buitding-wide r"jEli|'tiniiirbi"6 oi'ag6naii;niidln-Jrwbvsl *itn"rt evioence of inibsta'tioi
is unreasonable and Punitive.
days, obstructing the Appellant's right to aJair defense'
i-d'Citi';JiddeO 5 ioimi'iOemand for Particulars tor 13 or more
waiver ot all
we reserye rhe right to prouite"ri,rtn"eip;;d6;il e"iddnce pribi io ine n-eartng. We seek'a full rescission of the order and
associated fees ($420.00 total).
Property Standards Committee Notice of Appeal
Page I of 2
Page 9 of 194
Hearing
Oln Person Hearing
@flectronic Hearing
tl Closed Hearing
If you selected an electronic hearing or a closed hearing, please provide the rationale for
your request. For a closed hearing, please describe how your rationale meets the test of
matters involving public security or intimate financial or personal matters (attach
additional pages if necessarY).
We could accommodate the city's need for an in-person hearing if required. The
Landlord & Tenant Board, Ontario Superior Court, and various other courts and
tribunals have migrated to a digital-first approach in 2026.
Add itional Information
Attach the following documents with your Notice of Appeal form:
E Order related to the aPPeal.
tr property standards appeal fee, as set out in the City of Owen Soundt Fees and
Charges By-law. This fee is non-refundable. (The by-law can be found on the City's
By-laws and Policies webpage at www.owensound,ca/bv-laws).
n An authorization to act as representative for notice of appeal (if applicable).
Jonathan Kepler
02/26/2026
Name
Date
9-,2/Signature
personal information on this form is collected under the authority of the Building Code
Act, L992, The information collected will be used for the appeal process and will form
part of the public record. Questions about this collection should be addressed to Briana
Bloomfield, City Clerk, at bbloomfield-@owensound.ca or 5L9-376-4440 ext. 1247.
Property Standards Committee Notice of Appeal
Page 2 of 2
Page 10 of 194
Case Number OSBY-2026-0076
ONTARIO
CITY OF OWEN SOUND
PROPERTY STANDARDS COMMITTEE
APPEAL
BETWEEN:
KEPLER REAL ESTATE INC
Appellant/Applicant
and
CITY OF OWEN SOUND
Respondent/Appellant
APPEAL BRIEF OF THE RESPONDENT/CITY OF OWEN SOUND
Jacqueline Armstrong (LSO #P11318)
SV Paralegal Professional Corporation
Suite 4B - 325 Lambton St.
Kincardine, ON N2Z 0E3
jacqueline@svparalegal.com
Phone: (226) 396-5100
Prosecution for the City of Owen Sound
TO:
Kepler Real Estate Inc.
43363 Sparta Line
St. Thomas, ON N5P 3S8
Email: admin@keplerresidences.com
Tel: (519) 377-5936
Self-represented Appellant
Page 11 of 194
Case Number OSBY-2026-0076
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TAB
DESCRIPTION
PAGE NO.
1
Notice of Appeal, dated February 26, 2026
4
2
Notice of Appeal Hearing, dated April 7, 2026
7
3
Order Issued February 12, 2026
16
4
Case Package by Assigned Officer Riley Brugess
20
5
Pictures of the Issues
52
6
Certified Copy of By-Law No. 1999-030
55
1.
Page 12 of 194
003
TAB1
Page 13 of 194
::
004
owlo'lnd
Property Standards Committee
Notice of Appeal
where rou wt1nl lo lll't
Property and Owner Information
Location; 235 8th Street East, Owen Sound, ON N4K 1L2
CEHVED
Owner: Kepler Real Estate Inc
ON NSP 3S8
Mailing Address (if different from location): 43363 Sparta Line St. Thomas,
Phone Number: 519-377-5936
Email Address: admin@keplerresidences.com
Order Information
Issue Date: February 12, 2026
Compliance Date: 04/21/2026
Deadline for Appeal Date: 03/03/2026
Order Number: #OSBY-2026-0076
Appellant Information
Name: Kepler Real Estate Inc
L
S S8
Mailing Address: 43363 Sparta ine, St. Thomas, ON N P 3
Phone Number: 519-377-5936
Email Address: admin@keplerresidences.com
Preferred Method of Service:
QMail
@Email
Representative Information (if applicable)
Representative Name: __________________________
Address: -------------------------------Phone Number: _________ Email Address: ________ ____
Preferred Method of Service:
C}Mail
QEmail
Grounds and/ or Reasons for Appeal
State the grounds and/or reasons for the appeal, including any supporting documents
and photographs (attach additional pages if necessary):
The Afpe11ant appeals Ordar OSBY•2026-0076 In ill entirety base<! on the following:
2.5.8. hes not been lllolatec;t aa bedbug& are nol Injurious i\sedo.
The order cleatly and dist � falls to claim that 2.5.8.2 has been violated. and does not allege that an infestation Is occurring. References to
this section and to an tnlesta
are wholly ornltled 1rorn the "'Oesc�lon of Violation" and 'Work Required to Comply" sections. As a result,
the order tr� alleges a violation of 2.5,8. f only. not 2.5.8.2.
The Order was issued without the mandato,y physical mpec11on required by the Building Code Act (Violation of BCA Section 15.2). The City
has failed/refused to confirm attendance $ 1he property desl)lta multiple demands.
The Order Ignores a professional Ortdn report from Jan 9, 2026, which cleared the building, relying instead on unverified third-party hearsay.
Requiring a bullding-wicknweep (including diagonal unllslhallways) without evidence of infestation or a single complaint from other residents
is unreasonable and punitive.
The City has Ignored a formal Demand for PartiCUIIIJs for 13 or more days, obstructing the Appellant's right to a lair defense.
We reserve the right to l)l'ovide further par1Jculars and evidence prior to the hearing. We seek a full rescission of the Order and waiver of all
asaoclated fees ($420,00 total).
Property Standards Committee Notice of Appeal
Page 1 of 2
Page 14 of 194
005
Hearing
Qin Person Hearing
{!)Electronic Hearing
□ Closed Hearing
If you selected an electronic hearing or a closed hearing, please provide the rationale for
your request. For a closed hearing, please describe how your rationale meets the test of
matters involving public security or intimate financial or personal matters (attach
additional pages if necessary).
We could accommodate the city's need for an in-person hearing if required. The
Landlord & Tenant Board, Ontario Superior Court, and various other courts and
tribunals have migrated to a digital-first approach in 2026.
Additional Information
Attach the following documents with your Notice of Appeal form:
� Order related to the appeal.
[!] Property standards appeal fee, as set out in the City of Owen Sound's Fees and
Charges By-law. This fee is non-refundable. (The by-law can be found on the City's
By-laws and Policies webpage at ,y•,�· - 11,- 11· -1 ,.,fl J/Dt :;-iw· ).
□ An authorization to act as representative for notice of appeal (if applicable).
Jonathan Kepler
Name
- --
02/26/2026
---
Date
--
--- -----
Signature
Personal information on this form is collected under the authority of the Building Code
Act, 1992. The information collected will be used for the appeal process and will form
part of the public record. Questions about this collection should be addressed to Briana
Bloomfield, City Clerk, at , 1 J
h
,.,,..,nsound.J:.a or 519-376-4440 ext. 1247.
Property Standards Committee Notice of Appeal
Page 2 of 2
Page 15 of 194
006
TAB2
Page 16 of 194
owe11. d
SOul
Property Standards Committee
007
Notice of Appeal Hearing
where you want to live
Order Number OSBY-2026-0076
235 s th Street East
Take notice that an appeal hearing has been scheduled by the City of Owen Sound
regarding an Order to comply with Property Standards By-law No. 1999-030, as
amended, under the Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 23 for the subject property
known municipally as 235 8th Street East.
The Appellant, Kepler Real Estate Inc., is seeking review and consideration from the
Property Standards Committee regarding Order Number OSBY-2026-0076, attached as
Schedule 'A'. The Appellant's Notice of Appeal is attached as Schedule 'B'.
The Property Standards Committee for the City of Owen Sound will consider this appeal
through an electronic hearing on April 7, 2026 at 3:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of
City Hall, located at 808 2 nd Avenue East, Owen Sound.
If the Appellant or Appellant's Representative does not attend the Hearing, the
Committee may proceed in the Appellant's absence and the Appellant will not be entitled
to any further notice in the proceeding.
If a Party intends to make use of any written or documentary evidence at the Hearing,
that Party is required to serve one (1) copy of the documents (referred to as the
disclosure package) to the Secretary no later than March 24, 2026. As per Section 36 of
the Property Standards Committee Procedure, "document" includes any report,
memorandum, witness list, witness statement, sound recording, videotape, file,
photograph, map, plan, survey, and any information recorded or stored by any means,
and any expert reports to be relied upon and a copy of the curriculum vitae of the
authors of any such expert reports.
The Secretary will provide the disclosure packages to all Parties no later than March 26,
2026.
If the video or audio for the Appellant or Appellant's Representative, malfunction during
the Hearing, the Committee may proceed in the Appellant's absence and the Appellant
will not be entitled to any further notice in the proceeding.
A Party may, by satisfying the Committee that holding the Hearing as an electronic
hearing is likely to cause the Party significant prejudice, require the Committee to hold
the Hearing as an "in person" hearing and must provide the rationale for the request.
Please be advised that this hearing is a formal process where parties involved will be
given an opportunity to present oral, written, or visual evidence related to the matter.
Questions of clarification may be asked by the Appellant, the City, or the Committee.
Those parties providing evidence will be sworn in or affirmed before they do so. The
process for this hearing must comply with the Property Standards Committee Procedure
and, as necessary, the Statutory Powers Procedures Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22. A copy of
the Property Standards Committee Procedure is available on the City of Owen Sound's
website at www.owensound.ca.
The Hearing will be open to the public and as such, may be viewed in person in Council
Chambers or on the City's Council and Committees webpage at owensound.ca/meetinqs.
If you wish to receive a copy of the decision of the Property Standards Committee in
respect of the appeal, you must make a written request to the Secretary of the Property
Standards Committee using the contact information listed below.
All information disclosed will become part of the decision-making process of the appeal
and will be posted on the City's website. Personal information is collected under the
authority of the Building Code Act, 1992 and will become part of the public record.
Questions about this collection should be addressed to the Secretary of the Property
Standards Committee.
Notice Date: March S, 2026
Staci Landry
Secretary of the Property Standards Committee
808 2 nd Avenue East
Owen Sound, ON N4K 2H4
Telephone: 519-376-4440 ext. 1235
clerks@owensound.ca
Email:
Page 17 of 194
Schedule 'A'
008
Property Standards Order
Page 18 of 194
owe11l
so 11d
009
City of Owen Sound
By-law Enforcement Division
808 2nd Avenue East
Owen Sound, ON, N4K 2H4
Phone: 519-376-4440 ext. 1905
Email: enforcement@owensound.ca
where you want to live
Date Issued: 2026-02-12
KEPLER REAL ESTATE INC
43363 SPARTA LINE
ST. THOMAS, ON N5P 3S8
ORDER
MUNICIPALADDRESS: 235 8TH ST E
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PLAN OWEN SOUND PT
LOT 13 E;POULETT ST AND RP 16R3669;PART 5
CASE #OSBY-2026-0076
IT IS A N OFFENCE TO OBSTRUCT/REMOVE POSTED ORDER WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION
It has been established by inspection that the property municipally known as 235 8TH ST E, City
of Owen Sound, does not conform to the standards set out in the City's Property Standards By-law
No. 1999-030, as amended. The particulars of the non-conformity are set out in Appendix "A"
attached to this Order.
Attached is a $220.00 invoice for processing the Order. If payment is not made within thirty (30)
days, the costs will be levied against the property and shall be recoverable as municipal taxes.
This charge is being levied as the result of the preparation and mailing of the Property Standards
Order as authorized by the City's Fees and Charges By-law.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT all deficiencies as contained herein be brought into compliance
with the Property Standards By-law 1999-030, as amended, no later than 2026-04-21.
TAKE NOTICE THAT if the repairs or clearance are not completed within the time specified
herein, the Corporation may, in addition to any other action permitted by law, carry out the repairs
or clearance at the expense of the owner.
APPEAL TO PROPERTY STANDARDS COMMITTEE:
If you are not satisfied with the terms or conditions of this Order, you may appeal to the Property
Standards Committee by sending a Notice of Appeal form along with the applicable $200.00 fee
(documents attached) by attending City Hall in person or serving it by registered mail to:
Secretary, Staci Landry
Property Standards Committee
City Hall, 808 2nd Avenue East
Owen Sound, ON N4K 2H4
within fourteen (14) days after service of the Order, and, in the event that no appeal is taken, the
Order shall be deemed to have been confirmed. The final date for giving Notice of Appeal from the
Order is 2026-03-03.
Page 19 of 194
APPENDIX "A" - WORK REQUIRED TO COMPLY
010
PROPERT Y STANDARDS - ORDER TO OWNER
Pursuant to Section 15.2(2) of the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, C23, as amended
By-law No. 1999-030, as amended
DATE: 2026-02-12
OWNER: KEPLER REAL ESTATE INC
PROPERTY: 235 8TH ST E
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PLAN OWEN SOUND PT LOT 13 E;POULETT ST AND RP
16R3669;PART 5
INSPECTOR: RILE Y BRUGESS, #708
------------ - --NOTED VIOLATIONS:
A full consolidated copy of the City's Property Standards By-law No. 1999-030, as amended, is
available on the City's Website. The following is a direct quote from the by-law and is to be
adhered to:
SECTION 2.5.8 - EXT ERMINATION AND/OR FUMIGATION
2.5.8.1 All buildings shall be kept free from vermin, termites and other injurious insects.
2.5.8.2 Where it is found that there is an infestation of insects or vermin within or about a building,
extermination and/or fumigation shall be carried out until the infestation is eradicated in
accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act and the Pesticides Act of
Ontario. Where fumigation is to be undertaken, the owner of the building shall advise the Owen
Sound Fire Department prior to commencement of the fumigation.
Extermination" means the control and elimination of insects, termites, vermin, rodents or other
pests by eliminating their harbouring places; by removing or making inaccessible or unpalatable
materials that may serve as their food, by poison, spraying, fumigating, trapping or by any other
recognised and appropriate means of pest elimination.
11
WORK REQUIRED TO COMPLY:
The following chart outlines the violations noted and the work required to comply with the by-law.
All of the following deficiencies must be completed on or before the compliance date listed below:
Item
Description of Violation
Work Required to Comply
1
Property is not kept free from injurious
insects, namely bedbugs. Live samples
were found in Unit #5 on February 11,
2026. [By-law 1999-030, Section 2.5.8.1]
Inspection by a certified pest control
company of Unit #5, as well as all units
immediately above, below, beside, and
diagonal to the subject unit, and the
hallway adjacent to any such unit.
Extermination conducted by the certified
pest control company in any areas where
bedbugs, nymphs, eggs, or any other
evidence of bedbug activity is found. Any
follow up treatments recommended by the
pest control company to be completed to
fully eradicate bedbug population in the
building. Inspection/treatment report,
Page 20 of 194
signed by the technician, to be provided to
Item
Description of Violation
Work Required to Comply
011
the Property Standards Officer for each
visit completed by the certified pest control
company.
Compliance Date: 2026-04-21
NOTE:
• Where a reinspection is conducted after the compliance date, and non-compliance is
observed, a reinspection fee in the amount of $150.00 will be applied to the tax roll of the
property.
• The issuance of this order does not relieve the owner(s) from the necessity of acquiring any
and all permits or approvals from the City of Owen Sound.
• Failure to comply with an order, direction, or other requirement made under the Building
Code Act is an offence.
• Obstructing or removing a posted order without authorization to do so from an inspector or
officer is an offence.
• A person who is convicted of an offence is liable to a fine of not more than $50,000 for a first
offence and to a fine of not more than $100,000 for a subsequent offence. If a corporation is
convicted of an offence, the maximum penalty that may be imposed upon the corporation is
$500,000 for a first offence and $1,500,000 for a subsequent offence.
• In addition to any other action permitted by law, if the repairs or clearance are not completed
within the time specified herein, the Corporation may carry out the repairs or clearance at
the expense of the owner. Costs of such action may be registered as a lien on the land and
shall be deemed to be municipal real property taxes and may be added to the assessment
roll and collected in the same manner and with the same priorities as municipal real taxes.
Order Issued By:
Riley Brugess, #708
Property Standards Officer
+1 519-376-4440 1270
Signature
Dated at Owen Sound, on 2026-02-12
Page 21 of 194
Schedule 'B'
012
Notice of Appeal
Page 22 of 194
013
oweI1. d
SOul
Property Standards Committee
Notice of Appeal
IRJECIEDVIED
Property and Owner Information
8
Location: 235 th Street East, Owen Sound, ON N4K 1L2
Owner: Kepler Real Estate Inc
as, ON N5P3S8
Mailing Address (if different from location): 43363 Sparta Line St. Thom
6
admin@keplerresidences.com
Phone Number: 519-377-593
Email Address:
Order Information
Issue Date:
February 12, 2026
Compliance Date: 04/21/2026
Deadline for Appeal Date: 0 3 /03/2026
OS -2026-0076
Order Number: # BY
Appellant Information
Name:
Kepler Real Estate Inc
,
NSP 3S8
ta ne
6
Mailing Address: 433 3 Spar Li , St. Thomas ON
admin@keplerresidences.com
Phone Number: 519-377-5936
Email Address:
Preferred Method of Service:
QMail
@Email
Representative Information (if applicable)
Representative Name: ___________________________
Address:-------------------------------Phone Number:
----------- Email Address: ----------------
Preferred Method of Service:
C)Mail
QEmail
Grounds and/ or Reasons for Appeal
State the grounds and/or reasons for the appeal, including any supporting documents
and photographs (attach additional pages if necessary):
The Appellant appeals Order OSBY-2026·0076 in its entirety based on the following:
2.5.8.1 has not been violated, as bedbugs are not injurious insects.
The order clearly and distinctly fails 10 claim that 2.5.8.2 has been violated, and does not allege that an infestation is occurring. References to
this section and to an infestation are wholly omitted from the "Description of Violation" and 'Work Required to Comply" sections. As a result,
the order truly alleges a violation of 2.5.8.1 only. not 2.5.8.2.
The Order was issued without the mandatory physical inspection required by the Building Code Act (Violation of BCA Section 15.2). The City
has failed/refused to confirm attendance at the property despite multiple demands.
The Order ignores a professional Orkin report from Jan 9, 2026, which cleared the building, relying instead on unverified third-party hearsay.
Requiring a building-wide sweep (including diagonal units/hallways) without evidence of infestation or a single complaint from other residents
is unreasonable and punitive.
The City has ignored a formal Demand for Particulars for 13 or more days, obstructing the Appellant's right to a fair defense.
We reserve the right to provide further particulars and evidence prior to the hearing. We seek a full rescission of the Order and waiver of all
associated lees ($420.00 total).
Property Standards Committee Notice of Appeal
Page 1 of 2
Page 23 of 194
014
Hearing
Qin Person Hearing
{!)Electronic Hearing
□ Closed Hearing
If you selected an electronic hearing or a closed hearing, please provide the rationale for
your request. For a closed hearing, please describe how your rationale meets the test of
matters involving public security or intimate financial or personal matters (attach
additional pages if necessary).
We could accommodate the city's need for an in-person hearing if required. The
Landlord & Tenant Board, Ontario Superior Court, and various other courts and
tribunals have migrated to a digital-first approach in 2026.
Additional Information
Attach the following documents with your Notice of Appeal form:
� Order related to the appeal.
0 Property standards appeal fee, as set out in the City of Owen Sound's Fees and
Charges By-law. This fee is non-refundable. {The by-law can be found on the City's
By-laws and Policies webpage at .�1N1;v 01u·_p:::�,_uqd.ccdl�1, la\: 1;,;.).
1
1
□ An authorization to act as representative for notice of appeal (if applicable).
Jonathan Kepler
02/26/2026
Name
Date
Signature
Personal information on this form is collected under the authority of the Building Code
Act, 1992. The information collected will be used for the appeal process and will form
part of the public record. Questions about this collection should be addressed to Briana
Bloomfield, City Clerk, at L1bloo111f1el_tjCc1uwex1sg1..m�a or 519-376-4440 ext. 1247.
Property Standards Committee Notice of Appeal
Page 2 of 2
Page 24 of 194
015
TAB3
Page 25 of 194
016
oweI1. d
City of Owen Sound
By-law Enforcement Division
SOul
808 2nd Avenue East
Owen Sound, ON, N4K 2H4
Phone: 519-376-4440 ext. 1905
Email : enforcement@owensound.ca
where you want to live
Date Issued: 2026-02-12
KEPLER REAL ESTATE INC
43363 SPARTA LINE
ST. THOMAS, ON N5P 3S8
ORDER
MUNICIPAL ADDRESS: 235 8TH ST E
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PLAN OWEN SOUND PT
LOT 13 E;POULETT ST AND RP 16R3669;PART 5
CASE #OSBY-2026-0076
IT IS AN OFFENCE TO OBSTRUCT/REMOVE POSTED ORDER WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION
It has been established by inspection that the property municipally known as 235 8TH ST E, City
of Owen Sound, does not conform to the standards set out in the City's Property Standards By-law
No. 1999-030, as amended. The particulars of the non-conformity are set out in Appendix "A"
attached to this Order.
Attached is a $220.00 invoice for processing the Order. If payment is not made within thirty (30)
days, the costs will be levied against the property and shall be recoverable as municipal taxes.
This charge is being levied as the result of the preparation and mailing of the Property Standards
Order as authorized by the City's Fees and Charges By-law.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT all deficiencies as contained herein be brought into compliance
with the Property Standards By-law 1999-030, as amended, no later than 2026-04-21.
TAKE NOTICE THAT if the repairs or clearance are not completed within the time specified
herein, the Corporation may, in addition to any other action permitted by law, carry out the repairs
or clearance at the expense of the owner.
APPEAL TO PROPERTY STANDARDS COMMITTEE:
If you are not satisfied with the terms or conditions of this Order, you may appeal to the Property
Standards Committee by sending a Notice of Appeal form along with the applicable $200.00 fee
(documents attached) by attending City Hall in person or serving it by registered mail to:
Secretary, Staci Landry
Property Standards Committee
City Hall, 808 2nd Avenue East
Owen Sound, ON N4K 2H4
within fourteen (14) days after service of the Order, and, in the event that no appeal is taken, the
Order shall be deemed to have been confirmed. The final date for giving Notice of Appeal from the
Order is 2026-03-03.
Page 26 of 194
017
APPENDIX "A" - WORK REQUIRED TO COMPLY
PROPERT Y STANDARDS - ORDER TO OWNER
Pursuant to Section 15.2(2) of the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, C23, as amended
By-law No. 1999-030, as amended
DATE: 2026-02-12
OWNER: KEPLER REAL ESTATE INC
PROPERTY: 235 8TH ST E
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PLAN OWEN SOUND PT LOT 13 E;POULETT ST AND RP
16R3669;PART 5
INSPECTOR: RILE Y BRUGESS, #708
NOTED VIOLATIONS:
A full consolidated copy of the City's Property Standards By-law No. 1999-030, as amended, is
available on the City's Website. The following is a direct quote from the by-law and is to be
adhered to:
SECTION 2.5.8 - EXTERMINATION AND/OR FUMIGATION
2.5.8.1 All buildings shall be kept free from vermin, termites and other injurious insects.
2.5.8.2 Where it is found that there is an infestation of insects or vermin within or about a building,
extermination and/or fumigation shall be carried out until the infestation is eradicated in
accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act and the Pesticides Act of
Ontario. Where fumigation is to be undertaken, the owner of the building shall advise the Owen
Sound Fire Department prior to commencement of the fumigation.
"Extermination" means the control and elimination of insects, termites, vermin, rodents or other
pests by eliminating their harbouring places; by removing or making inaccessible or unpalatable
materials that may serve as their food, by poison, spraying, fumigating, trapping or by any other
recognised and appropriate means of pest elimination.
WORK REQUIRED TO COMPLY:
The following chart outlines the violations noted and the work required to comply with the by-law.
All of the following deficiencies must be completed on or before the compliance date listed below:
Item
Description of Violation
1
Property is not kept free from injurious
insects, namely bedbugs. Live samples
were found in Unit #5 on February 11,
2026. [By-law 1999-030, Section 2.5.8.1]
Work Required to Comply
Inspection by a certified pest control
company of Unit #5, as well as all units
immediately above, below, beside, and
diagonal to the subject unit, and the
hallway adjacent to any such unit.
Extermination conducted by the certified
pest control company in any areas where
bedbugs, nymphs, eggs, or any other
evidence of bedbug activity is found. Any
follow up treatments recommended by the
pest control company to be completed to
fully eradicate bedbug population in the
building. Inspection/treatment report,
signed by the technician, to be provided
to
Page 27 of 194
Item
Description of Violation
Work Required to Comply 018
the Property Standards Officer for each
visit completed by the certified pest control
company.
Compliance Date: 2026-04-21
NOTE:
• Where a reinspection is conducted after the compliance date, and non-compliance is
observed, a reinspection fee in the amount of $150.00 will be applied to the tax roll of the
property.
• The issuance of this order does not relieve the owner(s) from the necessity of acquiring any
and all permits or approvals from the City of Owen Sound.
• Failure to comply with an order, direction, or other requirement made under the Building
Code Act is an offence.
• Obstructing or removing a posted order without authorization to do so from an inspector or
officer is an offence.
• A person who is convicted of an offence is liable to a fine of not more than $50,000 for a first
offence and to a fine of not more than $100,000 for a subsequent offence. If a corporation is
convicted of an offence, the maximum penalty that may be imposed upon the corporation is
$500,000 for a first offence and $1,500,000 for a subsequent offence.
• In addition to any other action permitted by law, if the repairs or clearance are not completed
within the time specified herein, the Corporation may carry out the repairs or clearance at
the expense of the owner. Costs of such action may be registered as a lien on the land and
shall be deemed to be municipal real property taxes and may be added to the assessment
roll and collected in the same manner and with the same priorities as municipal real taxes.
Order Issued By:
Riley Brugess, #708
Property Standards Officer
+1 519-376-4440 1270
Signature
Dated at Owen Sound, on 2026-02-12
Page 28 of 194
019
TAB4
Page 29 of 194
oweI1. d
S0u1
City of Owen Sound
By-law Enforcement Division
808 2nd Avenue East
Owen Sound, ON, N4K 2H4
Phone: 519-376-4440 ext. 1905
Email : enforcement@owensound.ca
020
where you want to live
CASE PACKAGE
CASE INFORMATION
Case Number
OSBY-2026-0076
Category
Property
Additional Categories
Property Standards
Assigned Officer
Riley Brugess,#708
Case Created Date
2026-01-27, 8:39:0la.m. EST
Package Generation Date
2026-03-03, 10:11:22a.m. EST
Case Description
Property Standards - Interior - Rental Property- Pests - Bedbugs
PLOT INFORMATION
Address
235 8TH STE, Owen Sound
Property Information
4259030021041000000,PLAN
OWEN SOUND PT LOT 13 E;POULETT
ST AND RP 16R3669;PART 5
Additional Location Details
PARTIES
NAME1COMPANY
CONTACT DETAILS
ROLES
JERICO D ODD
5,235 8TH ST E OWEN SOUND
Complainant
KEPLER REAL ESTATE INC
43363 SPARTA LINE ST. THOMAS
+1 519-377-5936
Property owner
Page 30 of 194
Complaints
021
COMPLAINTS
Date: 2026-01-27, 8:38:00a.m. EST
Complainant name: Robert Reid , Public Health Inspector
Description from the complaint: This email is to inform you that a sample of bedbugs brought to the Grey Bruce
Health Unit today by a resident of 235 8th Street East in Owen Sound has been positively identified as bedbugs. The
resident had informed the landlord last year and a pest control representative provided a quick treatment and
informed the resident that his unit was not the source of the bedbugs. The resident found more evidence of bedbugs
on January 20, 2026 and informed the landlord. The Grey Bruce Health Unit requests that the landlord provide
GBHU and Owen Sound By-Law with a plan to eradicate these pests from this apartment building in a timely
manner. Thank you for your cooperation. Robert
Received via: Email
ADDITIONAL COMPLAINT CATEGORIES
[Categories: Property Standards
Page 31 of 194
Complaints, page 1 / 1
022
Filename:
Media type:
Uploaded by:
Uploaded on:
Description:
Re Bedbugs at 235 8th Street East, Owen Sound N4K 112.pdf
application/pdf
Riley Brugess, #708
2026-03-03, 10:07:28 a.m. EST
Emails - Property Owner
Page 32 of 194
023
Outlook
Re: Bedbugs at 235 8th Street East, Owen Sound N4K 1L2
From Customer Service <admin@keplerresidences.com>
Date Tue 2/17/2026 12:07 PM
To
Cc
Riley Brugess <rbrugess@owensound.ca>
Briana Bloomfield <bbloomfield@owensound.ca>; Rob Reid <R.Reid@publichealthgreybruce.on.ca>
External sender <admin@keplerresidences.com>
Make sure you trust this sender before taking any actions.
Good afternoon,
We understand you may have a volume of email to process after the long weekend. My manager
asked me to recirculate the below to ensure it is at back up to the top of your inbox.
CUSTOMER SERVICE TEAM
admin@keplerresidences.com
Thank you for your message.
It is our goal to respond to incoming emails within 24-48 hours.
KEPLER REAL ESTATE INC.
www.Ke12lerResidences.com
Note that any open support tickets may automatically close after 1 O days. Please follow up with us within 10 days to keep your open ticket active.
On Fri, Feb 13, 2026 at 1 :02 PM Customer Service <admjn@keplerresidences.com> wrote:
Good afternoon,
Pursuant to the principles of procedural fairness and the mandatory requirements of Section 15.2(2)
of the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, c. 23, Kepler Real Estate Inc. hereby demands the following
particulars regarding the "inspection" cited in the Order issued on February 12, 2026.
T he Order states that "it has been established by inspection" that the property does not conform to
City By-law 1999-030. To ensure a fair hearing before the Property Standards Committee and to
finalize our filing with the Ontario Ombudsman, please provide the following information by
February 20, 2026:
1. Verification of Physical Entry: Please confirm whether the Officer physically entered the interior
of Unit #5 at 235 8th St E to establish the alleged non-conformity.
Page 33 of 194
024
2. Inspection Logistics: If a physical entry occurred, please provide the exact time of entry and
the duration of the inspection conducted on February 11, 2026.
3. Nature of Evidence: Please clarify if the "live samples" referenced in the Order were observed
in-situ (in their natural location) by the Officer during a physical inspection of the premises, or
if the Officer relied on samples provided by a third party (the tenant) outside of the rental unit.
4. Scientific/Professional Basis: Please provide the professional or technical criteria used by the
Officer to determine that a provided "sample" constitutes an "infestation" as defined in
Section 2.5.8.2 of the By-law, particularly given the negative professional finding by a licensed
pest control provider on January 9, 2026.
5. Scope of Order Justification: Provide the evidentiary basis or documented complaints from
other building residents that justify the requirement for inspections of "diagonal" units and
common hallways.
Please be advised that the $220.00 processing fee is formally disputed. It is our position that the
Order is procedurally defective as no lawful inspection of the real property was conducted to
establish a finding of non-conformity.
Failure to provide the requested particulars by the date specified will be interpreted as an admission
that no physical inspection of the interior of the property occurred, and that the Order was issued
solely upon unverified third-party hearsay.
CUSTOMER SERVICE TEAM
admin@.ls,ep!erresidences.eom
Thank you for your message.
It is our goal to respond to incoming emails within 24-48 hours.
KEPLER REAL ESTATE INC.
www.KeglerResidences.com
Note that any open support tickets may automatically close after 10 days. Please follow up with us within 10 days to keep your open ticket active.
On Fri, Feb 13, 2026 at 12:54PM Customer Service <admin@keplerresidences.com> wrote:
Good afternoon,
That was an even more deficient response than we anticipated. Your conduct brazenly violates
longstanding city policies and procedures, and a cursory 30 second search finds on a prima fade
basis one or more ways this is not wholly in accordance with the Building Code Act either.
Your false statements are purposeful, not inadvertent. Expect an appeal, and expect to be held
accountable for your misconduct.
Send all evidence to this email address as soon as you receive this message.
Page 34 of 194
025
CUSTOMER SERVICE TEAM
admin@�P-lerresid ences.com
Thank you for your message.
It is our goal to respond to incoming emails within 24-48 hours.
KEPLER REAL ESTATE INC.
www.KeplerResidences.com
Note that any open support tickets may automatically close after 10 days. Please follow up with us within 10 days to keep your open ticket active.
On Fri, Feb 13, 2026 at 11:52AM Riley Brugess <rbrY.gess@owensound.ca> wrote:
This order was issued in accordance with the by-laws, policies, and procedures
of the City, and in accordance with the Building Code Act, and the Municipal
Act.
Riley Brugess, C.P.S.O.
By-law Enforcement Officer #708
Corporate Services Department
City of Owen Sound
808 2nd Avenue East Owen Sound, ON N4K 2H4
519-376-4440 ext. 1270
rbrugess@owensound.ca
www.owensound.ca
www,owensound,ca/living-here/bY.-law-enforcement/
.R§port a a:v.-law concern
owen.
d
SOul
where you want to llve
Disclaimer
The information contained in this message Is directed in confidence solely to the person(s)
named above and may not be otherwise distributed, copied or disclosed. The message may
contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under the
Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection and Privacy Act. If you have received this
message in error, please notify the sender immediately advising of the error and delete the
message without making a copy. Thank you.
From: Customer Service <admin@�plerresidences.com>
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2026 8:00 AM
To: Riley Brugess <r.b.r.Yg�owensound,ca>
Cc: Briana Bloomfield <bbloomfield@owensound.ca>; Rob Reid <R.Reid@pubUchealthg�vbruce.on.ca>
Subject: Re: Bedbugs at 235 8th Street East, Owen Sound N4K 1L2
Page 35 of 194
026
Warning: Unusual link
This message contains an unusual link, which may lead to a malicious site. Confirm the message is
safe before clicking any links.
Good morning Riley,
Your email is suspiciously absent of most of the usual claims and statements that would
ordinarily be made by the city in these circumstances. It seems you failed to attend the
property, failed to complete an inspection, failed to provide us with any evidence whatsoever of
a violation, and that Rob Reid did not attend the property or complete an inspection either.
Please reconfirm in writing that you believe you are in an appropriate position to write this
order at this time, and that you hold the good-faith belief that your actions do not violate
established policies and procedures set upon you and enforced by your workplace superior.
CUSTOMER SERVICE TEAM
admin@keP-lerresidences.com
Thank you for your message.
It is our goal to respond to incoming emails within 24-48 hours.
KEPLER REAL ESTATE INC.
www.KeplerResidences.com
Note that any open support tickets may automatically close after 10 days. Please follow up with us within 10 days to keep your open ticket
active.
On Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 10:43AM Riley Brugess <rbrugess@owensound.ca> wrote:
Good morning,
Please be advised that live bedbugs were found in Unit #5 on February 11,
2026.
Attached you will find a Property Standards Order. The order must be
complied with no later than April 21, 2026.
In the event that factors outside of your control require a reasonable
extension to this timeline, let me know prior to the compliance date,
advising of the reason for the need for an extension, the date with which
you are requesting an extension, and providing any evidence of the factor
being outside of your control.
Additionally attached you will find an invoice, as well as a Notice of Appeal
form. The invoice must be paid no later than March 12, 2026. If the invoice
remains unpaid after that date, the amount of the invoice will be added to
the tax roll of the property, and collected in the same manner as property
taxes. Further information regarding the appeal process is available at
owensound.ca/living-here/bv.-law-enforcement/property-standards-a12peals/.
The final date for giving notice of Appeal is March 3, 2026.
Page 36 of 194
027
Regards,
Riley Brugess, C.P.S.O.
By-law Enforcement Officer #708
Corporate Services Department
City of Owen Sound
808 2nd Avenue East Owen Sound, ON N4K 2H4
519-376-4440 ext. 1270
r.br.u.gess@owensound,ca
www.owensound.ca
www.owensound.ca/living-here/by-law-enforcement/
ReP-ort a Bv.-law Concern
owlc\1.nd
where you want to live
Disclaimer
The information contained in this message is directed in confidence solely to the person(s)
named above and may not be otherwise distributed, copied or disclosed. The message may
contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under the
Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection and Privacy Act. If you have received this
message in error, please notify the sender immediately advising of the error and delete the
message without making a copy. Thank you.
From: Riley Brugess <rbrug�owenso und.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, February 4, 2026 2:14 PM
To: Customer Service <admin@Jseplerresjdences.com>
Cc: Briana Bloomfield <bbloomfield@owensound.ca>; Rob Reid <R,Reid@pybUchealthg�ybruce.on.ca>
Subject: Re: Bedbugs at 235 8th Street East, Owen Sound N4K 1L2
Good afternoon,
Thank you for sending a copy of the inspection/treatment report. As you will
note in the initial email sent to you by Grey Bruce P ublic health, the bedbug
samples were found on January 20th, which is after the inspection by Orkin
(completed on January 9th).
However, at this time, the resident has been advised to continue monitoring
the unit. Should any more bedbugs be found, further inspection and
treatment by a pest control company will be required. I would encourage
you to proactively monitor and control bedbugs, using methods such as the
ones listed on your contractors website under "Commercial Bed Bug
Control".
Page 37 of 194
028
Regards,
Riley Brugess, C.P.S.O.
By-law Enforcement Officer #708
Corporate Services Department
City of Owen Sound
808 2nd Avenue East Owen Sound, ON N4K 2H4
519-376-4440 ext. 1270
rbrug�owensound .ca
www.owensound.ca
www.owensound.ca/living-here/bY.-law-enforcement/
Report a B:v.-law concern
owlo'lnd
where you want to live
The information contained in this message is directed in confidence solely to the person(s)
named above and may not be otherwise distributed, copied or disclosed. The message may
contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under the
Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection and Privacy Act. If you have received this
message in error, please notify the sender immediately advising of the error and delete the
message without making a copy. Thank you.
Disclaimer
From: Customer Service <admin@keplerre sidences.com>
Sent: Monday, February 2, 2026 1:22 PM
To: Riley Brugess <rbr.Yg�owensound.ca>
Cc: Briana Bloomfield <bbloomfield@owensound.ca>; Robert Reid
<R.Reid@p ublichealtbgmybruce.on.ca>
Subject: Re: Bedbugs at 235 8th Street East, Owen Sound N4K 1L2
I
External sender <admin@kep!erresidences,com>
Make sure you trust this sender before taking any actions.
Dear Riley,
We are in receipt of your request for an eradication plan for 235 8th Street East. Please find
the attached Orkin Service Report #24998181 dated January 9, 2026, which serves as our
official professional record for this matter.
On January 9, 2026, a licensed Orkin technician conducted a thorough inspection of the
subject unit. The findings were as follows:
Page 38 of 194
029
• Zero Live Activity: The technician explicitly stated: "At the time of service inspection did
not find any activity".
• Attestation of Facts: The resident was present for the inspection and signed the report,
formally attesting to the technician's findings.
• Source Discrepancy: The only physical evidence produced were three adult bedbugs the
resident claimed were found three weeks prior to the inspection. No nymphs, eggs, or
fresh activity were found to suggest an ongoing or migrating infestation.
• Proactive Treatment: Despite the lack of live activity, we proactively authorized a "Crack
and Crevice" application of OnGuard Bed Bug Killer (PCP #31515) to ensure a residual
barrier.
• Scope of Work: Based on the professional finding of zero live activity by a licensed
expert, there are no reasonable or probable grounds to suggest a building-wide issue.
We will not be conducting speculative, building-wide inspections of the surrounding
units or commercial spaces. Such a request is invasive, costly, and unsupported by the
physical evidence verified on-site. Any new claims by the resident follow proper
clearance of the premises by a professional, and are currently being addressed via the
appropriate Form NS under the Residential Tenancies Act issued to the tenant for
interfering with our lawful rights and interests.
Be advised that all future inquiries regarding maintenance, pest control, or property standards
for Kepler Residences, Kepler Real Estate Inc., and all other associated corporations must be
directed solely to our management office. Our third-party contractors are not authorized
representatives of the landlord for the purpose of municipal inquiries. We are aware that you
have previously contacted our private contractors directly regarding other properties, .an
interference that nearl� caused the termination of a critical business relationshiP- (and for
which we are told by the contractor you subsequently personally apologized for).. Any further
unauthorized contact with our contractors will be documented and included in a formal
grievance to the Ombudsman. Contacting any of our third party contractors without explicit,
written authorization represents gross negligence. If you are grossly negligent in this regard,
your employer will not indemnify you, and we would sue you personally for recovery of
associated financial losses.
We consider the property to be in compliance with Property Standards based on the attached
professional findings.
CUSTOMER SERVICE TEAM
admin@keplerresidences.com
Thank you for your message.
It is our goal to respond to incoming emails within 24-48 hours.
KEPLER REAL ESTATE INC.
www.KeplerResidences.com
Page 39 of 194
030
On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 10:27 AM Riley Brugess <rbrugess@owensound.ca> wrote:
Good morning,
Kepler Residences Customer Service Team: Please provide myself and the
GBHU Inspector, no later than February 2, 2026, a response indicating
your plan to eradicate bedbugs from the subject property. The plan must
include:
• Scheduled date and time for work to be completed
• Name of contractor that will be completing the work
• Product type and application methods
• Scope of work (where product will be placed - must include areas
inside the unit and common areas).
• Any follow up/secondary application appointments (date and time).
Thank you,
Riley Brugess, c.P.s.o.
By-law Enforcement Officer #708
Corporate Services Department
City of Owen Sound
808 2nd Avenue East Owen Sound, ON N4K 2H4
519-376-4440 ext. 1270
rbrug.e.s..s..@owensound.ca
www.owensound.ca
www. owensound,ca/living-here/bY.-law-enforcement/
�port a BY.-law Concern
ow�lnd
where you want to live
Disclaimer
The information contained in this message is directed in confidence solely to the
person(s) named above and may not be otherwise distributed, copied or disclosed. The
message may contain information that is privileged , confidential and exempt from
disclosure under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection and Privacy Act. If
you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately advising of
the error and delete the message without making a copy. Thank you.
From: Robert Reid <R.Rejd@publjchealthgrg_ybruce.on.ca>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 4:12 PM
To: Customer Service <admin@keplerresidences.com>
Cc: Riley Brugess <rbrugess@owensound.ca>;
Subject: Bedbugs at 235 8th Street East, Owen Sound N4K 1L2
Page 40 of 194
031
Warning: Unusual sender <�publichea!thg�ybruce.on.ca>
You don't usually receive emails from this address. Make sure you trust this sender before
taking any actions.
This email is to inform you that a sample of bedbugs brought to the Grey Bruce Health Unit
today by a resident of 235 8thStreet East in OwenSound has been positively identified as
bedbugs. The resident had informed the landlord last year and a pest control representative
provided a quicktreatment and informed the resident that his unit was not the source of
the bedbugs. The resident found more evidence of bedbugs on January 20, 2026 and
informed the landlord.
The Grey Bruce Health Unit requests that the landlord provide GBHU and OwenSound By
law with a plan to eradicate these pests from this apartment building in a timely manner.
Thankyou for your cooperation.
Robert
�Greyan.c.
� Public Health
Robert Reid �-, CIPHI
Public Health Inspector
Grey Bruce Public Health
101 11thStreet East
OwenSound,ON,N4k0A5
519-376-9420 ext.1355
r.reid@publichealthgm}!bruce.on.ca
Please note that the privacy and security of email communication cannot be guaranteed. Please refrain from using email messages to send personal
information.
Vision: A heatthier future for all.
Mission: 'M>rldng with Grey Bruce communities to protect and promote health.
Core Values: Respect, Integrity, Transparency and Excellence
Land Acknowledgment: Grey Bruce Health Untt (GBHU) Is situated on the tradttlonal termory of the Nawash and Saugeen Nations, a place that has long
served as a site of meeting and exchange amongst many First Nations Including the Iroquois Confederacy, Huron/Wendat, Abenaki, and Anishinabek.
GBHU recognizes and respects the Anishinabek as the tradltlonal custodians of the lands and water. We are committed to supporting the Anishinabek
Page 41 of 194
032
and Haudenosaunee Peoples, among other First Nations, lnult, Melis, and Indigenous Peoples globally.
This email, including any following pages is privileged and intended only for the person(s) named above. This material may contain confidential or
personal information which may be subject to the provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Any other
distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, or have received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by telephone, fax or email and permanently delete the original transmission from us, without making a copy. Thank you.
Page 42 of 194
033
Filename:
Media type:
Uploaded by:
Uploaded on:
Description:
ORKIN CANADA CORPORATION Service Report 24998181 {l)
{l).pdf
application/pd£
Riley Brugess, #708
2026-02-12, 9:26:13a.m. EST
Orkin Report - January 9th
Page 43 of 194
034
♦ SERVICE REPORT
CONTACT ORKIN CANADA CORPORATION:
(7051 734-94TT
011;-BARRIE
4 ALLIANCE BlVO
Unit 12
BARRIE, ON l4M 7G3
CANADA"
CUSTOMER INFORMATION
Business Name
Customer Since
SERVICE ADDRESS
Name
Address
Telephone
Accountll
Program ID
SERVICE INFORMATION
KEPLER REAL ESTATE INC
2025
1/9/2026
Date of Service
Service Type
PC Standard - Odd Job
Service Event Type
PC Odd Job 1st Service
ALICIA GILLESPIE
Time In 11 :03 AM
235 8TH ST E
OWEN SOUND, ON N4K 1L2
INVOICE INFORMATION
Time Out 12:05 PM
Invoice/ Service Report I
2�
1640037
BILLING ADDRESS
Name
ALICIA GILLESPIE
Address
43363 SPARTA LINE
ST THOMAS, ON N5P 3S8
Telephone
Email Address
m:HNOONAME
JAMES GRAHAM
LICENSE #L-206-1117733331
COMMENTS ABOUT TODAY'S SERVICE
At the time of service inspection did not find any activity. Tenant showed me three bedbugs that were found about three weeks ago. I dusted
cracks and crevices.
TODAY'S OBSERVATIONS
ot.ervallon: Structural Concern
Pelt Type:
"-rnmendatlon: Crack/gap in wall that requires sealing
Relpontlblllty: Customer
Statut: Pending (Customer resolution needed)
�n: Hole in ground in front of garage
ObNrvltlon: Structural Concern
Peat Type:
"-rnmendatlon: Crack/gap in wall that requires sealing ( Backfill hole and seal any remaining gaps)
Ralpontlblllty: Customer
Statue: Resolved
Page 44 of 194
035
PRODUCT DETAILS
For additional information, a copy of the Label and/or SDS may be requested from your local branch or from http://www.orkincanada.ca.
Prodact Name
ONGUARD BED BUG KILLER PCP
#31515
Fomulation
Aerosol/Aerosol
Application Rate
0-Phenothrin 0.20% and
Tetramethrin 0.20%
Quantily
1
Active lngn,dient
0-Phenothrin/Tetramethrin, .2%
Target Pes1s
Bed Bug
PCP #
31515
ApplicationMelhod
Crack and Crevice
Location
Interior - Perimeter
lot Number
Technician's Signature
Application Equipment
Power Duster
tHFr
Customer's Signature
SPIE
GILLE
If you would prefer to not have photos included on future service reports, contact your local branch.
a
ADDITIONAL DETAILS
WAS THERE EXTERIOR USE OF INSECTICIDE/ HERBICIDE/ RJNGICIDE/ MmCIDE?
NO
Page 45 of 194
036
Filename:
Media type:
Uploaded by:
Uploaded on:
Description:
Re Tenant Bedbugs at 235 8th Street East, Owen Sound N4K 112.pdf
application/pdf
Riley Brugess, #708
2026-03-03, 10:07:44a.m. EST
Emails - Tenant
Page 46 of 194
037
Outlook
Re: Bedbugs at 235 8th Street East, Owen Sound N4K 1L2
From Riley Brugess <rbrugess@owensound.ca>
Date Tue 2/17/2026 8:00 AM
To
Jerico Dodd
Good morning Jerico,
I apologize if the City's response is not in line with your expectations. We are
required to follow provincial law when dealing with these concerns, which include
issuing an order to the owner of the property.
Kind regards,
Riley Brugess, C.P.s.o.
By-law Enforcement Officer #708
Corporate Services Department
City of Owen Sound
808 2nd Avenue East Owen Sound, ON N4K 2H4
519-376-4440 ext. 1270
rbrug�owensound.ca
www.owensound.ca
www.owensound.ca/living-here/bY.-law-enforcement/
Report a BY--law Concern
oweI1
solnd
where you want to Uve
Disclaimer
The information contained in this message is directed in confidence solely to the person(s) named
above and may not be otherwise distributed, copied or disclosed. The message may contain
information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under the Municipal Freedom
of Information and Protection and Privacy Act. If you have received this message in error, please
notify the sender immediately advising of the error and delete the message without making a copy.
Thank you.
From: Jerico Dodd
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2026 6:15 PM
To: Riley Brugess <rbrugess@owensound.ca>
Page 47 of 194
038
Cc: Robert Reid <R.Reid@publichealthgreybruce.on.ca>
Subject: Re: Bedbugs at 235 8th Street East, Owen Sound N4K 1L2
Warning: Unusual link
This message contains an unusual link, which may lead to a malicious site. Confirm the message is safe
before clicking any links.
This has been going on since November of last year! I'm really not happy with this.
Get Outlook for Android
From: Riley Brugess <rbrugess@owensound.ca>
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2026 1:41:32 PM
To: Jerico Dodd
Cc: Robert Reid <R.Reid@publichealthgreybruce.on.ca>
Subject: Re: Bedbugs at 235 8th Street East, Owen Sound N4K 1L2
Good afternoon Jerico,
P lease be advised that an order was issued to have pest control completed on the
property. I will keep you updated on the status.
Thanks,
Riley Brugess, C.P.S.O.
By-law Enforcement Officer #708
Corporate Services Department
City of Owen Sound
808 2nd Avenue East Owen Sound, ON N4K 2H4
519-376-4440 ext. 1270
.dm.Lg�owensound,ca
www.owensound.ca
www.owensound.ca/liying-here/bY.-law-enforcement/
.Rgport a By-law Concern
owe11. d
SOul
where you want to live
Disclaimer
The Information contained In this message is directed in confidence solely to the person(s) named
above and may not be otherwise distributed, copied or disclosed. The message may contain
Information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under the Municipal Freedom
of Information and Protection and Privacy Act. If you have received this message in error, please
Page 48 of 194
039
notify the sender immediately advising of the error and delete the message without making a copy.
Thank you.
From: Jerico Dodd
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2026 7:33 PM
To: Riley Brugess <rbrugess@owensound.ca>
Cc: Robert Reid <R.Reid@publichealthgreybruce.on.ca>
Subject: Re: Bedbugs at 235 8th Street East, Owen Sound N4K 1L2
Warning: Unusual llnk
This message contains an unusual link, which may lead to a malicious site. Confirm the message is safe
before clicking any links.
Yeah, so I'm still finding these little bastards and I'm still getting bit!
I thought this treatment was supposed to be killing them!
Not happy with this!
Get Outlook for Android
From: Riley Brugess <rbrugess@owensound.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, February 4, 2026 2:05:11 PM
To: Jerico Dodd
Cc: Robert Reid <R.Reid@publichealthgreybruce.on.ca>
Subject: Re: Bedbugs at 235 8th Street East, Owen Sound N4K 1L2
Good afternoon Jerico,
I can confirm that we did receive correspondence from Kepler Residences, providing
an inspection and treatment report from Orkin P est Control dated January 9th. The
treatment completed should continue to kill any bugs that show up.
At this time, please continue to monitor for recurring issues. If you continue to see
issues, please let myself and inspector Reid know. A photo of a dead sample sent
by email will be sufficient.
Thank you,
Riley Brugess, C.P.S.O.
By-law Enforcement Officer #708
Corporate Services Department
City of Owen Sound
808 2nd Avenue East Owen Sound, ON N4K 2H4
519-376-4440 ext. 1270
rbrugess@owensound.ca
www.owensound.ca
www.owensound.ca/living-here/bv.-law-enforcement/
R...eport a By-law Concern
Page 49 of 194
040
owe111• d
SOul
where you want to live
Disclaimer
The information contained in this message is directed in confidence solely to the person(s) named
above and may not be otherwise distributed, copied or disclosed. The message may contain
information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under the Municipal Freedom
of Information and Protection and Privacy Act. If you have received this message in error, please
notify the sender immediately advising of the error and delete the message without making a copy.
Thank you.
From: Customer Service <admin@keplerresidences.com>
Sent: Monday, February 2, 2026 8:12 PM
To: Jerico Dodd
Cc: Riley Brugess <rbrugess@owensound.ca>; Robert Reid <R.Reid@publichealthgreybruce.on.ca>
Subject: Re: Bedbugs at 235 8th Street East, Owen Sound N4K 1L2
Warning: Unusual link
This message contains an unusual link, which may lead to a malicious site. Confirm the message is safe
before clicking any links.
Hello,
There was, in fact, something back from us today. We used our discretion and omitted you as a CCed
party. We will deliver details of our position, and the actions/prohibitions your government may
correspondingly require of you, via one or more forthcoming legal notices.
CUSTOMER SERVICE TEAM
admin@keP-lerresidences.com
Thank you for your message.
It is our goal to respond to incoming emails within 24-48 hours.
KEPLER REAL ESTATE INC.
www.KeP-lerResidences.com
On Mon, Feb 2, 2026 at 2:38 PM Jerico Dodd
Still nothing from Kepler!
wrote:
Get Outlook for Android
Page 50 of 194
041
From: Riley Brugess <mr.yg�owensoynd.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 10:27:12 AM
To: Robert Reid <R.Reid@publjchealthgrev.bruce.on.ca>; Customer Service <admin@_gplerresidences.com>
Cc:
Subject: Re: Bedbugs at 235 8th Street East, Owen Sound N4K 1L2
Good morning,
Kepler Residences Customer Service Team: Please provide myself and the GBHU
Inspector, no later than February 2, 2026, a response indicating your plan to
eradicate bedbugs from the subject property. The plan must include:
• Scheduled date and time for work to be completed
• Name of contractor that will be completing the work
• Product type and application methods
• Scope of work (where product will be placed - must include areas inside the
unit and common areas).
• Any follow up/secondary application appointments (date and time).
Thank you,
Riley Brugess, C.P.s.o.
By-law Enforcement Officer #708
Corporate Services Department
City of Owen Sound
808 2nd Avenue East Owen Sound, ON N4K 2H4
519-376-4440 ext. 1270
rbrugess@owensound.ca
www.owensound.ca
www.owensound.ca/living-here/by-law-enforcement/
Report a BY.-law Concern
oweI1. d
SOul
where you want to live
Disclaimer
The information contained in this message is directed in confidence solely to the person(s) named
above and may not be otherwise distributed, copied or disclosed. The message may contain
information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under the Municipal
Freedom of Information and Protection and Privacy Act. If you have received this message in
error, please notify the sender immediately advising of the error and delete the message without
making a copy. Thank you.
From: Robert Reid <R.Reid@publichealthgrev.bryce.on.ca>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 4:12 PM
Page 51 of 194
042
To: Customer Service <admjn@Js.epierreside nces.com>
Cc: Riley Brugess <rbrug!ill@.owensound.ca>;
Subject: Bedbugs at 235 8th Street East, Owen Sound N4K ll2
Warning: Unusual sender <r.reid@P.ublichealthgreY.bruce.on.ca>
You don't usually receive emails from this address. Make sure you trust this sender before taking any
actions.
This email is to inform you that a sample of bedbugs brought to the Grey Bruce Health Unit today
by a resident of 235 ath Street East in Owen Sound has been positively identified as bedbugs. The
resident had informed the landlord last year and a pest control representative provided a quick
treatment and informed the resident that his unit was not the source of the bedbugs. The resident
found more evidence of bedbugs on January 20, 2026 and informed the landlord.
The Grey Bruce Health Unit requests that the landlord provide GBHU and Owen Sound By-Law with
a plan to eradicate these pests from this apartment building in a timely manner.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Robert
�OreyBruce
� Public Health
Robert Reid B.A.Sc., CIPHI
Public Health Inspector
Grey Bruce Public Health
101 17th Street East
Owen Sound, ON, N4k OAS
519-376-9420 ext.1355
r,reid@publichealthgrey.bruce.on.ca
Please note that the privacy and security of email communication cannot be guaranteed. Please refrain from using email messages to send personal Information.
Vision: A healthier Mure for all.
Mission: Working with Grey Bruce communities to protect and promote health.
Core Values: Respect, Integrity, Transparency and Excellence
Land Acknowledgment: Grey Bruce Health Unit (GBHU) is situated on the traditional terrttory of the Nawash and Saugeen Nations, a place that has long served as a
site of meeting and exchange amongst many First Nations including the Iroquois Confederacy, Huron/Wendat, Abenaki, and Anishinabek. GBHU recognizes and
respects the Anishinabek as the traditional custodians of the lands and water. We are committed to supporting the Anishinabek and Haudenosaunee Peoples, among
other First Nations, lnult, Melis, and Indigenous Peoples globally.
This email, including any following pages is privileged and intended only for the person(s) named above. This material may contain confidential or personal information
which may be subject to the provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Any other distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, or have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by telephone, fax or email and permanently delete
the original transmission from us, without making a copy. Thank you.
Page 52 of 194
Owen Sound
043
Municipal Law Enforcement
City of Owen Sound
By-law Enforcement Division
808 2nd Avenue East
Owen Sound, ON, N4K 2H4
Phone: 519-376-4440 ext. 1905
Email : enforcement@owensound.ca
where you want to live
INSPECTION REPORT
Municipal address: 233 8TH ST E
Case number: OSBY-2026-0076
Case Status: Completed
Legal
PLAN OWEN SOUND PT LOT 13
address: E;POULETT ST AND RP 16R3669;PART 5
Case description:
Property Standards - Interior - Rental Property - Pests - Bedbugs
Parties
No parties added to case
Violations
No deficiencies or remarks noted.
Inspections
SITE CONDITIONS
Inspector: Riley Brugess, #708
Visit date: 2026-02-04
Visit time: 2:15p.m.
Visit result: Passed (Substantially complete)
Failure reason: No violation and No action required
Inspection Notes:
Property owner submitted contractor reports of work completed.
Photographs
Page 53 of 194
Owen Sound
044
Municipal Law Enforcement
City of Owen Sound
By-law Enforcement Division
808 2nd Avenue East
Owen Sound, ON, N 4K 2H4
Phone: 519-376-4440 ext. 1905
Email : enforcement@owensound.ca
where you want to live
INSPECTION REPORT
Case number: OSBY-2026-0076
Municipal address: 235 8TH STE
Case Status: Active
Legal
PLAN OWEN SOUND PT LOT 13
address: E;POULETT ST AND RP 16R3669;PART 5
Case description:
Property Standards - Interior - Rental Property - Pests - Bedbugs
Parties
NAME AND COMPANY
CONTACT DETAILS
ROLES
5, 235 8TH STE, OWEN SOUND
JERICOD ODD
KEPLER REAL ESTATE IN C
43363 SPARTA LINE, ST. THOMAS
+1 519-377-5936
Complainant
Property owner
Violations
DISCOVERY DATE
2026-02-11
COMPLY BY DATE
DESCRIP TION
Property is not kept free from injurious insects,
namely bedbugs. Live samples were found in unit
#5 on February 11, 2026. [By-law 1999-030,
Section 2.5.8.1]
Inspections
Page 54 of 194
SITE CONDITIONS
045
Inspector: Riley Brugess, #708
Visit date: 2026-02-12
Visit time: 9:26 a.m.
Visit result: Failed (Not substantially complete)
Failure reason: Violations
Inspection Notes:
Received follow up email from the complainant, stating that the complainant continued to see bed bugs in
the property, and including photos, dated February 11, 2026 at 7:29 PM.
Photographs
Page 55 of 194
Upload Date:
2026-02-12
9:28 a.m.
Photo Description:
046
February 11, 2026 @ 7:29PM - Photo submitted via email by complainant. Photo
depicts what clearly appears to be bedbugs in the palm of a hand.
Page 56 of 194
Upload Date:
2026-02-12
9:28a.m.
Photo Description:
047
February 11, 2026 @ 7:28PM - Photo submitted via email by complainant. Photo
depicts what appears to be bite marks from a bedbug(s).
Page 57 of 194
048
owe11l
so 11d
City of Owen Sound
By-law Enforcement Division
808 2nd Avenue East
Owen Sound, ON, N4K 2H4
Phone: 519-376-4440 ext. 1905
Email : enforcement@owensound.ca
where you want to live
Date Issued: 2026-02-12
KEPLER REAL ESTATE INC
43363 SPARTA LINE
ST. THOMAS, ON NSP 3S8
ORDER
MUNICIPAL ADDRESS: 235 8TH ST E
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PLAN OWEN SOUND PT
LOT 13 E;POULETT ST AND RP 16R3669;PART 5
CASE #OSBY-2026-0076
IT IS AN OFFENCE TO OBSTRUCT/REMOVE POSTED ORDER WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION
It has been established by inspection that the property municipally known as 235 8TH ST E, City
of Owen Sound, does not conform to the standards set out in the City's Property Standards By-law
No. 1999-030, as amended. The particulars of the non-conformity are set out in Appendix "A"
attached to this Order.
Attached is a $220.00 invoice for processing the Order. If payment is not made within thirty (30)
days, the costs will be levied against the property and shall be recoverable as municipal taxes.
This charge is being levied as the result of the preparation and mailing of the Property Standards
Order as authorized by the City's Fees and Charges By-law.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT all deficiencies as contained herein be brought into compliance
with the Property Standards By-law 1999-030, as amended, no later than 2026-04-21.
TAKE NOTICE THAT if the repairs or clearance are not completed within the time specified
herein, the Corporation may, in addition to any other action permitted by law, carry out the repairs
or clearance at the expense of the owner.
APPEAL TO PROPERTY STANDARDS COMMITTEE:
If you are not satisfied with the terms or conditions of this Order, you may appeal to the Property
Standards Committee by sending a Notice of Appeal form along with the applicable $200.00 fee
(documents attached) by attending City Hall in person or serving it by registered mail to:
Secretary, Staci Landry
Property Standards Committee
City Hall, 808 2nd Avenue East
Owen Sound, ON N4K 2H4
within fourteen (14) days after service of the Order, and, in the event that no appeal is taken, the
Order shall be deemed to have been confirmed. The final date for giving Notice of Appeal from the
Order is 2026-03-03.
Page 58 of 194
049
APPENDIX "A" - WORK REQUIRED TO COMPLY
PROPERTY STANDARDS - ORDER TO OWNER
Pursuant to Section 15.2(2) of the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, C23, as amended
By-law No. 1999-030, as amended
DATE: 2026-02-12
OWNER: KEPLER REAL ESTAT E INC
PROPERTY: 235 8TH ST E
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PLAN OWEN SOUND PT LOT 13 E;POULETT ST AND RP
16R3669;PART 5
INSPECTOR: RILEY BRUGESS, #708
NOT ED VIOLATIONS:
A full consolidated copy of the City's Property Standards By-law No. 1999-030, as amended, is
available on the City's Website. The following is a direct quote from the by-law and is to be
adhered to:
SECTION 2.5.8 - EXT ERMINATION AND/OR FUMIGATION
2.5.8.1 All buildings shall be kept free from vermin, termites and other injurious insects.
2.5.8.2 Where it is found that there is an infestation of insects or vermin within or about a building,
extermination and/or fumigation shall be carried out until the infestation is eradicated in
accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act and the Pesticides Act of
Ontario. Where fumigation is to be undertaken, the owner of the building shall advise the Owen
Sound Fire Department prior to commencement of the fumigation.
"Extermination" means the control and elimination of insects, termites, vermin, rodents or other
pests by eliminating their harbouring places; by removing or making inaccessible or unpalatable
materials that may serve as their food, by poison, spraying, fumigating, trapping or by any other
recognised and appropriate means of pest elimination.
WORK REQUIRED TO COMPLY:
The following chart outlines the violations noted and the work required to comply with the by-law.
All of the following deficiencies must be completed on or before the compliance date listed below:
Item
Description of Violation
1
Property is not kept free from injurious
insects, namely bedbugs. Live samples
were found in Unit #5 on February 11,
2026. [By-law 1999-030, Section 2.5.8.1]
Work Required to Comply
Inspection by a certified pest control
company of Unit #5, as well as all units
immediately above, below, beside, and
diagonal to the subject unit, and the
hallway adjacent to any such unit.
Extermination conducted by the certified
pest control company in any areas where
bedbugs, nymphs, eggs, or any other
evidence of bedbug activity is found. Any
follow up treatments recommended by the
pest control company to be completed to
fully eradicate bedbug population in the
building. Inspection/treatment report,
signed by the technician, to be provided to
Page 59 of 194
Item
Description of Violation
050
Work Required to Comply
the Property Standards Officer for each
visit completed by the certified pest control
company.
Compliance Date: 2026-04-21
NOTE:
• Where a reinspection is conducted after the compliance date, and non-compliance is
observed, a reinspection fee in the amount of $150.00 will be applied to the tax roll of the
property.
• The issuance of this order does not relieve the owner(s) from the necessity of acquiring any
and all permits or approvals from the City of Owen Sound.
• Failure to comply with an order, direction, or other requirement made under the Building
Code Act is an offence.
• Obstructing or removing a posted order without authorization to do so from an inspector or
officer is an offence.
• A person who is convicted of an offence is liable to a fine of not more than $50,000 for a first
offence and to a fine of not more than $100,000 for a subsequent offence. If a corporation is
convicted of an offence, the maximum penalty that may be imposed upon the corporation is
$500,000 for a first offence and $1,500,000 for a subsequent offence.
• In addition to any other action permitted by law, if the repairs or clearance are not completed
within the time specified herein, the Corporation may carry out the repairs or clearance at
the expense of the owner. Costs of such action may be registered as a lien on the land and
shall be deemed to be municipal real property taxes and may be added to the assessment
roll and collected in the same manner and with the same priorities as municipal real taxes.
Order Issued By:
Riley Brugess, #708
Property Standards Officer
+1 519-376-4440 1270
Signature
Dated at Owen Sound, on 2026-02-12
Page 60 of 194
051
TABS
Page 61 of 194
052
Page 62 of 194
053
Page 63 of 194
054
TAB6
Page 64 of 194
055
"'11ene you Mint 10 i.,
BY-LAW NO. 1999-030
"BEING A BY-LAW FOR PRESCRIBING STANDARDS FOR
THE MAINTENANCE AND OCCUPANCY OF PROPERTY
WITHIN THE CITY OF OWEN SOUND"
Originally Passed and Enacted March 1, 1999
Amended By By-law:
Passed On:
2008-050
2008-128
2009-023
2009-054
2011-116
2013-030
2018-044
2024-052
April 28, 2008
September 8, 2008
February 9, 2009
April 6, 2009
July 4, 2011
February 11, 2013
April 9, 2018
April 15, 2024
Consolidated Version
Revised Apr/I 16 2024
Consolidated for Convenience Only
This is a consolidation copy of a City of Owen Sound By-law for convenience and
information. While every effort is made to ensure the accuracies of these by-laws, they
are not official versions or legal documents. The original by-laws should be consulted for
all interpretations and applications on this subject. For more information or original
signed copies of by-laws please contact the City Clerk's Department.
Page 65 of 194
056
Page 2
By-law No. 1999-030
BY-LAW NO. 1999-030
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF OWEN SOUND
BEING A BY-LAW FOR PRESCRIBING STANDARDS
FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND OCCUPANCY OF
PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF OWEN SOUND
WHEREAS under Section 15.1(3) of the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992,
c.23, a By-law may be passed by the Council of a municipality prescribing the
standards for the maintenance and occupancy of property within the municipality
provided the Official Plan for the municipality includes provisions relating to property
conditions;
AND WHEREAS the Official Plan for The Corporation of the City of Owen
Sound includes provisions relating to property conditions;
AND WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the City of Owen
Sound. is desirous of passing a By-law under Section 15.1(3) of the Building Code
Act, 5.0. 1992, c.23;
AND WHEREAS Section 15.6(1) of the Building Code Act, 5.0. 1992,
c.23 requires that a By-law passed under Section 15.1(3) of the Building Code Act,
5.0. 1992, c.23 shall provide for the establishment of a Property Standards
Committee
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY
OF OWEN SOUND HEREBY ENACTS THE FOLLOWING;
PART :I. - INTERPRETA noN AND ADMINISTRATION
SECTION 1.1- SHORT TITLE
1.1.1 This By-law may be cited as the City of Owen Sound Property Standards Bylaw.
SECTION 1.2 - DEFINITIONS
In this By-law:
"Accessory Building" means a detached building or structure, not used for human
habitation, that is subordinate to the primary use of the same property.
"Apartment Building" means a building containing more than four dwelling units with
individual access from an internal corridor system.
"Approved" means acceptance by the Property Standards Officer.
"Basement" means that portion of a building that is partly below grade, but which
has at least one half of its height, from finished floor to finished ceiling, above the
adjacent finished grade.
"Bathroom" means a room containing a bathtub or shower with or without toilet and
basin.
"Cellar" means that portion of a building that is partly or wholly below grade and
which has more than one half of its height, from finished floor to finished ceiling,
below adjacent finished grade.
"City" means The Corporation of the City of Owen Sound.
"Dwelling" means a building or structure or part of a building or structure, occupied
or capable of being occupied, in whole or in part for the purpose of human
habitation
Page 66 of 194
057
Page 3
By-law No. 1999-030
"Extermination" means the control and elimination of insects, termites, vermin,
rodents or other pests by eliminating their harbouring places; by removing or
making inaccessible or unpalatable materials that may serve as their food, by
poison, spraying, fumigating, trapping or by any other recognised and appropriate
means of pest elimination.
"Fence" means a structure at grade erected as a visual barrier or for the purpose of
dividing or separating open space, or for restricting access to or from an open
space.
"Fire Escape" means an exit or a secondary means of exit from a building.
"First Storey" means that part of a building having a floor area closest to grade with
a ceiling height of more the 1.8 metres above grade.
"Garbage" means the animal and vegetable waste and related waste products
resulting from the handling, preparation, cooking and consumption of food or drink.
"Good Repair" means in such a condition so as to be free from potential of accident
or fire or other hazard, structurally sound, in good working order, capable of
carrying out its intended function, and not unsightly by reason of deterioration,
damage or defacement.
"Habitable Room" means any room in a dwelling unit used for or capable of being
used for living, eating, sleeping or cooking purposes.
"Medical Officer of Health" means the Medical Officer of Health for the Bruce-Grey
Owen Sound Health Unit.
"Multiple Dwelling" means a building or combination of buildings containing two or
more dwelling units, or three or more rooming units, or a combination of rooming
and dwelling units totalling three or more, and which building or buildings are
located on the same lot and which lot is retained under one ownership, and shall
include a lot registered under the provisions of the Condominium Act, Chapter C.26,
R.S.O. 1990, as amended from time to time.
"Non-Habitable Room" means any room in a dwelling or dwelling unit other than a
habitable room, and includes a bathroom, a toilet room, laundry, pantry, lobby,
corridor, stairway, closet, boiler room, or other space for service and maintenance
of the dwelling for public use, and for access to a vertical travel between storeys
and basement or part thereof which does not comply with the standards of fitness
for occupancy set out in this By-law.
"Non-Residential Property" means a building or structure or part of a building or
structure not occupied in whole or in part for the purpose of human habitation, and
includes the lands and premise appurtenant and all of the outbuildings, fences or
erections thereon or therein.
"Officer" means a Property Standards Officer who has been assigned the
responsibility of administering and enforcing this By-law.
"Person" means an individual, firm, corporation, association, or partnership.
"Residential Property" means any property upon which a building has been erected
containing within its walls one or more dwelling units or rooming units and which
may in addition contain other accessory uses, and includes a hotel, motel, tent,
trailer, mobile home, or other structures, the whole or any portion or which has
been used, is used, or is capable of being used for the purpose of human habitation.
"Rooming Unit" means one or more habitable rooms with shared sanitary, cooking
or eating facilities, or with no cooking or eating facilities, which are rented or are
capable of being rented to one or more persons for gain.
"Rubbish" means any combustible or non-combustible discarded or waste materials
except garbage and shall include debris and other refuse.
"Standards" means the standards of the physical condition and of occupancy
prescribed for property by this By-law.
"Structurally Sound" means construction capable of withstanding the forces acting
thereon when the building or structure is loaded in accordance with the provisions of
Page 67 of 194
Page 4
By-law No. 1999-030
058
the Building Code and having a factor of safety equivalent to that required by the
Building Code.
"Toilet Room" means a room containing a water closet and a wash basin.
"Vacant or Abandoned Building" means a building or structure that is not used or
occupied in a continuous or ongoing manner for the purpose or purposes for which
the building or structure is suitably designed and/or intended.
"Ventilation" means the process of supplying or removing air by natural or
mechanical means to or from any space.
"Yard" means the lands, other than public highways around and appurtenant to the
whole or any part of a property used or intended to be used, or capable of being
used in connection with the property.
1.2.1
Where terms are not defined under the provisions of this By-law, they
shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Building Code or, if not
defined in the Building Code, they shall have ascribed to them their
ordinarily accepted meanings or such as the context herein may imply.
SECTION 1.3 - APPUCATION
1.3.1
This By-law shall apply to all property within the corporate limits of the
City of Owen Sound under the authority of the City's Official Plan.
1.3.2
The standards for the maintenance and occupancy of property set forth
in this By-law are hereby prescribed and adopted as the minimum
standards for the City of Owen Sound.
Amended by By-laws 2009-054 and 2018-044
1.3.3
Notwithstanding the provisions of this By-law, the Property Standards
Officers will, if required be a Resolution of Council adopted from time to
time, conduct a preliminary inspection of properties in the City, which
preliminary inspection will be carried out pursuant to the provisions of
this By-law at any property where the Officer views conditions that
appear to the Officer to contravene this By-law.
1.3.4
The preliminary inspection shall include the matters set out on Schedule
'A' under the heading "Observations of the Property Shall Include the
Following...
1.3.5
The Officer shall not, without the consent of the Owner or Occupant of
the property, enter onto the said property to carry out the preliminary
inspection, carried out pursuant to this By-law.
1.3.6
Following the preliminary inspection of any property pursuant to
subsection 1.3.3 hereof, the Officer may, in writing, notify the Owner or
Occupant of the property of any work required to be carried out thereon
in order that the said property will conform with the requirements in By
law 1999-030 insofar as the same are apparent to the Officer conducting
the preliminary inspection.
1.3.7
City Council will by Resolution, determine, or authorize its delegate to
determine, the areas of the City where Preliminary Inspections will be
carried out.
SECTION 1.4 - PROPERTY STANDARDS OFFICER
Amended by By-law 2008-128
1.4.1
Property Standards Officers for the Corporation of the City of Owen
Sound hereafter referred to as 'the Officer' shall be appointed by By
law adopted by City Council.
SECTION 1.5 - PROPERTY STANDARDS COMMITTEE
1.5.1
The Committee of Adjustment for the City of Owen Sound shall serve
as the Property Standards Committee.
Page 68 of 194
Page 5
1.5.2
By-law No. 1999-030
059
An officer who finds that a property does not conform with any
standards prescribed in this by-law may make an order,
(a)
stating the municipal address or legal description of such
property;
(b)
giving reasonable particulars of the repairs to be made or stating
that the site is to be cleared of all buildings, structures, debris or
refuse and left in a graded and level condition;
Amended by By-law 2008-050
(c)
indicating the time for complying with the tenns and conditions of
the order and giving notice that, if the repairs or clearance is not
carried out within the time specified the municlpallty may carry out
the repair of clearance at the owner's expense.
(d)
lndicaung the final date for giving notice of appeal fonn the order.
Amended by By-laws 2013-030 and 2018-044
1.5.3
Every person wishing to appeal an Order made under section 15.2 (2)
of the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992 c.23, shall submit a notice of
appeal in the manner and within the time frame as prescribed in
section 15.3 (1) of the same act. All notices of appeal shall be filled
out on the prescribed form and accompanied by a non-refundable
payment of the "Appeal - Property Standards Order" fee as set out in
the Fees and Charges By-law.
SECTION 1.6 - TRANSITIONAL RULES
1.6.1
After the date of the passing this By-law, By-law 1994-061, as
amended, shall apply only to those properties in which an Order has
been issued prior to the date of passing of this By-law, and then only to
such properties until such time as the work required by such Order has
been completed or any enforcement proceedings in respect of such
Order, including any demolition, clearance or repair carried out by the
city have been concluded.
SECTION 1,7 - CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Amended by By-laws 2013-030 and 2018-044
1.7.1
Following the inspection of a property, the Officer may, or on the
request of the owner shall issue to the owner a Certificate of
Compliance In the prescribed form if, in the Officer's opinion, the
property is in compliance with the standards of this By-law. When the
owner requests a Certificate of Compliance, the owner shall pay to the
City the "Certificate of Compliance" fee as set out in the Fees and
Charges By-Jaw, which shall be collected by the Officer at the time of
the issuance of such certificate.
SECTION 1.8 - MAINTENANCE, REPAIR AND OCCUPANCY OF RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTY
1.8.1
No person shall maintain or permit to be maintained, occupy or permit
to be occupied, use or permit the use of, rent or offer to rent any
residential property which does not comply with the provisions and
regulations set forth in Part 2 and Part 3 of this By-law and any
property which does not comply, shall be repaired and maintained to
comply with the standards hereinafter set out in Part 2 and Part 3 of
this By-law or the site thereof shall be cleared of all buildings,
structures, garbage and rubbish, and left in a graded and levelled
condition.
SECTION 1.9 - MAINTENANCE, REPAIR AND
RESIDENTIAL AND VACANT PROPERTY
1.9.1
OCCUPANCY OF
NON
No person shall maintain or permit to be maintained, occupy or permit
to be occupied, use or permit the use of, rent or offer to rent any non
residential or vacant property which does not comply with the
provisions and regulations set forth in Part 2 and Part 4 of this By-law
Page 69 of 194
Page 6
By-law No. 1999-030
060
and any property which does not comply, shall be repaired and
maintained to comply with the star.idards hereinafter set out in Part 2
and Part 4 of this By-law, or the site thereof shall be cleared of all
buildings, structures, garbage and rubbish and left in a graded and
levelled condition.
SECTION 1.10 - REMOVAL OF PLACARD
1.10.1
No person shall remove from any property any sign, notice or placard
placed thereon pursuant to Section 15.2(3) of the Ontario Building
Code Act, 5.0. 1992, c.23.
SECTION 1.11 - PENALTIES AND ENFORCEMENT
1.11.1
An owner or corporation who fails to comply with an Order that is
deemed to be confirmed is guilty of an offence pursuant to the penalty
provisions of the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, c.23.
SECTION 1.12 - VALIDITY
1.12.1
If any section of this By-law, or any amendments thereto, is for any
reason held to be invalid, the remaining sections shall remain in effect
until repealed.
1.12.2
Where provisions of this By-law conflict with the provisions of another
By-law in force in the City, the provisions that establish the higher
standards to protect the health, safety and welfare of the general
public shall prevail.
SECTION 1.13 - INTERCHANGEABILITY
1.13.1
Words used in the present tense include the future; words in the
masculine gender include the feminine and neuter; the singular number
includes the plural and the plural the singular.
SECTION 1.14 - HEADINGS NOT PART OF BY-LAW
1.14.1
The headings in the body of this By-law form no part of the By-law and
are inserted for convenience of reference only.
SECTION 1.15 - ADMINISTRATION FEE
Amended by By-laws 2008-050, 2009-023, 2011-116 and 2013-030
1.15.1
Supervision of the clearing of yards when the work required under an
order has not been done shall be billed to the property owner as set out
in the Fees and Charges By-law, as amended from time to time, under
the heading "Property Clean Up" for each staff person required on site
with a minimum two hour charge.
By-law 2011-116
1.15.2
A Property sub-search fee will be added to the municipal tax roll of any
property that a sub-search is obtained by the Officer, the amount of
this fee is specified in the City of Owen Sound Fees and Charges By
law.
1.15.3
A Work Order fee will be added to the municipal tax roll of any property
that has a Work Order issued by the Officer, the amount of this fee is
specified in the City of Owen Sound Fees and Charges By-law.
1.16
All fees and charges shall be recoverable in a like manner as taxes.
PART 2 -
MAINTENANCE, REPAIR AND OCCUPANCY OF ALL PROPERTY
SECTION 2,1 - GENERAL
SECTION 2.1.1- SCOPE
Page 70 of 194
Page 7
By-law No. 1999-030
061
2.1.1.1
The provisions of Part 2 of this By-law are applicable to all property
subject to this By-law.
SECTION 2.2 - LANDS AND OPEN SPACES
SECTION 2.2.1- YARDS
2.2.1.1
All yards, including vacant property, shall be maintained in a good
condition and shall be:
a)
kept free from garbage, rubbish, brush, discarded materials and
other debris, except that which is stored in suitable, clean
receptacles for removal;
b}
kept free from noxious weeds and the excessive growth of other
weeds and grasses;
c)
kept free of all vermin and Injurious insects, and any condition,
which might result in the harbouring of such pests;
maintained free from dangerous holes or excavations;
d)
e)
protected by suitable ground cover which prevents erosion of the
soil, excluding areas used in connection with an active
agricultural or gardening operation;
f)
graded so as to be maintainable.
2.2.1.2
All trees in any yard or on vacant property shall be kept pruned so as
to be free from dead or dying branches, the collapse of which would be
capable of causing injury or damage. All dead trees and shrubs shall
be promptly removed from any yard or vacant property.
2.2.1.3
All hedges and ornamental shrubs in any yard or on vacant property
shall be pruned and trimmed so as not to present an unsightly
appearance or to extend beyond the limits of the property in such a
way as to interfere with the reasonable use of adjoining property and
so as not to obstruct windows, doors, drains, sidewalks, vents, or exits
or entrances to property.
2.2.1.4
All sodded and grass covered areas on any property shall be kept in a
good living condition and properly maintained including adequate
cutting or mowing so as not to present an unsightly appearance. For
residential property, lawns designed and intended to be mowed shall be
maintained such that grass does not exceed .1 metres in height, and
for non-residential property, lawns designed and intended to be mowed
shall be maintained such that grass does not exceed .15 metres in
height.
2.2.1.5
Subject to the provisions of Section 4.2.4.1 of this By-law, no
machinery, vehicle, or other chattels including a boat, trailer or mobile
home or parts thereof, which are in a wrecked, discarded, dismantled
or partially dismantled or abandoned condition shall be parked, stored
or lelt in any yard or on vacant property.
2.2.1.6
No machinery, vehicle, other material or other object or condition not
associated with the normal occupancy and use of the property,
including among other things appliances, fixtures, indoor furniture,
paper, cartons, boxes or building materials such as lumber, masonry
units or glass other than that intended for immediate use on the
property shall be stored or allowed to remain in any yard or on vacant
property.
2.2.1.7
Unused refrigerators or freezers shall not be stored in any yard or on
vacant property, but where kept temporarily in a yard awaiting
removal, the doors to the same must be securely locked or the hinges
of the refrigerator or freezer door removed.
Page 71 of 194
Page 8
By-law No. 1999-030
2.2.1.8
Where refrigerators or freezers are used outside, the doors and/or lids
to the same shall be locked to prevent small children from gaining
access to them.
2.2.1.9
All wells located on any property shall be capped with a structurally
secure material such as concrete which can not be readily removed,
and which shall be maintained in good repair.
2.2.1.10
The occupant of a residential property may provide for compost
heap(s) provided that the compost heap is no larger than one square
metre and 1.8 metres in height and is enclosed on all sides by concrete
block, or a forty-five gallon container, a metal or wooden frame
building with a concrete floor, or a commercial enclosed container
designed for composting. Compost heaps shall not emit odour(s) that
are detectable on any adjoining property.
062
SECTION 2.2.2 - DRAINAGE
2.2.2.1
All yards, including vacant property, shall be graded and maintained in
such a manner so as to prevent the excessive or recurrent ponding of
stormwater thereon, or the drainage of such water into any basement
or cellar, and shall be cultivated or protected with a suitable ground
cover to prevent erosion of the soil, provided however, that the grade
level of such lands shall not be altered so as to either impede the
natural flow of water through such property from any adjoining
property, nor as to cause the drainage of stormwater onto any adjacent
property, unless such alteration is in accordance with a grading plan
approved by the City.
2.2.2.2
Stormwater run-off from all downspouts or impervious surfaces, and
the drainage of water from all swimming pools, shall be contained
within the limits of the property from which it originated until absorbed
by the soil or drained to a storm sewer or to a naturally created swale
or watercourse or to an artificially created ditch or watercourse that
has been approved or constructed by the City. Such drainage shall be
extended to take the stormwater run-off from all roof and other
artificially created impervious surfaces except that the aforementioned
extension may be omitted if appropriate measures are taken to ensure
that such stormwater run-off is self-contained on the property as
heretofore described, and further, that said stormwater will not collect
thereon in such a manner as to endanger or create nuisance to persons
on or adjacent to the property.
SECTION 2.2.3 - WASTE WATER
2.2.3.1
Sewage and water from waste pipes shall not be discharged onto the
surface of the ground, whether into a natural or artificial drainage
system or otherwise. All sewage and wastewater shall be discharged
into the City's sewerage system or a private sewage disposal system
approved by the Medical Officer of Health.
SECTION 2.3 - GENERAL PROVISION S FOR BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES
SECTION 2.3.1- SAFETY SYSTEMS AND SUPPORT FACILITIES
2.3.1.1
All sprinkler systems, fire hoses, smoke detectors, fire extinguishers,
fire alarm systems and apparatus, exit signs and other equipment or
facilities installed in a building to provide protection from fire or other
disaster shall be maintained in good repair.
Amended by By-law 2008-050
2.3.1.2
All elevators and elevating devices, hoists, lifts, and moving walkways
and stairs shall be maintained in good repair. iA accoFdaAce with
a1313licaale Acts of t1=1e PFoviAce of OAtarlo.
Page 72 of 194
Page 9
By-law No. 1999-030
063
SECTION 2,3,2 - UNSAFE BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES
2.3.2.1
2.3.2.2
Any material forming part of the supporting structure of a building or
other structure, other than a farm-related accessory building or
structure, which shows evidence of decay or other deterioration shall
be repaired.
Where any building or other structure has been damaged by fire,
explosion, or by any other natural or unnatural force;
a)
any remaining portion of the building or structure shall be
promptly removed or secured by bracing if there is a possibility
of collapse;
b)
temporary fencing shall be installed to secure the property to
prevent incidental entry by unauthorised persons; and
c)
all damaged materials shall be immediately removed from the
property, or temporarily placed within a building which shall be
secured to prevent entry by unauthorised persons.
Amended by By-Jaw No. 2024-52
2.3.2.3
All vacant and abandoned buildings shall be secured against
unauthorized entry, and shall be maintained in a secured state with the
yards maintained in accordance with section 2.2 of this By-Jaw.
2.3.2.3.1
For the purposes of section 2.3.2.3, windows, doors, hatchways,
skylights and other exterior openings through which entry may be
obtained into a vacant building are required to be:
a. maintained so as to properly perform their intended function and
closed and secured from unauthorized entry; or
b. entry shall be prevented by closing and securing an opening with
any of the following materials that are weather resistant, completely
cover the opening, and are securely fastened to the vacant building:
i.
wood sheathing of at least 12.7 millimetres plywood (or
equivalent product);
ii.
metal sheathing;
iii.
brick or concrete block and mortar; or
any other material approved by a Property Standards Officer.
iv.
2.3.2.4
All collapsed or dilapidated buildings or structures, including buildings
and structures severely damaged by fire, explosion, or by any other
natural or unnatural force, shall be removed from the property.
SECTION 2.3.3 - SERVICES TO A VACANT BUILDING
2.3.3.1
Where a building remains unoccupied or vacant for a period of time
exceeding ninety (90) days, all utilities servicing the building except
those necessary for the safety or security of the building shall be
properly disconnected or otherwise secured, to prevent accidental
damage to the building or adjacent properties.
SECTION 2.3.4 - ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES
2.3.4.1
All garages, carports, sheds, fences, radio and television towers,
artificial lighting standards, swimming pools, signs, awnings, retaining
walls, flagpoles, and other accessory buildings and structures shall be
kept in good repair.
2.3.4.2
All fences and other accessory structures shall be weather-resistant
through the use of a proper weather-resistant material including paint
or other preservatives, unless the aesthetic character is enhanced by
the lack of such material.
2.3.4.3
All outdoor children's play areas and fixed playground equipment shall
be maintained in good repair.
Page 73 of 194
Page 10
By-law No. 1999-030
064
SECTION 2.4 - EXTERIOR MAINTENANCE OF BUILDINGS
SECTION 2.4.1 - EXTERIOR WALLS AND THEIR COMPONENTS
2.4.1.1
The exterior walls of a building and their components shall be
maintained so as to be weather-tight, free from loose or unsecured
materials and objects and in good repair.
2.4.1.2
The exterior walls of a building and their components shall be
maintained so as to retard deterioration due to weather, insects, or
other causes. Where necessary, exterior walls and their components
shall be so maintained by the painting, restoring, recovering with
weatherproof material, or repairing of coping or flashing, waterproofing
of joints and of the wall itself and other components, installing or
repairing of termite shields, treating the soil with chemicals or using
other suitable means.
2.4.1.3
Appropriate measures shall be taken to remove any objectionable
markings, stains or other defacements occurring on the exposed
finished exterior surfaces of any structure, and where necessary, to
restore the surface and adjacent areas to, as near as possible, their
appearance before the marking, staining, or defacement occurred.
2.4.1.4.
Exterior surfaces of a building shall be kept clean.
2.4.1.5
The exterior fa<;ade of all buildings shall be kept in good repair and
shall be maintained so as to be free of loose or deteriorated paint and
or material that would be detrimental to the aesthetic appearance of
the building. The windows in any vacant building shall be maintained
and be free of missing and or broken glass or the openings be covered
so as not to present an unsightly appearance.
SECTION 2.4.2 - ROOF AND ROOF STRUCTURES
2.4.2.1
A roof of a building including the fascia board, soffit and cornice shall
be maintained in a water-tight condition so as to prevent leakage of
water into the building, and every fascia board, soffit and cornice shall
be maintained so as to retard deterioration due to weather.
Maintenance shall include the repair or replacement of broken,
defective or deteriorated components with the appllcation of paint, or
other preservative, or covering with a weather-proof material.
2.4.2.2
A roof of a building shall be free from loose or unsecured or unsafe
objects and materials.
2.4.2.3
All radio and television aerials, lightning arrestors, air conditioning
units, stacks, pipes, vents and lighting or similar rooftop apparatus
shall be maintained in good repair.
SECTION 2.4.3 - FOUNDATIONS
2.4.3.1
The foundation walls of a building or the foundation of any other
structure shall be maintained in good repair so as to prevent
settlement detrimental to the appearance or safety of the building or
structure, or the entrance of insects, rodents, or excessive moisture
into the building or structure. Without limiting the generality of the
foregoing, maintenance shall include the shoring or underpinning of the
walls, installing subsoil drains at the footings, the grouting of masonry
cracks, waterproofing of the walls and joints, and the carrying out of
such other work as may be required to overcome any existing
settlement detrimental to the appe1;1rance or the safety of the building
or structure.
SECTION 2.4.4 - EXTERIOR STAIRS, PORCHES, VERANDAS, AND BALCONIES
2.4.4.1
All exterior stairs, balconies, verandas, porches and every other similar
outside appurtenance of a building shall be maintained in good repair.
Page 74 of 194
Page 11
By-law No. 1999-030
2.4.4.2
All balustrades, handrails and supporting structures to exterior stairs,
balconies, verandas, porches, and every other outside appurtenance of
a building shall be adequate to safely support persons using the same,
and the spindles shall be so placed as to meet the provisions of the
Building Code.
2.4.4.3
Where any exterior stairs, balcony, veranda, porch, or other similar
outside appurtenance of a building is replaced, the same shall be
constructed in compliance with the regulations contained within the
Building Code.
065
SECTION 2.4.5 - WINDOWS AND EXTERIOR DOORS
2.4.5.1
Windows, skylights exterior doors and basement or cellar hatchways of
a building shall be maintained in good repair, which includes the
repairing, replacing or restoring of defective or missing parts or
components and the application of paint or other preservative where
required.
2.4.5.2
All openable windows and all exterior doors shall have hardware so as
to be capable of being securely closed in order to prevent the entrance
of wind, rain and snow into the building.
2.4.5.3
Rotted or damaged doors, door frames, window frames, sashes and
casings and defective door and window hardware and broken window
glass shall be repaired or replaced.
2.4.5.4
Basement or cellar windows used or required for ventilation and every
other opening in a basement, cellar or crawlspace that might permit
the entry of vermin or injurious insects shall be screened with wire
mesh or other material that will effectively prevent vermin or injurious
insects from entering the building.
SECTION 2.4.6 - EAVESTROUGHING
2.4.6.1
Where eavestroughing is provided on a building, every eavestrough,
roof gutter and down pipe shall be maintained in good repair, which
includes the repairing, replacing or restoring of defective or missing
parts or components and the application of paint or other preservative.
SECTION 2.5 - INTERIOR MAINTENANCE OF BUILDINGS
SECTION 2.5.1 - WALLS, CEILING AND FLOORS
2.5.1.1
All wails, ceilings and floors, including columns, beams and other
supporting structures shall be maintained in good repair and be capable
of safely carrying out their intended function.
2.5.1.2
The surface of every wall and ceiling in a building shall be maintained
in good repair.
2.5.1.3
Every floor in a building shall be maintained in good repair; further,
floors in all bathrooms, toilet rooms, and kitchens shall be maintained
so that the floors can be kept in a clean and sanitary condition.
2.5.1.4
The floors, ceilings and walls of every building shall be kept free from
such dampness or moisture as may constitute a danger to health or
safety, but this shall not apply to non-habitable rooms wholly or partly
below adjacent grade.
2.5.1.5
Every floor, wall, celling and fixture attached thereto in a building shall
be maintained in a sanitary condition.
2.5.1.6
Walls, floors and ceilings within common and public areas of a building
shall be kept free of defacement.
2.5.1.7
All interior doors and their hardware shall be kept in good repair.
Page 75 of 194
Page 12
2.5.1.8
By-law No. 1999-030
066
Walls around a bathtub or shower, which are susceptible to being wet,
shall be maintained so as to be waterproof and readily cleaned.
SECTION 2.5.2 - FUEL BURNING APPUANCES/EQUIPMENT, CHIMNEYS &
VENTS
2.5.2.1
All fuel burning appliances, heating, cooking, and cooling equipment
and appurtenances thereto located in or attached to a building shall be
installed, maintained in good repair and properly vented in order to:
a)
operate in a manner as to not present a safety hazard to the
building, its occupants, components or contents;
b)
prevent the heating of the surrounding combustible and
structural members above a safe temperature;
c)
prevent the entrance of gases or fumes into the building;
d)
have ample air supply to permit combustion.
2.5.2.2
All fuel shall be stored in a safe manner and where there are
regulations, which deal with the storage of, said fuel, such regulations
shall be complied with.
2.5.2.3
Every chimney, smoke pipe, flue and gas vent shall be maintained in
good repair so as to prevent the leakage of gases or fumes Into a
building with all joints sealed and all broken or loose masonry repaired
and kept free of obstructions so as to be in a safe and fire resistant
condition.
SECTION 2,5,3 - WATER AND SEWAGE FACILITIES
2.5.3.1
Where sewage facilities are provided to a building, the same shall be
kept in good repair at all times in order to adequately service such
building. Where sewage facilities cease to be required for any building
the same shall be closed off and all plumbing leading to the same
capped in order to prevent leakage or the escape of odours or gases
therefrom.
2.5.3.2
All plumbing, including every drain pipe, water pipe, toilet, and other
plumbing fixtures in a building and every connecting line to the
sewerage system or other approved disposal method shall be
maintained in good repair.
2.5.3.3
All water pipes and appurtenances thereto shall be maintained in good
repair and shall be protected from freezing.
2.5.3.4
Each plumbing fixture shall be connected to the sewerage system or
other approved disposal method through a water seal trap. All unused
plumbing, drains, and/or plumbing stacks shall be closed off to prevent
gas or odour from entering the building.
2.5.3.5
Adequate running water shall be provided for every standard flush type
toilet provided in a building.
2.5.3.6
Where a toilet is provided, a wash basin shall be provided in the same
or an adjoining room.
SECTION 2.5.4 - HEATING SYSTEM
2.5.4.1
Where a heating system is provided in or for a building, the same shall
be maintained in good repair, in accordance with recognised standards
so as to be capable of heating the building safely.
2.5.4.2
Heating appliances shall not be placed so as to constitute a fire hazard,
and shall be placed in accordance with the requirements of the Building
Code.
Page 76 of 194
Page 13
2.5.4.3
By-law No. 1999-030
067
For purposes of Sections 2.5.4.1 and 2.5.4.2 of this By-law, a portable
heating unit or system shall not be considered a heating system or
heating appliance.
SECTION 2.5.5 - ELECTRICAL SERVICE
2.5.5.1
When an electrical service is provided to a building, the same including
all electrical fixtures, equipment and appliances located or used in the
building shall be maintained in good repair.
Amended by By-law 2008-050
2.5.5.2
Every electrical system within a building shall be maintained in good
repair.
2.5.5.3
The capacity of the electrical service connection to a building and the
system of circuits distributing the electrical supply within the building
shall be adequate for the use and intended use of the building.
SECTION 2.5.6 - VENTILATION
2.5.6.1
Every bathroom or toilet room within a building shall be provided with
an opening or openings for natural ventilation located in an exterior
wall or through openable parts of skylights providing a minimum
aggregate unobstructed free flow area of .1 square metres, provided
however that an opening for natural ventilation may be omitted where
a system of mechanical ventilation has been provided, such as an
electric fan with a duct leading to outside the building, and which
operates continuously or is activated by the light switch for the
bathroom or toilet room, or by other approved means.
2.5.6.2
Where an aperture such as a window, skylight or louver is used for
ventilation in a building, the aperture shall be maintained so as to be
easily opened and closed, or kept open.
2.5.6.3
All systems of mechanical ventilation or air-conditioning in a building
shall be maintained in good repair.
SECTION 2.5.7 - EGRESS AND FIRE ESCAPES
2.5.7.1
All safety equipment relative to exits and means of egress, such as
doors, closures, co-ordinating devices, and astragals, smoke seals and
pressurised vestibules, latching devices, hinges and the like, shall be
maintained in good repair.
2.5.7.2
Stairways and landings shall be capable of supporting loads for which
they are intended, and shall be maintained in good repair, and shall be
kept clear and unobstructed.
2.5.7.3
Balustrades and handrails on the main means of egress and supporting
structures shall be adequate to safely support persons using the
facility. Stairs, guards and hand railings on the main means of egress
shall be maintained in good repair and the spindles thereon shall be so
placed so as to meet the provisions of the Building Code.
2.5.7.4
Fire escapes shall be installed in compliance with the Building Code and
kept free of dangerous accumulations of snow and ice.
SECTION 2.5.8 - EXTERMINATION AND/OR FUMIGATION
2.5.8.1
All buildings shall be kept free from vermin, termites and other
injurious insects.
2.5.8.2
Where it is found that there is an infestation of insects or vermin within
or about a building, extermination and/or fumigation shall be carried
out until the infestation is eradicated in accordance with the provisions
of the Environmental Protection Act and the Pesticides Act of Ontario.
Where fumigation is to be undertaken, the owner of the building shall
Page 77 of 194
Page 14
By-law No. 1999-030
068
advise the Owen Sound Fire Department prior to commencement of the
fumigation.
SECTION 2.6 - GARBAGE AND RUBBISH
SECTION 2.6.1 - REFUSE STORAGE AND REMOVAL
2.6.1.1
All garbage and rubbish shall be stored in a sanitary manner in
containers of durable leak proof and non-absorbent material or plastic
garbage bags that can be effectively closed.
2.6.1.2
Containers used to store or keep garbage or rubbish shall be cleaned
as necessary to ensure public health and safety and to eliminate the
potential of odours.
2.6.1.3
Garbage and rubbish shall not be permitted to accumulate and remain
on any property to an extent or for a length of time so as to constitute
a health or safety hazard. Garbage or rubbish stored on any property
that emits an odour that is detectable within a dwelling on the same lot
or within any yard on an adjoining property shall forthwith be removed.
2.6.1.4
Any container not located within an enclosed building which is used to
store or keep putrescible garbage shall have lids or other coverings for
all openings, which lids or other coverings shall remain closed at all
times.
PART 3 -
ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO MAINTENANCE,
REPAIR AND OCCUPANCY OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
SECTION 3.1 - GENERAL
SECTION 3.1.1- SCOPE
3.1.1.
The provisions of Part 3 of this By-law are special requirements that
relate only to residential property and are in addition to the provisions
of Part 2, which also apply to residential property.
SECTION 3.2 - MAINTENANCE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
SECTION 3.2.1- FIRE SEPARATIONS
3.2.1.1
Where physically possible, where two dwelling units share one or more
common walls or floors/ceilings, whether the dwelling units are located
on the same lot or on separate lots, a fire rated separation between
dwelling units shall be maintained, which shall include the installation
of fire rated doors, frames and closures when required.
Amended by By-law 2008-050.
3.2.1.2
Where three or more dwelling units share one or more common walls
or floors/ ceilings, whether the dwelling units are located on the same
lot or on separate lots, a fire rated separation between dwelling units
shall be established and maintained.
SECTION 3.2.2 - HEATING AND HEATING SYSTEMS
3.2.2.1
Every dwelling shall be provided with a heating system capable of
maintaining a room temperature of 20 degrees Celsius at one (1)
metre above floor level and one (1) metre and more from exterior walls
in all habitable rooms, bathrooms, and toilet rooms when the
temperature outside the dwelling is -21 degrees Celsius.
Amended by By-law 2008-050.
3.2.2.2
Where a multiple dwelling contains a central heating system, the same
shall be located in a separate service room having minimum fire
separation from the remainder of the building.
SECTION 3.2.3 - ELECTRICAL SERVICE AND LIGHTING
Page 78 of 194
Page 15
3.2.3.1
By-law No. 1999-030
069
Every dwelling shall be serviced with a safe and adequate supply of
electricity.
Amended by By-faw 2008-050
3.2.3.2
Every habitable room in a dwelling shaff have a sufficient number of
electrical outlets.
3.2.3.3
Every laundry area in a dwelling shall have a minimum of one (1)
electrical duplex convenience outlet, which shall be maintained in good
repair.
3.2.3.4
Every bathroom, toilet room, kitchen, laundry area, furnace area, hall,
stairway, basement, cellar, elevator, and non-habitable work area in a
dwelling shall be provided with a permanent electrical light fixture that
shall be maintained in good repair.
3.2.3.5
All common halls, vestibules, ramps, enclosed or underground
automobile parking areas, interior and exterior points of ingress or
egress in multiple dwellings shall be provided with an adequate degree
of illumination at all times so as to ensure safe entry onto and use of
said areas.
SECTION 3,2.4 - NATURAL LIGHT
3.2.4.1
Every habitable room within a dwelling, except a kitchen, bathroom,
toilet room, storage room and den, shall have a window or windows,
skylights, translucent panels, or glass area of an outside door that
faces directly to the outside at least .15 metres above adjoining
finished grade, or above an adjoining roof, and that admits as much
natural light as would be transmitted through clear glass equal in area
to 5 percent of the floor area of the room.
SECTION 3.2.5 - VENTILATION
3.2.5.1
Every habitable room within a dwelling, except a living room or dining
room, shall have an opening or openings for natural ventilation, located
in the exterior walls or through openable parts of skylights, providing a
minimum aggregated unobstructed free flow area of .2 square metres,
provided however that an opening for natural ventilation may be
omitted if mechanical ventllation is provided which changes the total
volume of air once each hour.
3.2.5.2
Every attic, basement, cellar and unheated crawl space in a dwelling
shall be adequately vented to the outside. These areas shall be
deemed to be adequately vented when, in a basement or cellar,
windows which can be opened or screened openings are provided, the
aggregate area of which shall not be less than 1 percent of the floor
area, and for an unheated crawl space, a number of louvers with an
insect screen of corrosion-resistant material are provided.
SECTION 3.2.6 - KITCHEN FACILITIES
3.2.6.1
Every dwelling unit shall be provided with at least one (1) kitchen sink
maintained in good repair and attached to an approved means of
sewage disposal.
3.2.6.2
Every dwelling unit shall contain a kitchen area equipped with:
3.2.6.3
a)
at least one (1) sink served with hot and cold running water and
space for a stove and a refrigerator.
b)
suitable storage area of not less than 0.23 cubic metres,
c)
a counter or work area at least 0.61 m in width by 1.22 m in
length, exclusive of sink, and covered with a material that is
impervious to moisture and grease and is easily cleanable.
When a stove and/or refrigerator are provided in a dwelling, such
appllances shall be In good repair.
Page 79 of 194
Page 16
By-law No. 1999-030
3.2.6.4
Every kitchen in a dwelling shall have provided an adequate and
approved gas, electrical or other fuel supply for cooking purposes.
3.2.6.5
Within a dwelling, there shall be at least .75 metres clear space above
any exposed cooking surface.
070
SECTION 3.2.7 • TOILET AND BATHROOM FACILITIES
3.2.7.1
Except as otherwise provided in Section 3.2.7.4 of this By-law, every
dwelling unit and rooming unit shall contain at minimum one (1) wash
basin, one (1) bathtub or shower, and one (1) standard flush type
toilet, attached to an approved means of sewage disposal.
3.2.7.2
In a multiple dwelling, every wash basin, bathtub or shower required
by this By-law shall have an adequate supply of cold water and hot
running water capable of being drawn from the tap at a temperature of
minimum 49 degrees Celsius.
3.2.7.3
In a multiple dwelling, every bathtub, shower and toilet shall be fully
enclosed within a room equipped with a door capable of being closed
for privacy, and shall be separated from any room that is used for the
preparation, cooking, storing or consumption of food, or for sleeping
purposes, and shall be located within the dwelling unit or rooming unit
except as otherwise provided in Section 3.2.7.4 of this By-law.
3.2.7.4
The requirements of Sections 3.2.7.1 and 3.2.7.2 of this By-law shall
not prevent the occupants of a residential property containing only
rooming units from sharing a toilet, wash basin, or bathtub or shower
provided that access to the toilet, wash basin, and the bathtub or
shower is available without going through a room or rooms of another
rooming unit and provided that at least one (1) toilet, one (1) wash
basin and one (1) bathtub or shower is supplied for each six (6)
persons or fraction thereof, who share the said facilities. This Section
shall not apply to limit the number of occupants of a rooming unit who
have sole access to and control over the facilities specified in Section
3.2.7.1 of this By-law.
SECTION 3.2.8 • EGRESS AND FIRE ESCAPES
3.2.8.1.
Every dwelling unit shall have a safe, continuous and unobstructed
means of egress from the interior of every dwelling or rooming unit to
the outside at grade level or a ground floor entrance. The egress to
exit shall be kept clear at all times and shall be as direct as practical,
without the necessity of passing through a room or rooms that is or are
occupied by or are under the control of any other dwelling or rooming
unit, or other exclusive occupancy in the building.
3.2.8.2
A means of egress as set out in Section 3.2.8.1 of this By-law shall not
pass through an attached or built-in-garage or an enclosed part of any
other building.
SECTION 3.2.9 - DRIVEWAYS, PARKING AREAS, AND WALKWAYS
Amended by By-law 2008-050
3.2.9.1
On every residential property all parking lots, driveways, sidewalks,
ramps, outside stairs and landings, and similar common areas that are
accessible to the public shall be free of potholes, large cracks, and
uneven surfaces that may be hazardous to pedestrians. Such areas
shall be graded to ensure adequate drainage, and shall be maintained
in a safe condition.
3.2.9.2
On every residential property all parking lots, driveways, sidewalks,
ramps, designated fire routes, outside stairs, fire escapes, and landings
shall be kept clear of dangerous accumulations of ice and snow.
3.2.9.3
On every residential property all parking lots, driveways, sidewalks,
ramps, outside stairs, fire escapes, and landings shall be lighted with
Page 80 of 194
Page 17
By-law No. 1999-030
071
an adequate degree of illumination at all times so as to ensure safe use
of these said areas.
3.2.9.4
All off street parking areas and driveways on every residential property
shall be:
a)
constructed and maintained with a stable surface of asphalt,
concrete, brick, compacted crush stone or similar material
capable of supporting the weight of motor vehicles and
preventing the raising of dust; and
b)
graded and drained so as to prevent surface water from being
directed onto abutting lands as a result of the construction of
such parking area or driveway unless such drainage is permitted
pursuant to a drainage plan approved by the City.
SECTION 3.2.10 - WINDOW
3.2.10.1
All windows in a dwelling that are designed to open shall open easily
without the aid of special tools and shall be capable of remaining in an
open position without additional supports.
3.2.10.2
All openable windows in a dwelling shall be screened in order to
prevent the entry of insects, termites and other pests and all such
screens shall be properly latched or secured in order to prevent the
easy removal or opening by small children as provided for in the
Building Code.
3.2.10.3
Where windows in a multiple dwelling are more than 3 metres from
adjacent ground level and are less than one (1) metre from the floor,
guards or restrictions shall be established, or such windows shall be
designed to withstand lateral loading so as to prevent small children
from falling through the window opening.
SECTION 3.2.11 - GARBAGE AND RUBBISH STORAGE
3.2.11.1
Every multiple dwelling shall have provided on the same lot therewith,
whether inside or outside of a building, an area designated for the
temporary storage of garbage and rubbish.
3.2.11.2
Where garbage or rubbish is stored inside a multiple dwelling, the
storage area, garbage chutes if any, and the receptacles shall be:
3.2.11.3
a)
kept in a clean and sanitary condition, washed and disinfected as
often as necessary to maintain a clean condition;
b)
enclosed so as to prevent the entry of insects, rodents and
vermin into the storage area;
c)
provided with the necessary screens and/or shields to prevent
the entry of insects or vermin into any portion of a dwelling; and
d)
ventilated so that no noxious odours enter any portion of the
dwelling.
All garbage and rubbish containers and receptacles kept on any
residential property shall be screened from view and shall be provided
with covers so that the material contained therein is not exposed to
public view or to insects or other pests.
SECTION 3.2.12 - LOCKING DEVICES
3.2.12.1
In a multiple dwelling, all doors to the exterior or to a common
entrance or exit system shall have locking devices installed and such
devices shall be maintained at all times in good repair and shall be
openable from the inside without requiring the use of a key or special
tool.
3.2.12.2
In a multiple dwelling, all doors providing access to dwelling units and
rooming units shall include a locking device for use by the occupant.
Page 81 of 194
Page 18
By-law No. 1999-030
3.2.12.3
In a multiple dwelling, all windows or other openings through which
unauthorized entry can be gained to a dwelling unit or a rooming unit
shall be equipped with a locking or other appropriate security device for
use by the occupant.
3.2.12.4
In a multiple dwelling, locking devices which incorporate panic
hardware shall be used where necessary in accordance with the
provisions of the Building Code.
3.2.12.5
In residential buildings where there is a voice communication unit
working in conjunction with a security locking and release system
controlling a particular entrance door and installed between individual
dwelling units and a secured entrance area, the said system shall be
maintained in good working order at all times.
072
SECTION 3,2.13 - WATER FACILITIES
3.2.13.1
3.2.13.2
No dwelling unit or rooming unit in a multiple dwelling shall be let
unless the following water facilities are provided:
a)
Where the facilities of a municipal water system are located on
the street within thirty (30) metres of a multiple dwelling, every
such multiple dwelling shall be connected thereto, providing
permission for such connection can be obtained from the City's
Public Utilities Commission.
b)
Where the facilities of a municipal water system are not available
or connection to the system is for any reason not permitted by
the City's Public Utilities Commission or is not required by the
City, a multiple dwelling shall be supplied with an adequate
supply of potable running water in accordance with the
requirements of the Building Code.
If an adequate supply of potable running water is being used to service
a multiple dwelling from a source other than the municipal water
system, occupancy of a dwelling unit or rooming unit therein shall be
permitted notwithstanding the provisions of Section 3.2.13.1 a) of this
By-law provided:
a)
such system is approved in writing by the Medical Officer of
Health; and
b)
the water is tested annually and such test indicates that such
water is potable.
SECTION 3.2.14 - OCCUPANCY STANDARDS
3.2.14.1
The number of occupants in a dwelling unit or rooming unit of a
multiple dwelling shall not exceed 1 person for each 9.3 square metres
of the total floor area of all the habitable rooms within the dwelling unit
or rooming unit.
Amended by By-law 2008-050
For the purpose of computing the total floor area of the habitable
3.2.14.2
rooms in Section 3.2.14.1 of this By-law and the floor area in Section
3.2.14.3 of this By-law, the minimum ceiling height shall be H---2.1
metres over at least one half of the required floor area. Any part of the
floor having a clear height of less than 1.4 metres shall not be
considered in computing the required floor area. No room shall be
considered a habitable room if located so that more than one half its
height is below the level of the ground adjacent to its exterior walls.
3.2.14.3
No room in a multiple dwelling shall be used for sleeping purposes
unless it has a minimum width of 1.8 metres and a floor area of at
least 7 square metres, and further, a room used for sleeping purposes
by 2 or more persons shall have a floor area of at least 4.6 square
metres for each person so using the room.
Page 82 of 194
Page 19
PART 4 -
By-law No. 1999-030
073
ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO MAINTENANCE,
REPAIR AND OCCUPANCY OF NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
SECTION 4.1 - GENERAL
SECTION 4,1,1- SCOPE
4.1.1.1
The provisions of Part 4 of this By-law are special requirements that
relate only to non-residential property and are in addition to the
various provisions of Part 2, which also apply to non-residential
property.
SECTION 4,2 - MAINTENANCE OF NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
SECTION 4.2.1 - DRIVEWAYS, PARKING AREAS, AND WALKWAYS
4.2.1.1
On any non-residential property, all parking lots, driveways, sidewalks,
ramps, outside stairs and landings, and similar common areas that are
accessible to the public shall be free of potholes, large cracks, and
uneven surfaces that may be hazardous to pedestrians. Such areas
shall be graded to ensure adequate drainage, and shall be maintained
in a safe condition.
4.2.1.2
On any non-residential property, all parking lots, driveways, sidewalks,
ramps, designated fire routes, outside stairs, fire escapes, and landings
shall be kept clear of dangerous accumulations of Ice and snow.
4.2.1.3
On any non-residential property, all parking lots, driveways, sidewalks,
ramps, outside stairs, fire escapes, and landings shall be lighted with
an adequate degree of illumination at all times so as to ensure safe use
of these said areas.
4.2.1.4
All offstreet parking areas and driveways on any non-residential
property shall be:
a)
constructed and maintained with a stable surface of asphalt,
concrete, brick, or other material capable of supporting the
weight of motor vehicles and preventing the raising of dust; and
b)
graded and drained so as to prevent surface water from being
directed onto abutting lands as a result of the construction of
such parking area or driveway unless such drainage is permitted
pursuant to a drainage plan approved by the City.
SECTION 4.2.2 - LIGHTING
4.2.2.1
All common halls, vestibules, ramps, stairs, elevators, enclosed or
underground automobile parking areas, interior and exterior points of
ingress and egress in any non-residential building shall be provided
with an adequate degree of illumination so as to ensure safe entry onto
and/or use of the said areas, but this requirement shall not apply to
require such lighting to be used if non-use of the required lighting
achieves security objectives, provided such lighting is available for use
when required and no public hazard is created by such non-use.
SECTION 4.2.3 - RESTROOMS
4.2.3.1
Rooms containing sanitary conveniences and toilet facilities shall be
cleaned regularly so as to be in a sanitary condition.
SECTION 4.2.4 - AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR AND SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS
4.2.4.1
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 2.2.1.5 of this By-law, any
business engaged in the repair of automobiles may store temporarily
on the same lot therewith vehicles which may be in a wrecked
condition that are to be either repaired at the same premises or
removed for disposal, within the immediate future.
Page 83 of 194
Page 20
By-law No. 1999-030
074
PARTS - GENERAL
SECTION 5.1 - BY-LAWS REPEALED
5.1.1
By-law Numbers 1994-061 and 1994-124 are hereby repealed.
SECTION 5.2 - EFFECTIVE DATE
5.2.1
This By-law shall come into full force and effect upon the final passing
hereof.
FINALLY PASSED AND ENACTED this 1st day of March, 1999.
Signature on File
Signature on File
Mayor
Clerk
Page 84 of 194
075
SCHEDULE A
Amended by By-laws 2009-054 and 2018-044
Patrols will be carried out by the Property Standards Officer mainly to observe the
exterior conditions of the property.
A Property Standards Officer may inspect the side and rear yards of a property
where it appears to the Officer, without entry onto the property, that there is a
contravention of the Property Standards By-law or other regulatory _By-laws are
likely to exist.
Observations of the property shall include the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Condition of the entryway to the property, walkways, brick/stonework, pathways
leading to an entrance to the house
Condition of the yard
Fencing
Driveways and other accesses to the property
Front entrance including condition of any stairs, porches, verandas, entry ways
as visible through cursory observation
Exterior finish
Condition of and access to exterior windows and doors
Exterior soffit and fascia
Roofing and chimney
Page 85 of 194
PROPERTY STANDARDS COMMITTEE
CITY OF OWEN SOUND
IN THE MATTER OF an appeal pursuant to section 15.3 of the Building Code Act, 1992, S.O.
1992, c. 23
AND IN THE MATTER OF Property Standards Order No. OSBY-2026-0076
BETWEEN:
KEPLER REAL ESTATE INC.
Appellant
-andCITY OF OWEN SOUND
Respondent
______________________________________________________________________________
FACTUM OF THE RESPONDENT
CITY OF OWEN SOUND
______________________________________________________________________________
PART I – OVERVIEW
1. This appeal concerns Property Standards Order OSBY-2026-0076, issued on February 12,
2026, by Property Standards Officer pursuant to section 15.2(2) of the Building Code Act,
1992 and the City of Owen Sound Property Standards By-law No. 1999-030. The Order
relates to the residential rental property located at 235 8th Street East, Owen Sound,
owned by the Appellant, Kepler Real Estate Inc. The Order requires inspection and
treatment by a certified pest control company to address the presence of bedbugs reported
in Unit #5 and surrounding units within the building.
2. The events leading to the Order began in January 2026 when a tenant of Unit #5 brought
insect samples to Grey Bruce Public Health. On January 26, 2026, Public Health notified
Kepler Real Estate Inc. and the city that the insects had been positively identified as
bedbugs. The correspondence also advised that the tenant had previously reported bedbug
concerns to Kepler Real Estate Inc. and had recently discovered additional evidence of
Page 86 of 194
bedbugs on January 20, 2026. Public Health requested that Kepler Real Estate Inc.
provide a plan to eradicate the pests from the building in a timely manner.
3. On January 27, 2026, the City’s Property Standards Officer wrote to Kepler Real Estate
Inc. requesting a response outlining the proposed eradication plan, including the
scheduled date of treatment, the pest control contractor, the products and methods to be
used, the scope of work within the unit and building, and any follow-up treatments.
Kepler Real Estate Inc. subsequently provided a pest control report from Orkin Canada
dated January 9, 2026, which indicated that no live bedbug activity was observed at that
time but confirmed that the tenant had shown the technician several bedbugs and that a
precautionary crack-and-crevice pesticide treatment had nevertheless been applied.
4. Following review of that report, the city advised the tenant on February 4, 2026, to
continue monitoring the unit for further bedbug activity and to report any additional
evidence. On the evening of February 11, 2026, the tenant contacted the Property
Standards Officer again, reporting that bedbugs were still present and that the tenant was
continuing to experience bites. The tenant provided photographs showing insect samples
and visible bite reactions.
5. After receiving this follow-up complaint and evidence, the Property Standards Officer
investigated on February 12, 2026, as recorded in the municipal inspection report for case
OSBY-2026-0076. Based on the complaint history, the confirmation from Public Health,
the photographic evidence of bedbugs dated February 11, 2026, and the investigation
conducted by the officer, the city concluded that the property was not being kept free
from insects, contrary to section 2.5.8.1 of the Property Standards By-law.
6. As a result, the City issued Property Standards Order OSBY-2026-0076 on February 12,
2026, requiring inspection and extermination measures by a certified pest control
company in Unit #5 and surrounding units to determine the extent of bedbug activity and
eradicate any infestation present. The Order required compliance by April 21, 2026,
providing the owner with approximately two months to complete the required work or
request an extension if circumstances beyond its control prevented compliance within
that timeframe.
Page 87 of 194
7. The Appellant now appeals the Order in its entirety, asserting that bedbugs are not
“injurious insects,” that the Order improperly relies on section 2.5.8.1 rather than section
2.5.8.2 of the by-law, that the Order was issued without proper inspection, and that the
scope of the required inspections is unreasonable. The city submits that these arguments
are without merit. The Order was issued following confirmation of bedbugs by Public
Health, subsequent evidence of live bedbugs reported by the tenant, and an investigation
conducted by the Property Standards Officer. The remedial measures required by the
Order are consistent with the city’s statutory responsibility to ensure that residential
buildings are maintained in a safe, sanitary, and habitable condition.
PART II – FACTS
The Property
8. The subject property is located at 235 8th Street East, Owen Sound, Ontario, and is
owned by the Appellant, Kepler Real Estate Inc. The property operates as a multi-unit
residential rental building and is therefore subject to the City of Owen Sound Property
Standards By-law No. 1999-030 and the provisions of the Building Code Act, 1992. The
complaint giving rise to this matter concerns Unit #5, occupied by tenant Jerico Dodd,
who reported the presence of bedbugs within the dwelling unit.
9. A by-law enforcement case concerning the property was opened on January 27, 2026,
after the city received correspondence from Grey Bruce Public Health regarding a
complaint from a tenant about the presence of bedbugs and confirmation the pests were in
fact bedbugs on January 26, 2026.
Public Health Complaint
10. On January 26, 2026, Grey Bruce Public Health notified Kepler Real Estate Inc. and the
City of Owen Sound that insect samples brought to the health unit by a resident of 235
8th Street East had been positively identified as bedbugs. Public Health advised that the
resident had previously informed Kepler Real Estate Inc. of suspected bedbug activity
and that a pest control representative had attended the unit but advised the tenant that the
Page 88 of 194
unit was not believed to be the source of the bedbugs. The resident later discovered
additional evidence of bedbugs on February 11, 2026, and again notified the landlord.
11. Following receipt of the Public Health notification, the Property Standards Officer
requested that Kepler Real Estate Inc. provide a bedbug eradication plan outlining the
proposed treatment schedule, contractor, product type, scope of work, and follow-up
appointments.
12. In response, Kepler Real Estate Inc. provided a pest control report from Orkin Canada
dated January 9, 2026. The report indicated that the technician did not observe active
bedbug activity at the time of inspection but noted that the tenant had shown the
technician three bedbugs believed to have been found previously. The technician
nevertheless applied a crack-and-crevice treatment using OnGuard Bed Bug Killer as a
precautionary measure.
13. However, Kepler Real Estate Inc. provide an inspection report by Orkin Canada that was
completed before the Grey Bruce Public Health’s email of January 27, 2026.
14. After reviewing the report, the city advised the tenant on February 4, 2026, to continue
monitoring the unit and to notify the city if further bedbug activity was observed.
Inspection by the Property Standards Officer
15. On the evening of February 11, 2026, the tenant contacted the Property Standards Officer
again and reported that bedbugs were still being found within the unit and that the tenant
continued to experience bites. The tenant provided photographs showing insect samples
and visible bite reactions. These photographs were dated February 11, 2026, at
approximately 7:29 p.m.
16. The municipal inspection report for case OSBY-2026-0076 records that the Property
Standards Officer conducted an investigation about the property on February 12, 2026, at
approximately 9:26 a.m. The inspection record identifies the violation as the presence of
bedbugs within Unit #5 and notes that the property was not being kept free from injurious
insect’s contrary to section 2.5.8.1 of Property Standards By-law No. 1999-030.
Page 89 of 194
Issuance of the Property Standards Order
17. Following the investigation and inspection, the City issued Property Standards Order No.
OSBY-2026-0076 on February 12, 2026. The Order cited the relevant provisions of the
City’s Property Standards By-law concerning extermination and pest control and
identified the violation as the presence of bedbugs within the property.
18. The Order required that a certified pest control company inspect Unit #5 as well as the
surrounding units immediately above, below, beside, and diagonal to the subject unit, and
the adjacent hallway areas. The Order further required extermination treatment in any
area where bedbugs, eggs, nymphs, or other evidence of bedbug activity were discovered,
as well as completion of any recommended follow-up treatments necessary to fully
eradicate the bedbug population within the building. The pest control technician was
required to provide signed inspection and treatment reports to the Property Standards
Officer for each visit.
19. The Order required the work to be completed by April 21, 2026, providing the owner
approximately two months to complete the required inspection and extermination
measures or request an extension if factors outside of the owner’s control required
additional time.
Notice of Appeal
20. The Appellant subsequently filed a Notice of Appeal challenging the Order in its entirety.
The Appellant asserts that section 2.5.8.1 of the Property Standards By-law has not been
violated because bedbugs are allegedly not “injurious insects.” The Appellant further
argues that the Order improperly relies on section 2.5.8.1 rather than section 2.5.8.2, that
the Order was issued without the mandatory inspection required by the Building Code
Act, that the City ignored the January 9, 2026 Orkin inspection report, and that the scope
of the Order requiring inspection of surrounding units is excessive and unsupported by
evidence of a building-wide infestation.
Page 90 of 194
21. Instead of working with the city and coming to realistic conclusions, the Appellant
exercised the right to Appeal and seeks rescission of Property Standards Order OSBY2026-0076 and waiver of all associated fees.
PART III – ISSUES
22. The issues before the Property Standards Committee are:
a) Whether the Property Standards Officer had authority under the Building Code
Act to issue the Order.
b) Whether bedbugs fall within the meaning of “injurious insects” under section
2.5.8.1 of the by-law.
c) Whether the Order is invalid because the description of violation referred
primarily to section 2.5.8.1 rather than section 2.5.8.2.
d) whether the Order was issued without the inspection required by the Building
Code Act.
e) Whether the scope of the Order is reasonable.
f) Whether the Order should be confirmed, modified, or rescinded
PART IV – LAW AND ANALYSIS
Authority of the Property Standards Officer Under the Building Code Act
23. Section 15.2(2) of the Building Code Act, 1992 authorizes a Property Standards Officer to
issue an order requiring repairs or remedial work where property does not conform with
the standards prescribed in a municipal property standards by-law. Once such an order is
issued, section 15.3 of the Act permits the property owner to appeal the order to the
Property Standards Committee.
24. This authority is reinforced by section 10(2) and section 15.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001,
which authorize municipalities to pass by-laws respecting the health, safety and wellbeing of persons and the maintenance of property. Municipal property standards by-laws
are remedial and are to be given a broad and purposive interpretation.
25. The City of Owen Sound has enacted Property Standards By-law No. 1999-030 pursuant
to this statutory authority. The by-law establishes minimum standards for the
Page 91 of 194
maintenance and occupancy of property within the municipality, including provisions
addressing sanitation and pest control within residential buildings.
26. Where evidence establishes that a building is not kept free from vermin or injurious
insects as required by the by-law, a Property Standards Officer is authorized to issue an
order requiring remedial action necessary to restore compliance with the by-law. The
Order issued in this matter falls squarely within the authority granted to the City under
the Building Code Act.
27. The Committee’s role is not to substitute its preferred standard, but to determine whether
the officer acted within statutory authority and whether the Order is reasonably related to
achieving compliance.
Bedbugs Are Not “Injurious Insects”
28. The Appellant asserts that section 2.5.8.1 of the Property Standards By-law has not been
violated because bedbugs are allegedly not “injurious insects.” This interpretation is
inconsistent with both the ordinary meaning of the term and the purpose of municipal
property standards legislation.
29. Section 2.5.8.1 of the by-law requires that all buildings be kept free from “vermin,
termites and other injurious insects.” Bedbugs are parasitic insects that feed on human
blood and commonly cause bites, skin irritation, allergic reactions, sleep disturbance, and
psychological distress. In multi-unit residential buildings, bedbugs can spread between
units through structural openings, furnishings, and common areas if not properly
controlled.
30. Municipal property standards by-laws are remedial in nature and are intended to ensure
that residential buildings are maintained in a condition that is safe, sanitary, and suitable
for human habitation. Within that context, bedbugs clearly fall within the category of
insects that can be a health risk and nuisance to occupants and is detrimental to the safe
use and enjoyment of residential premises.
Page 92 of 194
31. The tenant in this case reported continued bites and provided photographs showing insect
samples and visible bite reactions. These circumstances are consistent with the presence
of insects within the dwelling. Accordingly, the Property Standards Officer was entitled
to conclude that the building was not being kept free from injurious insects as required by
section 2.5.8.2 of the by-law.
32. Bedbugs, while undesirable, are not recognized as vectors of disease and are not
classified as a public health hazard in the same manner as rodents or cockroaches.
Administrative decisions have consistently treated bedbugs as a pest rather than an
inherently injurious one absent evidence of significant health impact.
33. Accordingly, absent evidence of actual health risk rising beyond irritation or
inconvenience, bedbugs do not meet the threshold of “injurious insects” contemplated by
section 2.5.8.1. The proper provision, if any, would be section 2.5.8.2 concerning
infestation, which requires a different evidentiary foundation.
Appellant Argues the Order Is Not Invalid Because It Focuses on Section 2.5.8.1
34. The Appellant also argues that the Order is defective because it does not explicitly state
that section 2.5.8.2 of the by-law has been violated or that an “infestation” exists. The
Appellant submits that the Order therefore alleges a violation only of section 2.5.8.1 and
not section 2.5.8.2.
35. This argument focuses on the wording of the Order rather than its substance. The
essential purpose of a property standards order is to notify the property owner of the
condition that does not comply with the by-law and to specify the work required to bring
the property into compliance.
36. In this case, the Order clearly identifies the condition giving rise to the violation: the
presence of bedbugs within Unit #5. The Order also sets out the corrective work required
to address the issue, including professional inspection, extermination where evidence of
bedbugs is found, and follow-up treatments recommended by the pest control company.
Page 93 of 194
37. The Order further includes a quotation of both sections 2.5.8.1 and 2.5.8.2 under the
heading identifying the applicable provisions of the by-law. Even if the description of
violation refers primarily to section 2.5.8.1, the Order remains valid so long as the owner
can understand the nature of the problem and the work required to remedy it.
38. The Appellant was clearly able to understand the substance of the Order, as evidenced by
the detailed arguments raised in the Notice of Appeal. There is therefore no ambiguity or
procedural unfairness arising from the wording of the Order.
39. Even if the Committee finds that bedbugs are not “injurious insects,” the validity of the
Order turns on whether the owner had sufficient notice of the alleged deficiency and
required work.
40. Courts have repeatedly held that minor defects in statutory notice do not invalidate
administrative orders where no prejudice arises.
41. Here, the Order clearly identifies the presence of bedbugs and the remedial steps
required. The Appellant understood the case to meet, as evidenced by the detailed appeal.
There is no procedural unfairness.
The Order Was Issued Following an Inspection and Investigation
42. The Appellant argues that the Order was issued without the physical inspection required
under section 15.2 of the Building Code Act. This allegation is not supported by the
evidence.
43. Section 15.2 of the Building Code Act requires that an officer form an opinion that a
property does not comply with the by-law; it does not require direct visual confirmation
of each defect.
44. There is no statutory requirement that a Property Standards Officer personally observe or
physically verify pest activity before issuing an order. In the context of property standards
Page 94 of 194
enforcement, reliance on tenant complaints and public health confirmation is both
common and legally sufficient.
45. The municipal inspection report for case OSBY-2026-0076 records that the Property
Standards Officer investigated about the property on February 12, 2026, at approximately
9:26 a.m. The inspection record notes that the officer had received a follow-up complaint
from the tenant reporting continued bedbug activity and including photographs dated
February 11, 2026.
46. Property standards investigations commonly rely on a combination of sources of
information, including tenant complaints, reports from public health authorities, pest
control documentation, photographic evidence, and the observations of the investigating
officer. The Building Code Act does not require that the officer personally observe each
individual insect before issuing an order.
47. In this case, the officer had before him multiple sources of evidence supporting the
conclusion that bedbugs were present at the property. Grey Bruce Public Health had
already confirmed that insect samples brought by the tenant were bedbugs. The tenant
subsequently reported continued bedbug sightings and bites and provided photographs of
insect samples.
48. Taken together, this evidence provided a sufficient basis for the officer to conclude that
the building was not being kept free from injurious insects and that an order was required
to bring the property into compliance with the by-law.
49. In property standards enforcement, especially involving transient conditions such as
bedbugs, requiring direct observation would undermine the purpose of the legislation.
Bedbug activity is intermittent and often not visible during inspections. Accordingly,
municipalities routinely rely on:
a) Public health confirmations;
b) Tenant evidence and photographs; and
c) Pest control reports.
Page 95 of 194
50. Accordingly, even if no physical inspection occurred, the Order would remain valid
provided the officer had a reasonable basis for forming the opinion of non-compliance.
The January 9, 2026, Orkin Report Does Not Establish Compliance
51. The Appellant relies heavily on an Orkin Canada inspection report dated January 9, 2026,
arguing that the report “cleared the building” and that the city improperly ignored it.
52. The city did not ignore the Orkin report. The Property Standards Officer acknowledged
receipt of the report and advised the tenant to continue monitoring the unit for further
activity.
53. The report itself does not establish that the property was free from bedbugs. It records
only that no active bedbug activity was observed at the time of that single inspection. The
report also notes that the tenant showed the technician three bedbugs that had previously
been found in the unit. The technician nonetheless applied a pesticide treatment as a
precaution.
54. A single inspection that does not identify live bedbugs at a particular moment does not
conclusively establish that bedbugs are absent from a residential building. Pest activity
can fluctuate and may not always be visible during a short inspection.
55. Subsequent evidence received by the City on February 11, 2026, indicated that bedbugs
were still being observed within the unit and that the tenant continued to experience bites.
The City was therefore entitled to conclude that the January 9 inspection did not resolve
the issue.
The Scope of the Order Is Reasonable and Proportionate
56. The Appellant further argues that the Order is excessive because it requires inspection of
surrounding units and adjacent areas of the building.
Page 96 of 194
57. However, the measures required by the Order reflect standard pest control practice for
bedbug management in multi-unit residential buildings. Bedbugs are capable of migrating
between units through structural openings, plumbing penetrations, electrical conduits, and
shared hallways. For this reason, pest control professionals commonly recommend
inspection of units adjacent to the affected unit in order to identify the extent of the
infestation and prevent re-infestation after treatment.
58. Limiting inspection solely to the original unit may allow bedbugs present in neighbouring
units to remain undetected and later migrate back into the treated unit. The requirement
that adjacent units be inspected is therefore a reasonable precaution designed to ensure
that extermination efforts are effective.
59. The Order does not require unnecessary upgrades or discretionary improvements to the
property. Instead, it requires inspection and extermination measures necessary to address
a pest issue affecting the habitability of a residential unit.
60. Accordingly, the scope of the Order is proportionate to the circumstances identified
during the investigation.
Alleged Failure to Respond to a Demand for Particulars
61. The Appellant also argues that the city failed to respond to a “Demand for Particulars”
and that this failure obstructed the Appellant’s ability to prepare a defence.
62. Property standards proceedings before a municipal Property Standards Committee are
administrative hearings governed by the Building Code Act and the Municipal Act rather
than formal civil litigation. The procedural requirements for such hearings are
considerably less formal than those of a court proceeding.
63. The essential procedural requirement is that the owner be provided with sufficient
information to understand the alleged violation and the work required to remedy it. The
Order in this case clearly identifies the condition giving rise to the violation, the relevant
by-law provisions, and the work required to bring the property into compliance.
Page 97 of 194
64. The Appellant has demonstrated a detailed understanding of the allegations and the basis
of the Order through the Notice of Appeal and accompanying submissions. Any alleged
delay in responding to a request for particulars does not invalidate the Order itself.
65. In light of these factors, there is no basis for rescinding the Order.
PART V – RELIEF SOUGHT
66. The Respondent, the City of Owen Sound, respectfully requests that the Property
Standards Committee:
a) Confirm Property Standards Order No. OSBY-2026-0076; and,
b) Grant such further and other relief as the Committee considers just.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED on March 20, 2026
SV Paralegal Professional Corporation
Jacqueline Armstrong
LSO P11318
4B – 325 Lambton Street
Kincardine, Ontario N2Z 0E3
Tel: 226-396-5100
jacqueline@svparalegal.com
Representative for the Respondent
City of Owen Sound
Page 98 of 194
Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25
Broad authority, single-tier municipalities
10 (1) A single-tier municipality may provide any service or thing that the municipality considers
necessary or desirable for the public. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 8.
By-laws
(2) A single-tier municipality may pass by-laws respecting the following matters:
1. Governance structure of the municipality and its local boards.
2. Accountability and transparency of the municipality and its operations and of its local boards
and their operations.
3. Financial management of the municipality and its local boards.
4. Public assets of the municipality acquired for the purpose of exercising its authority under this or
any other Act.
5. Economic, social and environmental well-being of the municipality, including respecting climate
change.
6. Health, safety and well-being of persons.
7. Services and things that the municipality is authorized to provide under subsection (1).
8. Protection of persons and property, including consumer protection.
9. Animals.
10. Structures, including fences and signs.
11. Business licensing. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 8; 2017, c. 10, Sched. 1, s. 1.
Page 99 of 194
Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25
Specific powers, by-laws under general powers
15 (1) If a municipality has power to pass a by-law under section 9, 10 or 11 and also under a
specific provision of this or any other Act, the power conferred by section 9, 10 or 11 is subject to
any procedural requirements, including conditions, approvals and appeals, that apply to the power
and any limits on the power contained in the specific provision. 2001, c. 25, s. 15 (1); 2006, c. 32,
Sched. A, s. 11 (1).
Page 100 of 194
Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 23
Inspection of property without warrant
15.2 (1) Where a by-law under section 15.1 is in effect, an officer may, upon producing proper
identification, enter upon any property at any reasonable time without a warrant for the purpose of
inspecting the property to determine,
(a) whether the property conforms with the standards prescribed in the by-law; or
(b) whether an order made under subsection (2) has been complied with. 1997, c. 24, s. 224 (8).
Contents of order
(2) An officer who finds that a property does not conform with any of the standards prescribed in a
by-law passed under section 15.1 may make an order,
(a) stating the municipal address or the legal description of the property;
(b) giving reasonable particulars of the repairs to be made or stating that the site is to be cleared of
all buildings, structures, debris or refuse and left in a graded and levelled condition;
(c) indicating the time for complying with the terms and conditions of the order and giving notice
that, if the repair or clearance is not carried out within that time, the municipality may carry out the
repair or clearance at the owner’s expense; and
(d) indicating the final date for giving notice of appeal from the order. 1997, c. 24, s. 224 (8).
Service and posting of order
(3) The order shall be served on the owner of the property and such other persons affected by it as
the officer determines and a copy of the order may be posted on the property in a location visible to
the public. 1997, c. 24, s. 224 (8); 2017, c. 34, Sched. 2, s. 9.
Registration of order
(4) The order may be registered in the proper land registry office and, upon such registration, any
person acquiring any interest in the land subsequent to the registration of the order shall be
deemed to have been served with the order on the day on which the order was served under
subsection (3) and, when the requirements of the order have been satisfied, the clerk of the
municipality shall forthwith register in the proper land registry office a certificate that such
requirements have been satisfied, which shall operate as a discharge of the order. 1997, c. 24,
s. 224 (8).
Inspection of property without warrant
15.2 (1) Where a by-law under section 15.1 is in effect, an officer may, upon producing proper
identification, enter upon any property at any reasonable time without a warrant for the purpose of
inspecting the property to determine,
(a) whether the property conforms with the standards prescribed in the by-law; or
Page 101 of 194
(b) whether an order made under subsection (2) has been complied with. 1997, c. 24, s. 224 (8).
Contents of order
(2) An officer who finds that a property does not conform with any of the standards prescribed in a
by-law passed under section 15.1 may make an order,
(a) stating the municipal address or the legal description of the property;
(b) giving reasonable particulars of the repairs to be made or stating that the site is to be cleared of
all buildings, structures, debris or refuse and left in a graded and levelled condition;
(c) indicating the time for complying with the terms and conditions of the order and giving notice
that, if the repair or clearance is not carried out within that time, the municipality may carry out the
repair or clearance at the owner’s expense; and
(d) indicating the final date for giving notice of appeal from the order. 1997, c. 24, s. 224 (8).
Service and posting of order
(3) The order shall be served on the owner of the property and such other persons affected by it as
the officer determines and a copy of the order may be posted on the property in a location visible to
the public. 1997, c. 24, s. 224 (8); 2017, c. 34, Sched. 2, s. 9.
Registration of order
(4) The order may be registered in the proper land registry office and, upon such registration, any
person acquiring any interest in the land subsequent to the registration of the order shall be
deemed to have been served with the order on the day on which the order was served under
subsection (3) and, when the requirements of the order have been satisfied, the clerk of the
municipality shall forthwith register in the proper land registry office a certificate that such
requirements have been satisfied, which shall operate as a discharge of the order. 1997, c. 24,
s. 224 (8).
Page 102 of 194
Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 23
Appeal of order
15.3 (1) An owner or occupant who has been served with an order made under subsection 15.2 (2)
and who is not satisfied with the terms or conditions of the order may appeal to the committee by
sending a notice of appeal by registered mail to the secretary of the committee within 14 days after
being served with the order. 1997, c. 24, s. 224 (8).
Confirmation of order
(2) An order that is not appealed within the time referred to in subsection (1) shall be deemed to be
confirmed. 1997, c. 24, s. 224 (8).
Duty of committee
(3) The committee shall hear the appeal. 2002, c. 9, s. 24.
Powers of committee
(3.1) On an appeal, the committee has all the powers and functions of the officer who made the
order and the committee may do any of the following things if, in the committee’s opinion, doing so
would maintain the general intent and purpose of the by-law and of the official plan or policy
statement:
1. Confirm, modify or rescind the order to demolish or repair.
2. Extend the time for complying with the order. 2002, c. 9, s. 24.
Appeal to court
(4) The municipality in which the property is situate or any owner or occupant or person affected by
a decision under subsection (3.1) may appeal to the Superior Court of Justice by notifying the clerk
of the municipality in writing and by applying to the court within 14 days after a copy of the decision
is sent. 2002, c. 9, s. 24.
Appointment
(5) The Superior Court of Justice shall appoint, in writing, a time and place for the hearing of the
appeal and may direct in the appointment the manner in which and the persons upon whom the
appointment is to be served. 2002, c. 9, s. 24.
Judge’s powers
(6) On the appeal, the judge has the same powers and functions as the committee. 1997, c. 24,
s. 224 (8).
Effect of decisions
(7) An order that is deemed to be confirmed under subsection (2) or that is confirmed or modified
by the committee under subsection (3) or a judge under subsection (6), as the case may be, shall
Page 103 of 194
be final and binding upon the owner and occupant who shall carry out the repair or demolition
within the time and in the manner specified in the order. 1997, c. 24, s. 224 (8).
Page 104 of 194
Case Number OSBY-2026-0076
ONTARIO
CITY OF OWEN SOUND
PROPERTY STANDARDS COMMITTEE
APPEAL
BETWEEN:
KEPLER REAL ESTATE INC
Appellant/Applicant
and
CITY OF OWEN SOUND
Respondent/Appellant
LIST OF WITNESSES
FOR THE RESPONDENT/CITY OF OWEN SOUND
Jacqueline Armstrong (LSO #P11318)
SV Paralegal Professional Corporation
Suite 4B - 325 Lambton St.
Kincardine, ON N2Z 0E3
jacqueline@svparalegal.com
Phone: (226) 396-5100
Prosecution for the City of Owen Sound
TO:
Kepler Real Estate Inc.
43363 Sparta Line
St. Thomas, ON N5P 3S8
Email: admin@keplerresidences.com
Tel: (519) 377-5936
Self-represented Appellant
Page 105 of 194
Case Number OSBY-2026-0076
LIST OF WITNESSES
NAME
CONTACT INFORMATION
RILEY BRUGESS
City of Owen Sound Assigned Officer #708
808 2nd Avenue East
Owen Sound, Ontario N4K 2H4
rbrugess@owensound.ca
235 8th Street East,
Owen Sound, Ontario N4K 1L2
JERICO DODD
Page 106 of 194
APPEAL OF PROPERTY STANDARDS
ORDER #OSBY-2025-0076
Property: 235 8th Street E, Owen Sound
Appellant: Kepler Real Estate Inc.
Page 107 of 194
TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR DISCLOSURE
TAB A: NOTICE OF FILING UNDER PROTEST & RESERVED RIGHT TO AMEND
TAB A1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE APPELLANT’S POSITION
TAB A2: NOTABLE COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING ON
MARCH 3, 2026
TAB A3: THE COMMITTEE'S POWERS TO RESCIND ORDERS
TAB B: PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS & DISCLOSURE FAILURES
● Exhibit B-1: LOG OF FIVE (5) EMAILS SENT ASKING FOR EVIDENCE AND
DISCLOSURE
● Exhibit B-2: ANALYSIS OF THE FEBRUARY 13 ANCHOR DEMAND
● Exhibit B-3A: APPLICATION OF OMBUDSMAN FINDINGS ON OVERSIGHT FAILURE
● Exhibit B-3B: APPLICATION OF OMBUDSMAN FINDINGS ON COMMUNICATION
BREAKDOWN
● Exhibit B-4: ANALYSIS OF THE UNREASONABLE 4-DAY COMPLIANCE DEADLINE
● Exhibit B-5: COMPREHENSIVE CHRONOLOGY OF EMAIL HISTORY
TAB C: TECHNICAL & EXPERT EVIDENCE (BEDBUGS)
● Exhibit C-1: ORKIN CANADA REPORT (JAN 9)- FINDING OF ‘ZERO LIVE ACTIVITY’
● Exhibit C-2: ORKIN CANADA OBSERVATION – FINDING OF FIRE HAZARD AND
SANITATION ISSUE
● Exhibit C-3: BIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF NON-MIGRATION
● Exhibit C-4: WITNESS STATEMENT REGARDING LACK OF PEST ACTIVITY
TAB D: STATUTORY & LEGAL REBUTTALS
● Exhibit D-1: REBUTTAL TO TERMINOLOGY & STATUTORY MISCLASSIFICATION
● Exhibit D-2: ANALYSIS OF DISPROPORTIONATE & VAGUE MANDATES
TAB E: REMEDIATION & TERMINATION OF TENANCY
● Exhibit E-1: ARGUMENT ON THE FUTILITY OF ENFORCEMENT PENDING
POSSESSION.
● Exhibit E-2: PROOF OF EVICTION PROCEEDINGS AND NON-VIABILITY OF
TENANCY
APPENDIX 1: OMBUDSMAN REPORT; NO WAY TO COMPLY 2018
APPENDIX 2; PROPERTY STANDARDS MINUTES
Page 108 of 194
TAB A
Page 109 of 194
TAB A: NOTICE OF FILING UNDER PROTEST & RESERVED RIGHT TO
AMEND
1. DECLARATION OF PROTEST
Kepler Real Estate Inc. (the "Appellant") hereby submits this disclosure package UNDER
PROTEST. This filing is necessitated by the upcoming statutory hearing date of April 7, 2026,
and is made despite the City of Owen Sound’s ongoing and total refusal to provide basic
disclosure or "particulars" regarding the subject Order.
2. THE INFORMATIONAL BLACKOUT
The Appellant has attempted to engage in a fair and transparent administrative process. As
documented in Exhibit B-5 (Chronology of Correspondence), the Appellant has issued five
(5) formal, written requests for disclosure.
● As of the date of this filing (35+ days since the initial demand), the City has provided:
zero (0) photographs, zero (0) inspection logs, and zero (0) technical justifications for the
building-wide mandates.
3. PREJUDICE TO THE DEFENSE
The City’s silence has forced the Appellant to formulate a defense in a vacuum. This Trial by
Ambush is a direct breach of Section 15.2(2) of the Building Code Act and the principles of
Procedural Fairness. Section 15.2(2) requires that an officer may only make an order once they
“find” the property to not conform with standards via a physical inspection. The city will not
respond to us to confirm that Riley Brugess ever attended the property.
● The Appellant has been unable to verify the live samples cited in the Order.
● The Appellant has been unable to cross-reference the City’s claims with our own
expert’s findings
● The Appellant has been denied the opportunity to resolve technical disputes before the
hearing.
4. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
The Appellant explicitly reserves the right to:
1. Object to the Introduction of Evidence: We will move to strike any surprise evidence or
photographs introduced by the City at the April 7th hearing that were not provided to the
Appellant during the 35-day blackout period.
Page 110 of 194
2. Amend the Defense: Should the City finally provide disclosure after this filing, we reserve
the right to submit a supplementary defense and seek an adjournment at the City’s
expense.
3. Seek Full Indemnity Costs: We will pursue legal costs associated with the City’s
bad-faith obstruction of the disclosure process.
Page 111 of 194
TAB A1
Page 112 of 194
TAB A1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: APPEAL OF ORDER
#OSBY-2026-0076
1. A Breach of Natural Justice The Appellant has been forced to prepare this defense blind. The
City has ignored five (5) formal requests for disclosure over 35 days. This is a Trial by Ambush
that violates the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.
2. Expert Finding vs. Administrative Hearsay The City’s claim of a significant infestation is
directly refuted by a January 9 inspection from Orkin Canada, which found Zero Live Activity. In
the absence of any further evidence after repeated requests, the order was issued solely based
on unverified third-party hearsay.
3. The "Diagonal" Overreach The Order mandates "diagonal" inspections and "follow-up
recommendations" from private contractors. This is a disproportionate invasion of the privacy of
six innocent families and an illegal delegation of municipal authority to a third-party company.
4. Misapplication of the By-law
● The "Injurious" Error: Bedbugs are a human nuisance; they do not injure the structure.
The City is using the wrong statutory tool, attempting to misapply a section of the law
whose spirit was intended to legislate against termites and other inspects with the
capability to make building structures vulnerable to collapse.
● The "Eradication" Error: The By-law defines extermination as removing harbouring
places. As documented by Orkin, the tenant’s hoarding (piles to the ceiling) provides the
harbouring places. The Appellant is legally barred from removing these items without a
Writ of Possession.
5. The Terminal Tenancy The tenant is currently facing eviction from the LTB as the tenancy is
not viable. It is a waste of Statutory Power to order a building-wide chemical application for a
unit that will be legally vacant and ready for professional stripping and remediation shortly.
Page 113 of 194
TAB A2
Page 114 of 194
TAB A2: NOTABLE COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE OF
ADJUSTMENT MEETING ON MARCH 3, 2026
“So I gather that you folks have a property standards appeal coming up and
I also gather that you, with the exception of Brian, probably haven’t had any experience in that
process. So I’ve been asked to come in on somewhat short notice…”— Erroll Treslan
“You want to bend over backwards to give the appellant a fair hearing.”— Erroll Treslan
“I don’t care if the person gets on the desk and defecates, do not use your contempt powers.”—
Erroll Treslan
“Snow on the roof. Gets put into property standards. It shouldn’t. It might be May before we get
around to a meeting, and then we stand around saying ‘Oh, did he remove the snow?’ It
shouldn’t even be in property standards as snow, it should be a bylaw unto itself, a dangerous
condition, overhanging ice, etcetera, etcetera. It should be a bylaw itself.”— Brian Green
“If we get any appeals, and they just want more time—nice, easy one.”— Brian Green
“Poor Ms. Landry has to keep strict minutes because, if it goes to court, it’s a whole different
ballpark.”— Brian Green
Page 115 of 194
TAB A3
Page 116 of 194
TAB A3: THE COMMITTEE’S POWERS TO RESCIND ORDERS
It is vital for the committee to understand that they have unfettered power to rescind orders in
any and all circumstances. They are free to do so, critically, even in cases where they are
certain that the law has been violated. On September 18, 2018, the Property Standards
Committee did precisely this with respect to an order against Grey Bruce Property Rentals Inc.
See Appendix 2
In this case, the committee found that the written by-law failed to consider various realities that
they would have wished to see the by-law contemplate. Therefore, since the by-law was not
sufficiently well written, they determined that it was not to be enforced against Grey Bruce
Property Rentals Inc.
From the meeting minutes: “The Committee carefully considered making our decision, but feels
that the lack of a room or exterior garbage enclosure is an existing non-conforming type of
situation. The Committee therefore rescinds the order and recommends that City Council
consider amending the Property Standards By-law to consider such situations.”
Page 117 of 194
TAB B
Page 118 of 194
TAB B: PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS AND DISCLOSURE FAILURES
KEPLER REAL ESTATE INC. EXHIBIT B-1: LOG OF FIVE (5) EMAILS SENT ASKING FOR
EVIDENCE AND DISCLOSURE
Page 119 of 194
Page 120 of 194
Page 121 of 194
Page 122 of 194
KEPLER REAL ESTATE INC. EXHIBIT B-2: ANALYSIS OF THE FEBRUARY 13 ANCHOR
DEMAND
The Document: Email sent Feb 13, 2026, to Officer Burgess and City Clerk Briana Bloomfield
(See Exhibit B-1)
1. Immediacy and Specificity The Appellant sent this demand less than 24 hours after
receiving the Order. It contained five (5) specific technical questions regarding:
● Physical entry vs. Hearsay.
● Scientific basis for infestation.
● Justification for diagonal unit mandates.
2. The Legal Trigger The email explicitly cited Section 15.2(2) of the Building Code Act and the
principles of Procedural Fairness. This put the City on formal notice that the Appellant’s right to
a fair hearing was being compromised by a lack of information.
3. The Hearsay Admission Notice The email stated: "Failure to provide the requested
particulars... will be interpreted as an admission... that the Order was issued solely upon
unverified third-party hearsay."
● Since the City chose to remain silent for over 35 days despite this warning, the Appellant
submits that the City has tacitly confirmed and wholly admitted the lack of a physical
inspection as required by the Building Code.
4. The Trial by Ambush Tactic If the City attempts to provide this information only 7 days prior
to the April 7th hearing, it constitutes a Trial by Ambush. The Ombudsman’s report No Way to
Comply (Para 179-180) condemns this "Communication Breakdown" as bad public service.
Page 123 of 194
KEPLER REAL ESTATE INC. EXHIBIT B-3A: APPLICATION OF OMBUDSMAN FINDINGS
ON OVERSIGHT FAILURE
Reference: No Way to Comply (2018) See Appendix 1
The Ombudsman’s Standard:
“221. The failure to investigate the complaint in accordance with the complaint
compliance protocol was a breach of standards... He sent her back to the very
person she was complaining about, unacceptable conduct on the part of any public
servant.
222. The Executive Director never responded to the Complainant despite the
requirements of the standard to do so.
171. When MLS is unable to get voluntary compliance, it has the power to lay
charges that ultimately may result in a court hearing.
172. With this function, comes an imperative for public accountability and trust.
Both the process and decision-making must be transparent and fair.
The Appellant submitted five (5) formal requests for disclosure between February 13 and
March 9, 2026. Every one of these requests was CC'd to the City Clerk, Briana Bloomfield,
in her capacity as the officer responsible for municipal transparency and accountability.
1. Despite the Accountability and Transparency standards of the City of Owen Sound, the
City Clerk’s office provided zero responses to five consecutive requests.
2. By failing to intervene or ensure disclosure was provided, the Clerk effectively sent the
Appellant back to the very person they were complaining about, allowing the primary
subject of the complaint to act as the gatekeeper of the evidence against him.
3. This constitutes a Systemic Oversight Failure. When the person responsible for the
integrity of the City’s records ignores a taxpayer’s request for those records during a
statutory appeal, the entire administrative process is compromised.
The City Clerk’s silence is not a mere oversight; it is an unacceptable conduct that mirrors the
bad public service identified by the Ombudsman. It proves that the Informational Blackout was
not limited to one officer, but was a coordinated failure at the highest levels of the Owen Sound
administration.
The Committee is asked to recognize that the City’s internal oversight failed. Because the Clerk
failed to respond as required by Provincial standards, the Appellant was denied a fair
opportunity to resolve this matter before the hearing.
Page 124 of 194
KEPLER REAL ESTATE INC. EXHIBIT B-3B: APPLICATION OF OMBUDSMAN FINDINGS
ON COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN
Reference: No Way to Comply (2018), See Appendix 1
The Ombudsman’s Standard:
“179. Repeatedly directing the Complainant to the Code in response to her
questions was inappropriate...
180. Instead of responding to her request in terms that could be more easily
understood... [it] constitutes a complete communication breakdown. It is an
example of bad public service.”
On multiple occasions (specifically following the February 12th Order), the Appellant requested
the particulars of the alleged infestation, including:
● Photographs of the alleged live samples.
● Inspection logs or field notes.
● The rationale for a 9-unit building-wide mandate following an Orkin finding earlier of Zero
Activity.
Instead of providing the requested evidence or clarifying the City’s position, the Officer
responded with a generic, non-substantive statement:
"This order was issued in accordance with bylaws, policies and procedures of the
City and in accordance with the building code act and the municipal act."
By hiding behind the names of statutes rather than providing the evidence requested, Officer
Brugess has engaged in the exact bad public service and communication breakdown
condemned by the Ontario Ombudsman.
This robotic response is a deliberate attempt to obstruct the Appellant's right to a fair hearing
and a breach of the duty of transparency. It demonstrates that the Officer is not interested in
compliance, but rather in maintaining an unchallengeable administrative authority.
Page 125 of 194
KEPLER REAL ESTATE INC. EXHIBIT B-4: ANALYSIS OF THE UNREASONABLE 4-DAY
COMPLIANCE DEADLINE
Reference: Communication from Officer Riley Burgess dated January 27, 2026, demanding a
building-wide eradication plan by February 2, 2026 (see Exhibit B-5)
1. Logistical Impossibility The Officer demanded a comprehensive eradication plan for a 9-unit
multi-residential building within only four (4) business days.
● A building-wide plan requires coordinating with 7 separate households, securing a
contract with a licensed pest control provider, and scheduling specialized technicians.
● Professional bedbug treatment requires tenants to perform extensive "prep" (laundry,
moving furniture, clearing closets). It is physically impossible for 7 families to receive
notice, understand instructions, and complete this preparation within a 96-hour window.
2. Conflict with Provincial Law (RTA) Under the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA), a landlord
must provide 24 hours' written notice to enter a unit.
● To inspect or treat 7 units, a landlord must issue 7 individual notices.
● By the time a landlord receives the Officer's demand, contacts a contractor to find an
available date, and issues the legal 24-hour notices, the 4-day window has already
expired.
3. Breach of the "Vavilov" Reasonableness Standard As established by the Supreme Court of
Canada in Vavilov, administrative decisions must be "intelligible and justified."
● A deadline that ignores the physical and logistical reality of the work requested is not
"intelligible."
● There is no evidence of an "Emergency" (which would require a Section 15.3 Order) that
justifies bypassing a reasonable length of time for compliance.
Page 126 of 194
KEPLER REAL ESTATE INC. EXHIBIT B-5: Comprehensive Chronology of Email History
Page 127 of 194
Page 128 of 194
Page 129 of 194
Page 130 of 194
Page 131 of 194
Page 132 of 194
Page 133 of 194
TAB C
Page 134 of 194
TAB C: TECHNICAL & EXPERT EVIDENCE (BEDBUGS)
KEPLER REAL ESTATE INC. Exhibit C-1: ORKIN CANADA REPORT (JAN 9)- FINDING OF
‘ZERO LIVE ACTIVITY’
Page 135 of 194
CONTACT ORKIN CANADA CORPORATION:
(705) 734-9477
016-BARRIE
4 ALLIANCE BLVD
Unit 12
BARRIE, ON L4M 7G3
SERVICE REPORT
SERVICE INFORMATION
CUSTOMER INFORMATION
Business Name
KEPLER REAL ESTATE INC
Date of Service
Customer Since
2025
Service Type
PC Standard - Odd Job
Service Event Type
PC Odd Job 1st Service
SERVICE ADDRESS
1/9/2026
Name
ALICIA GILLESPIE
Time In 11:03 AM
Address
235 8TH ST E
OWEN SOUND, ON N4K 1L2
INVOICE INFORMATION
Telephone
(226) 235-0221
Invoice / Service Report #
Account #
640216
Program ID
1640037
Time Out 12:05 PM
24998181
BILLING ADDRESS
Name
ALICIA GILLESPIE
Address
43363 SPARTA LINE
ST THOMAS, ON N5P 3S8
Telephone
(226) 235-0221
alicia@aliciagillespie.com
Email Address
TECHNICIAN NAME
JAMES GRAHAM
LICENSE # L-206-1117733331
COMMENTS ABOUT TODAY'S SERVICE
At the time of service inspection did not find any activity. Tenant showed me three bedbugs that were found about three weeks ago. I dusted
cracks and crevices.
TODAY'S OBSERVATIONS
Observation: Structural Concern
Pest Type:
Recommendation: Crack/gap in wall that requires sealing
Responsibility: Customer
Status: Pending (Customer resolution needed)
Location: Hole in ground in front of garage
Observation: Structural Concern
Pest Type:
Recommendation: Crack/gap in wall that requires sealing ( Backfill hole and seal any remaining gaps)
Responsibility: Customer
Status: Resolved
Page 136 of 194
PRODUCT DETAILS
For additional information, a copy of the Label and/or SDS may be requested from your local branch or from http:// www.orkincanada.ca.
Product Name
ONGUARD BED BUG KILLER PCP
#31515
Quantity
1
Active Ingredient
D-Phenothrin/Tetramethrin, .2%
Target Pests
Bed Bug
Formulation
Aerosol/Aérosol
PCP #
31515
ApplicationMethod
Crack and Crevice
Location
Interior - Perimeter
Application Rate
D-Phenothrin 0.20% and
Tetramethrin 0.20%
Lot Number
Application Equipment
Power Duster
Technician’s Signature
Customer's Signature
ALICIA GILLESPIE
ALICIA@ALICIAGILLESPIE.COM
If you would prefer to not have photos included on future service reports, contact your local branch.
ADDITIONAL DETAILS
WAS THERE EXTERIOR USE OF INSECTICIDE / HERBICIDE / FUNGICIDE / MITICIDE?
NO
Page 137 of 194
KEPLER REAL ESTATE INC. Exhibit C-2: ORKIN CANADA OBSERVATION – FINDING OF
FIRE HAZARD AND SANITATION ISSUE
Page 138 of 194
Page 139 of 194
KEPLER REAL ESTATE INC. EXHIBIT C-3: BIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF NON-MIGRATION
1. The Nature of Bedbug Migration Bedbugs are active crawlers that migrate between units in
multi-residential buildings via:
●
●
●
●
Electrical conduits and wall voids.
Plumbing chases and shared heating ducts.
Common hallways and shared laundry facilities.
Baseboards and flooring gaps.
2. The "Migration Gap" as Negative Proof The City issued a Building-Wide Order
(#OSBY-2026-0076) on the premise of a "significant infestation."
● The Physical Reality: In a 9-unit building, a "significant" infestation (one large enough to
be "found" and "established") would inevitably result in secondary infestations in
adjacent units—specifically the units beside, above, and directly below the source unit
(Unit #5).
● The Evidence of Absence: As of March 23rd, 2026, zero complaints have been received
from any of the other units in the building.
● The Office Observation: Two Kepler Real Estate employees work 40 hours per week in
the professional office situated directly beneath Unit #5. Both employees have reported
zero sightings, zero bites, and zero biological activity over the two-month period of this
dispute.
3. The "Over-Inclusive" Error Section 2.5.8.2 of the Owen Sound Property Standards By-law
allows for extermination only where an infestation is "found."
● The City has provided zero evidence of a finding in the common areas or the other units.
● By ordering a building-wide spray without evidence of migration, the City is engaging in
"Over-Inclusive Enforcement"
4. Scientific Improbability: If a "significant infestation" existed on February 11th, it is biologically
improbable that it would remain contained within a single unit for over 40 days without
spreading. The lack of sightings elsewhere is proof that the condition in Unit #5 is, at most, an
isolated introduction, not meeting the required definition of infestation.
Page 140 of 194
KEPLER REAL ESTATE INC. EXHIBIT C-4: WITNESS STATEMENT REGARDING LACK OF
PEST ACTIVITY
1. Personal Knowledge and Observation I am an employee of Kepler Real Estate Inc. and my
primary place of work is the professional office located directly beneath Unit #5 at 235 8th St E. I
have worked in this location for over 2 years and am present in the office for approximately 40
hours per week.
2. Physical Location Context The office I occupy is situated directly beneath the floorboards of
Unit #5. It shares electrical conduits, plumbing chases, and wall voids with the residential unit
above. As a person working in this space daily, I am uniquely positioned to observe any
migration of pests (specifically bedbugs) from the unit above into the commercial space below.
3. Statement of Facts
● Zero Sightings: Between January 1, 2026, and the date of this statement (March 23rd),
I have observed zero live bedbugs, nymphs, or eggs within the office premises.
● Zero Physical Evidence: I have found no physical evidence of bedbug activity, such as
fecal spotting, shed skins (exuviae), or blood stains on office furniture or common area
surfaces.
● Zero Physical Irritation: At no time during this period have I experienced bites, itching,
or skin irritation associated with bedbug activity while working in the office.
4. Conclusion on Migration The City has ordered a "Building-Wide" eradication based on a
"significant infestation" in Unit #5. Based on my daily presence in the space directly adjacent to
the alleged source, I can state with certainty that no such infestation has migrated to the lower
level of the building.
If a "significant" infestation existed, it is highly probable that activity would be visible in the office
directly below. My experience confirms that no such activity exists.
Page 141 of 194
TAB D
Page 142 of 194
TAB D: STATUTORY AND LEGAL REBUTTALS
KEPLER REAL ESTATE INC. EXHIBIT D1: REBUTTAL TO TERMINOLOGY & STATUTORY
MISCLASSIFICATION
Owen Sound Property Standards By-law #1999-030,
Section 2.5.8:
2.5.8.1 All buildings shall be kept free from vermin, termites and other injurious insects.
2.5.8.2 Where it is found that there is an infestation of insects or vermin within or about a
building, extermination and/or fumigation shall be carried out until the infestation is eradicated in
accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act and the Pesticides Act of
Ontario.
1. The"Ejusdem Generis Rule Under the legal principle of Ejusdem Generis, general words
("other injurious insects") that follow specific words ("vermin, termites") must be interpreted as
belonging to the same class as the specific words.
● The Class: Termites and vermin (rats/mice) are structurally destructive. They destroy
wood, chew through electrical wiring, and compromise insulation. They "injure" the real
property.
● The Mismatch: Bedbugs do not feed on wood, they do not compromise the structural
integrity of a building, and they do not cause "injury" to the property. They are a human
nuisance.
2. Health Canada & Ministry of Health Classification Health Canada and Public Health
Ontario categorize bedbugs as a Nuisance Pest, explicitly stating they are "not known to spread
disease" and are "not a health hazard."
● If a pest does not damage the building (not a Property Standards issue) and does not
spread disease (not a Health Hazard issue), it remains a "Nuisance."
● Officer Brugess is attempting to use a Structural Building Code to solve a Human
Nuisance issue. This is an "Ultra Vires" (beyond power) use of the By-law.
3. The "Infestation" Burden of Proof (Section 2.5.8.2) The City relies on the word
"infestation" to justify its building-wide order.
● An infestation requires proof of a self-sustaining population (eggs, multiple life stages).
● On January 9, Orkin Canada conducted an inspection and found "Zero Live Activity."
● The City has failed to provide any evidence of a sighting whatsoever, let alone an
‘infestation’ to justify an order.
Page 143 of 194
4. Statutory Impossibility
The order defines extermination as: “Extermination” means the control and elimination of
insects, termites, vermin, rodents or other pests by eliminating their harbouring places; by
removing or making inaccessible or unpalatable materials that may serve as their food, by
poison, spraying, fumigating, trapping or by any other recognised and appropriate means of
pest elimination.
The Appellant is legally barred from removing the tenant's piles to the ceiling (the harbouring
places) until the LTB issues a Writ of Possession. Compliance with the definition provided in the
By-law is therefore legally impossible.
Page 144 of 194
EXHIBIT D-2: ANALYSIS OF DISPROPORTIONATE & VAGUE MANDATES
Reference: Order #OSBY-2026-0076, "Work Required to Comply."
1. The Diagonal Search Error The Order mandates inspections for units "immediately above,
below, beside, and diagonal to the subject unit.
● Bedbug migration typically follows linear wall voids or common plumbing/electrical
chases (vertical or horizontal). There is zero technical justification for a "diagonal" search
in a multi-residential building, especially when the professional Orkin inspection on
January 9 found Zero Live Activity in the source unit itself.
● To date (March 23rd), we have not received a single complaint about bedbugs from any
unit in the building other than unit 5
● Under the Building Code Act, an order must be necessary to achieve compliance. A
diagonal search of clean units where no activity has been reported by tenants is an
arbitrary fishing expedition that exceeds the Officer's authority.
2. Interference with "Quiet Enjoyment": By ordering the Landlord to inspect units that have
zero history of activity and zero tenant complaints, the City is forcing a potential breach of the
Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).
● If the Landlord enters a non-affected tenant's unit without a valid maintenance reason or
tenant complaint, the Landlord faces immediate T2 (Harassment/Privacy) claims at the
Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB). If the landlord were to follow the City’s
requests, it is expected that the Province of Ontario would find the landlord guilty of an
offence under the Residential Tenancies Act 2006.
● The City’s Order effectively forces the Landlord to choose between violating a municipal
By-law or violating provincial Tenant Protection laws. The City cannot order a citizen or
entity to perform an act that exposes them to legal liability under Provincial legislation.
3. Improper Delegation of Statutory Authority The Order requires the Appellant to complete
any follow-up treatments recommended by the pest control company.
● A municipality cannot delegate its enforcement power to a private, for-profit third party.
● This mandate gives a private contractor a blank cheque to order unlimited, expensive
treatments at the Landlord's expense. Only a Property Standards Officer—not a private
technician—has the legal power to determine if an Order has been satisfied.
4. Failure of the "Vavilov" Reasonableness Test The Supreme Court of Canada in Minister
of Citizenship and Immigration v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 requires government decisions to
be "intelligible and justified." There is no rational chain of logic that leads from one unverified
report of bedbugs by Unit 5 (in the absence of any other complaint in the building) to mandatory
chemical inspections of hallways and diagonal apartments across an entire building.
Page 145 of 194
TAB E
Page 146 of 194
TAB E: REMEDIATION & TERMINATION OF TENANCY
KEPLER REAL ESTATE INC. EXHIBIT E-1: ARGUMENT ON THE FUTILITY OF
ENFORCEMENT PENDING POSSESSION
Reference: Order #OSBY-2026-0076 and Owen Sound By-law #1999-030, Section 2.5.8.
1. The Statutory Definition of "Extermination" Section 2.5.8 of the By-law defines
"Extermination" as the process of "eliminating harbouring places" and the removal of conditions
that allow pests to survive.
● The Reality: As documented by Orkin Canada (Exhibit C-2), Unit #5 is in a state of
extreme hoarding with "piles to the ceiling" and significant sanitation issues. These piles
are the primary "harbouring places."
2. The Legal Impossibility of Compliance Under the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA), a
landlord has no legal authority to forcibly remove a tenant’s personal belongings, furniture, or
"hoarded" items while the tenant remains in possession of the unit.
● The Deadlock: The City’s Order requires "Extermination" (which includes removing
harbouring places). However, Provincial law (RTA) forbids the Landlord from removing
those items. The City is effectively ordering the Landlord to perform an illegal act or an
act that is legally impossible to execute.
3. The Expert Opinion on Futility The licensed technician from Orkin Canada explicitly noted
that effective treatment is impossible until the unit is properly prepared.
● Applying chemical treatments to a "hoarded" unit is not only ineffective but is a violation
of the Pesticides Act protocols, which require targeted application to specific surfaces.
● Spraying chemicals onto piles of clutter does not achieve "eradication"; it merely creates
a toxic environment without solving the biological problem.
4. The Pending Eviction. The Appellant has already initiated legal proceedings to terminate the
tenancy of Unit #5 (Exhibit E-2)
● The Writ of Possession: Once a Writ of Possession is issued by the Landlord and
Tenant Board (LTB) and executed by the Sheriff, the Landlord will have the legal right to
clear the unit, remove the "harbouring places," and conduct a professional,
deep-structure remediation.
● Waste of Statutory Power: To force a building-wide chemical treatment now, while the
source unit is inaccessible and un-preparable, is a waste of municipal and private
resources.
Page 147 of 194
KEPLER REAL ESTATE INC. EXHIBIT E-2: PROOF OF EVICTION PROCEEDINGS AND
NON-VIABILITY OF TENANCY
Page 148 of 194
Notice to End your Tenancy at the End of the Term
N8
(Disponible en français)
To: (Tenant's name) include all tenant names
From: (Landlord's name)
JERICO DODD
KEPLER REAL ESTATE INC.
Address of the Rental Unit:
5-235 8TH STREET EAST, OWEN SOUND, ON N4K 1L2
This is a legal notice that could lead to you being evicted from your home.
The following information is from your landlord
I am giving you this notice because I want to end your tenancy - I want you to move out of your
rental unit by the following termination date:
3 0 // 0 6 // 2 0 2 6 .
dd/mm/yyyy
My Reason(s) for Ending your Tenancy
I have shaded the box(es) next to my reason(s) for ending your tenancy.
✔
Reason 1: You have persistently paid your rent late.
Reason 2: You no longer qualify to live in public or subsidized housing.
Reason 3: I made the unit available to you as a condition of your employment and your employment
has ended.
Reason 4: Your tenancy was created in good faith as a result of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale
for a proposed condominium unit and that agreement has been terminated.
Reason 5: You are occupying the unit specifically to receive rehabilitative or therapeutic services and
the period of tenancy to which you agreed has ended.
I can only give you a notice for this reason if no other tenant receiving rehabilitative and/or
therapeutic services is allowed to live in the residential complex for more than 4 years.
Details About the Reasons for this Notice
I have listed below the events that have led me to give you this notice, including the dates and specific
details.
SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE 'A'
v. 01/04/2022
PagePage
149 1ofof 194
2
Important Information from the Landlord and Tenant Board
The
termination
date
For most types of tenancies (including monthly tenancies) the termination date must be at least
60 days after the landlord gives you this notice. Also, the termination date must be the last
day of a rental period. For example, if you pay rent on the first of each month, the termination
date must be the last day of the month. If the tenancy is for a fixed term (for example, a lease
for one year), the termination date cannot be earlier than the last date of the fixed term.
Exception: The termination date must be at least 28 days after the landlord gives you this
notice if your tenancy is daily or weekly (you pay rent daily or weekly). Also, the termination
date must be the last day of the rental period. For example, if you pay rent weekly each
Monday, the termination date must be a Sunday. If the tenancy is for a fixed term, the
termination date cannot be earlier than the last date of the fixed term.
What if you
disagree with
the notice?
You do not have to move out if you disagree with what the landlord has put in this notice.
However, the landlord can apply to the Board to evict you. The Board will schedule a
hearing where you can explain why you disagree.
What if you
move out?
If you move out of the rental unit by the termination date, your tenancy ends on that date.
What if the
landlord
applies to
the Board?
The landlord can apply to the Board to evict you immediately after giving you this notice. If the
landlord applies to the Board to evict you, the Board will schedule a hearing and send you a
copy of the application and the Notice of Hearing. The Notice of Hearing sets out the date, time
and location of the hearing. At the hearing, the landlord will have to prove the claims they
made in this Notice to End your Tenancy and in the application and you can respond to the
claims your landlord makes. If the Board issues an order ending your tenancy and evicting you,
the order will not require you to move out any earlier than the termination date included in this
notice.
How to get
more
information
For more information about this notice or your rights, you can contact the Landlord and
Tenant Board. You can reach the Board by phone at 416-645-8080 or 1-888-332-3234.
You can visit the Board's website at tribunalsontario.ca/ltb.
Signature
First Name
✔ Landlord
Representative
J O N A T H A N
Last Name
K E P L E R
Phone Number
( 2 2 6 ) 3 7 9 - 4 8 6 8
Signature
Date (dd/mm/yyyy)
12/02/2026
Representative Information (if applicable)
Name
LSUC #
Company Name (if applicable)
Mailing Address
Phone Number
Municipality (City, Town, etc.)
Province
In Person
Fax Number
File Number
OFFICE USE ONLY:
Delivery Method:
Postal Code
Mail
Courier
Email
Efile
Fax
FL
PagePage
150 2ofof 194
2
Schedule ‘A’ - Payment History
Rent is due on the 1st day of each month. The rental payments have been paid persistently late
based on the etransfer payment dates and amounts which are outlined below (DD/MM/YYYY):
03/09/2025: $1345.83
10/09//2025: $29.17
03/10//2025: $1375.00
07/11//2025: $1303.24
08/11/2025: $71.91
18/12/2025: $1375.00
As of 12/02/2026: $0.00
Page 151 of 194
APPENDIX 1
Page 152 of 194
Report
September 2011
NO WAY TO COMPLY
An Investigation into the Enforcement Practices of
Municipal Licensing and Standards
Fiona Crean
Ombudsman
Page 153 of 194
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 1
2.0
The Complaint ................................................................................................................. 3
3.0
The Investigation ............................................................................................................. 3
4.0
The Issues ....................................................................................................................... 3
5.0
The Facts ........................................................................................................................ 3
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.10
5.11
5.12
5.13
5.14
Background .......................................................................................................... 3
Inspection #1 ........................................................................................................ 4
Property Standards Order..................................................................................... 5
Municipal Code and Complainant‟s Efforts to Contact MLS ................................. 6
Inspection #2 ........................................................................................................ 8
Inspection #3 ........................................................................................................ 9
Preparing for Prosecution ................................................................................... 10
Notice of Prosecution.......................................................................................... 11
Inspection #4 ...................................................................................................... 12
Escalation of the Complaint ................................................................................ 13
Prosecution ......................................................................................................... 16
Inspection #5 ...................................................................................................... 16
Post Prosecution................................................................................................. 17
MLS Operating Procedures ................................................................................ 18
6.0
Policies and Procedures ................................................................................................ 19
6.1
Training ......................................................................................................................... 19
7.0
Directive Regarding Ombudsman Investigation ........................................................... 19
8.0
Ombudsman Findings ................................................................................................... 20
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
9.0
Duty of Fairness.................................................................................................. 20
Failure to Communicate ...................................................................................... 21
Unreasonable Conduct ....................................................................................... 21
Flawed Process: Content of Order...................................................................... 22
Lack of Training and Support .............................................................................. 23
Poor Record Keeping ......................................................................................... 23
Management of the Complaint ............................................................................ 24
Actions of the Executive Director ................................................................................... 24
i
Page 154 of 194
10.0
Ombudsman Conclusions ............................................................................................. 25
11.0
Ombudsman Recommendations ................................................................................... 26
12.0
The City‟s Response ..................................................................................................... 28
Appendix A – Relevant Legislation........................................................................................... 29
ii
Page 155 of 194
1.0
Executive Summary
1.
Ms A complained to the Office of the Ombudsman that the Municipal Licensing
and Standards Division (MLS) acted unfairly in enforcing a Property Standards
Order. She said they failed to explain the order and were dismissive of her
queries and concerns.
2.
The investigation looked at the MLS actions, the conduct of the Municipal
Standards Officer (MSO) and the process MLS followed in responding to Ms A‟s
complaints.
3.
During the investigation, the Ombudsman learned that the MLS executive
director directed his staff to report the details of their interviews with the
investigator. Since the content of interviews is, by mandate, confidential, this
action was added to the investigation.
4.
In 2007, Ms A bought a bungalow in Etobicoke for her elderly mother, who did
not adjust well to the new home. As a result, Ms A rented the property until the
end of May 2009, when she began renovations to the home. In June, the former
tenant called MLS to report a property standards complaint. The City issued an
Order that a deck having no guards or handrails needed to come into compliance
with the Toronto Municipal Code. It had to be done by July 13 and she had until
June 30 to appeal the order. Schedule „A‟ attached to the Order, intended to
provide Ms A details on the state of non-compliance, was prepared by the MSO
with out-dated and incorrect information.
5.
On June 23, during the municipal labour disruption that lasted until July 27, Ms A
received the Order by registered mail. She found it confusing and wanted to talk
with the MSO for an explanation. Two weeks after the conclusion of the labour
disruption, Ms A reached the MSO, but he refused to engage in a discussion,
saying Schedule „A‟ contained all the information and she should get a
professional. There followed many phone calls and attempts to get clear
instructions on the non-compliance. Rather than clarify the order, the MSO
completed 4 additional inspections of the property, at a cost to the complainant of
$60.00 per inspection.
6.
In the end, Ms A was charged and prosecuted for failing to comply. Throughout
the process, Ms A complained about the MSO‟s attitude and an overall lack of
communications. The matter was eventually escalated to the Executive Director,
but at no point did Ms A receive an adequate response to her concerns.
7.
The investigation found:
Communications were unacceptable at all levels. MLS failed to explain
the order or respond to Ms A‟s queries in a reasonable way.
1
Page 156 of 194
8.
The process was flawed. Schedule „A‟ was difficult to understand and
contained errors.
By taking no steps to communicate in a responsible way with Ms A, the
MSO showed unreasonable conduct. Providing inaccurate and vague
information was unprofessional and contrary to the approach expected by
senior management.
Training and support were lacking. Manuals and directives were out of
date and there was a lack of understanding of the supervisor‟s role in
reviewing prosecution files.
MLS had poor record keeping. The files related to this complaint had no
discernable order. Actions, such as conversations between MLS staff and
the Complainant were either not recorded at all, or recorded insufficiently.
MLS failed to respond appropriately to Ms A‟s complaint about the MSO‟s
conduct. At every level, including senior management, MLS failed to
adhere to its complaints handling policy.
The Executive Director acted inappropriately in telling his staff to report to
him the contents of their interactions with the Ombudsman investigator.
His staff were either insubordinate by not following his directive or
breached the Ombudsman‟s confidentiality provisions.
The Ombudsman made recommendations to improve the system, including:
Provisions for up-to-date training for staff
Keeping manuals up to date
Developing a service standard for timely notice to residents
Developing a service standard to ensure files and enforcement options are
thoroughly reviewed prior to a charge being laid
Keeping accurate and sufficient records
Communicating in a timely and professional manner
Measuring job performance by City standards
Counselling employees involved in this matter
9.
At an individual level, the Ombudsman recommended Ms A be provided with a
written apology and a refund of the re-inspection fees.
10.
The City Manager, in his response to the Ombudsman's recommendations,
accepted them.
2
Page 157 of 194
2.0
The Complaint
11.
3.0
4.0
Ms A (the Complainant) complained to my Office that the Municipal Licensing
and Standards Division (MLS) acted unfairly in enforcing a Property Standards
Order. She complained about the conduct of MLS staff and contends that the
division failed to explain the Order, and was dismissive of her queries and
concerns.
The Investigation
12.
Extensive preliminary enquiries were made.
13.
On January 28, 2011, I sent the City Manager formal notice of intent to
investigate this matter.
14.
My investigator interviewed MLS employees along with the Complainant. He
reviewed documents, applicable legislation, policies and processes.
15.
At the outset of every investigative interview, each witness is informed that the
investigation is conducted in private, and told that the content of that interview is
confidential and should remain so throughout the investigation. Interviews are
taped to ensure accuracy and integrity of the evidence.
The Issues
16.
The investigation addressed the following matters:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
17.
During the course of the investigation, I learned of a directive from the then
Executive Director of MLS to staff who participated in my investigation. He
directed his staff to report to him the details of their interviews (questions and
answers) with my investigator. Once I became aware of these instructions, this
matter was investigated.
5.0
The Facts
5.1
Background
18.
The inspection and enforcement actions taken by MLS;
The conduct of the Municipal Standards Officer (MSO); and,
The process followed by MLS in responding to Ms A's complaints.
In the fall of 2007, the Complainant purchased a 700 square foot bungalow in
Etobicoke for her elderly mother, who has dementia. The property was close to
the Complainant‟s primary residence so that she could care for her mother more
easily.
3
Page 158 of 194
5.2
19.
Her mother did not adjust well to the new home so she put the property up for
sale in the spring of 2008.
20.
The Complainant rented the property from the summer of 2008 to May 2009.
21.
From May to the fall of 2009 it remained empty while she completed renovations.
Inspection #1
22.
On June 1, 2009, the Complainant‟s former tenant called MLS to report a
property standards complaint. The description of the complaint is listed as
“improper repair in the back room, door knob missing.”
23.
According to MLS, once a complaint is received, an MSO conducts an inspection
of the property. Although the complaint may not be substantiated, other
deficiencies may be observed and Notices or Orders could be issued.
24.
A Notice is issued for by-law violations observed on a property. In the event that
the property owner fails to comply with the Notice, residents are informed that
MLS can take steps to rectify the situation and transfer the costs incurred to their
municipal tax bill.
25.
Orders are issued to residents for contraventions of the Building Code Act.
26.
On June 10, 2009, an MSO inspected the Complainant‟s property.
27.
His notes indicate that he knocked on the door and when no one answered, he
left a business card and conducted an exterior inspection of the premises.
28.
The MSO did not find evidence of a missing doorknob in the backroom but he
found other deficiencies.
29.
He issued a Notice of Violation dated June 11, 2009 for long grass and/or weeds
in excess of 20 centimetres and for failure to clear refuse. He took pictures of the
violations; one of long grass and weeds, and a second one of what appeared to
be two pieces of stacked drywall along the side of the house.
30.
The MSO also noted during his inspection that there was a raised deck three feet
high with steps two feet wide that was missing guards and handrails. He
informed my investigator that the deck posed a safety risk.
31.
Although the Notice for the long grass and weeds required corrective action to be
taken by June 17, 2009, the Complainant did not receive it until June 23, 2009.
4
Page 159 of 194
5.3
Property Standards Order
32.
On June 11, 2009, the City issued an Order by registered mail to the
Complainant, pursuant to section 15.2(2) of the Building Code Act. The Order
noted that the inspection of the deck “revealed that in some respects the property
does not conform with the standards prescribed by the Toronto Municipal Code,
Chapter 629, Property Standards.” 1
33.
Schedule „A‟ was attached to the Order and is intended to provide details on the
state of non-compliance:
The items listed herein are in violation of the Toronto
Municipal Code, Chapter 629, Property Standards.
34.
1.
The required handrail(s) are not installed/maintained
to comply with the Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter
629, Property Standards, namely; the required
handrail on the exterior stairs that have more than 3
risers and serve not more than one dwelling unit, is
not provided. Section 19C.
2.
The required guard(s) are not installed/maintained to
comply with the Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter
629, Property Standards (the Code), namely; the
open side of the interior/exterior stairs is not protected
by the required guard (the minimum height of the
guard shall be 800 mm, 31 inches).
A review of the Code by my investigator revealed that Schedule „A‟ contained two
inaccuracies. The applicable handrail section of the Code is 19E not 19C. The
guard height requirement in the Order was also incorrect. Section 19C(2)(c)
indicates that
exterior guards serving not more that one dwelling
unit shall be not less than 900 millimetres high where
the walking surface served by the guard is not more
than 1,800 millimetres [5.9 feet] above the finished
ground level.
1
35.
The MSO informed my investigator that the 800 mm figure noted in Schedule 'A'
as the minimum height requirement for guards was a typographical error.
36.
The Complainant found the Order unclear. She states that Schedule „A‟ referred
to section 19C in its entirety, four pages of inaccessible language.
In Appendix A, Items 1 through 6 provide the relevant legislation governing a property standards inspection of this nature.
5
Page 160 of 194
5.4
37.
Ms A said she was surprised to receive notice of the violation from the MSO prior
to being contacted to rectify the problem. My investigator received conflicting
reports from MLS staff regarding the appropriate protocol for dealing with
residents who are the subject of an Order or Notice.
38.
The MSO, his supervisor, his manager and the Director of Investigation Services,
confirmed that it is acceptable to issue an Order/Notice prior to making direct
contact with a resident.
39.
The Executive Director said that significant steps should be taken to make direct
contact with residents first.
40.
This approach to enforcement is posted on the MLS website. In describing its bylaw compliance program, the website explains that alternative dispute resolution
and educational approaches are to be used to ”initiate proactive prevention.”
Legal proceedings should be used “if necessary.”
41.
The Operational Procedures for Property Maintenance (Wastes), and Long
Grass and Weeds, instruct MSOs to issue a Notice where evidence exists of a
violation. Neither makes any reference to contacting the homeowner prior to
issuing the Notice.
42.
MLS does not have a directive, in accordance with the Code, to provide MSOs
with guidance on how to inspect and enforce Building Code violations related to
stairs, guards or handrails.
43.
The Order required that the guards and handrails be installed by July 13, 2009
and noted that the Complainant could appeal the Order up to June 30, 2009.
44.
Ms A expressed concerns about the information and had questions about the
technical language and the processing of the Order.
45.
She did not appeal the Order. Ms A wanted to discuss the matter with the MSO
first. She said she could not have known on what basis to file an appeal prior to
receiving clarification from the MSO. She was also reluctant to spend the $200
fee to appeal the Order when she believed the matter could be resolved.
Municipal Code and Complainant’s Efforts to Contact MLS
46.
The Complainant received the Order by registered mail on June 23, 2009, during
the municipal labour disruption that lasted until July 27.
47.
She attempted to contact the MSO immediately but was informed that no
property standards issues were being handled during the labour disruption.
48.
When it was over, Ms A states that she again tried to reach the MSO, but his
voicemail box was full. She reached him approximately two weeks later.
6
Page 161 of 194
49.
Ms A states that she told the MSO the deck could not have posed a significant
safety risk since no one was living in the house. She noted that the long grass
and weeds were evidence that the house was vacant, and the drywall showed
she was in the process of renovating the home.
50.
The Complainant states that during several conversations with the MSO between
August and October 2009, she questioned him about the Order and the relevant
sections of the Code. She said that she raised the following issues/concerns with
the MSO:
51.
she could not find anything in section 19C of the Code that referred to
handrail requirements;
she could not find any reference in the Code which corresponded to the
minimum height requirement for the guard set out in Schedule 'A'
she asked about the requirements for the openings in guards.
Section 629-19C(4)(a) states,
…openings through any guard that is required by
Subsection C(1) shall be of a size that will prevent the
passage of a spherical object having a diameter of
100 millimetres unless it can be shown that the
location and size of openings that exceed this limit do
not represent a hazard.
52.
Ms A states that the MSO could not explain how one would exceed the
prescribed limit without presenting a hazard. She said she suggested a few
scenarios. The Complainant told him that neighbours had used flower pots as
guards, and enquired about the adequacy of such an approach.
53.
The MSO told my investigator that he was not aware of any provisions in the
Code that would allow for exemptions to the guard requirement.
54.
Ms A states that the MSO was “dismissive” and “belligerent.” She submits the
following as examples of what she was told over the course of their
conversations: “what do you want? I don‟t have time for this; you don‟t know what
you‟re doing; get a professional.” She attributes his behaviour to the fact that she
was questioning his understanding of the Code.
55.
The Complainant states that she also asked the MSO to provide her with time to
comply. She said that she asked him if she could install the guards and
handrails after completing her renovations to the property. Ms A claims that the
MSO agreed, giving her until early November to address the deficiencies.
7
Page 162 of 194
5.5
56.
The MSO said he could not recall speaking with her in 2009. There are no
records of any conversations with Ms A on file covering this period. He also
denies granting her an extension. He states that he has the authority to grant an
extension, but it would require a letter from the Complainant confirming that such
an arrangement had been made. There is no such letter on file.
57.
MLS posts information about Orders on its website for residents to track the
progress of complaints. The information includes a re-inspection date. The
Complainant saw that the re-inspection was scheduled for November 12, 2009.
She provided my investigator with a copy of the posting from the MLS website
confirming the November re-inspection date.
58.
Ms A contends that November 12 was selected by the MSO as a result of their
agreement.
59.
When asked about the re-inspection date posted online, the MSO stated he did
not know how the date was generated.
60.
He told my investigator that once an Order expires, the record keeping system
automatically alerts him to the need for re-inspection, which usually occurs within
one to two weeks. He could not explain why the re-inspection had not taken
place earlier, but said the delay may have been because of the labour disruption.
61.
The Executive Director and Director informed my investigator that the reinspection date is entered by MSOs into the record keeping system.
Inspection #2
62.
The MSO completed his re-inspection of the property on October 25, 2009, two
weeks earlier than the date posted on the MLS website. The MSO noted that the
long grass and weeds were cut and the refuse had been removed, clearing two
of the violations.
63.
The MSO found that compliance with the Order, however, had not been
achieved. No attempt was made to communicate that to the Complainant.
64.
Ms A states that she installed a railing on her deck in early November 2009. She
submits that she called the MSO to inform him that she had completed the work.
At the time, she was unaware that the MSO had already re-inspected her
property.
8
Page 163 of 194
65.
The MSO placed the following note in the system:
Nov 2/09 received a recorded message from property
owner stating that handrails and guards will be
installed. H/owner did not leave #.
5.6
66.
The MSO told my investigator that he did not call the Complainant back because
she did not leave her number. There was a number on the MLS file, however, it
was incorrect.
67.
He said that in cases when he does not have a resident‟s coordinates, he usually
performs a search using 411. He did not in this case.
68.
Ms A is listed in the Canada 411 directory.
69.
On January 11, 2010, the Complainant was charged a re-inspection fee of
$60.00.2 This was her first indication that an inspection occurred on October 25,
2009.
Inspection #3
70.
Municipal Standards Officers have the authority to lay charges for failing to
comply with an Order. Once a charge has been laid, a municipal prosecutor is
assigned to the case.
71.
On February 26, 2010, the MSO conducted a third inspection. He found the
handrail installed but noted that the guards were missing. He decided that a
charge was warranted.
72.
He did not contact the Complainant to inform her of the charge.
73.
The Complainant submits that when she contacted the MSO in November 2009,
to inform him that she had completed the requisite work, she expected him to
contact her if the work was deficient.
74.
The MSO told my investigator that he issued the charge in part because of the
time that had elapsed from the date of the Order, and because continued reinspection of the Complainant‟s property, would result in additional re-inspection
fees until she came into compliance.
75.
The MSO said that if a charge is not laid within one year, an Order can no longer
be enforced. He noted that while an Order could be withdrawn and re-issued, he
would be questioned by his superiors for not taking action within the year. He
2
Schedule „A‟ to the Order contains the following information regarding re-inspection fees, “…if compliance to this Order is not achieved at the
time of re-inspection, additional inspections will result in fees being charged at a rate of $60.00 per hour (with a minimum charge of $60.00)”.
9
Page 164 of 194
reasoned that the Complainant had already been provided with enough time to
comply.
5.7
76.
Several MLS personnel informed my investigator that their primary focus is to
have residents comply with Orders prior to the need for legal consequences. My
investigator was advised that charges are laid only in extreme situations, or when
it is clear that the resident is not cooperating.
77.
A Supervisor in the Etobicoke/York District office told my investigator that
everything should be done to prevent the laying of charges because they are
more expensive and time consuming to process.
78.
The Complainant states that she was unaware the MSO had re-inspected her
property on February 26, and was not told that the work she completed was
deficient. She states that when she originally discussed the possibility of an
exemption for the guard requirement, the MSO said very little, leading her to
believe that an exemption would be granted.
79.
Ms A contends that if the MSO had explained the problem instead of dismissing
her, she would have understood the requirements. She submits that her ongoing
attempts to communicate demonstrated a desire to cooperate.
Preparing for Prosecution
80.
The MSO prepared a Crown brief and package of evidence to be reviewed by his
supervisor, and then transferred it to the MLS prosecution department.
81.
My review confirmed that the MSO‟s supervisor, signed off on the prosecution
file. However, she does not recall doing so, nor can she remember the details of
the file.
82.
The Supervisor explained that in the event a re-inspection showed a property
owner was in partial compliance, she would expect the MSO to contact the
individual. During that interaction, s/he should explain what additional steps
need to be taken to come into full compliance. The Supervisor suggested that in
these circumstances, an extension of two weeks to address the deficiencies
would be appropriate. However, this was not a factor in her review of Ms A‟s file.
83.
The Supervisor said that she only reviews files to determine whether they are
complete and ready for prosecution. She ensures that the evidence is included
and that the Crown Brief has been properly filled out and any other information
that the prosecution requires is in the package. She stated that she does not
consider whether she agrees with laying the charge since MSOs are
professionals, and it is their decision.
84.
The Director disputes the Supervisor's interpretation of the review process. He
said supervisors should assess the entire file to determine whether a reasonable
10
Page 165 of 194
process was followed and whether charging the property owner is the correct
approach in the circumstances. He acknowledges that an MSO has discretion to
lay a charge, however, he states supervisors can instruct the MSO to make
additional efforts before taking this step.
5.8
85.
The MSO informed my investigator his superiors sign off with no review.
86.
The review did not identify the technical errors in Schedule 'A' and by March 1, a
charge had been laid against the Complainant for failing to comply with the
Order.
87.
The MSO did not inform Ms A of the charge.
Notice of Prosecution
88.
On June 11, 2010, a re-inspection fee was generated for the February 26
inspection.
89.
The Complainant called the number on the invoice for an explanation of the fee.
She said that she was transferred to the Manager of the Etobicoke York district.
90.
The Manager states he had a number of conversations with Ms A in June 2010.
He said no records were entered in the system because he did not have time to
do so. He explained that the district handles 12, 000 files a year, and he
personally receives between 25 and 75 complaints a month.
91.
The Manager informed Ms A that her violation remained outstanding and that her
file had been sent to the prosecution unit. He acknowledged that the
Complainant first heard about the decision to prosecute the matter from him. He
confirmed that she complained about the MSO, but after reviewing the case
details, he decided not to intervene. The Manager told my investigator,
“I‟m not going to wave a magic wand and do
away with non-compliance. She‟s nowhere near
compliance.”
92.
The Complainant said she was “shocked” by the Manager‟s response, but
nonetheless followed his direction and contacted the MSO on June 14, 2010.
93.
The MSO‟s entry in the system notes,
June 14, 2010 received a call from property owner
…questioning (sic.) the re inspection fees. I advised
her that compliance was not achieved over six
months after the Order was issued and the matter
is before the court. She stated that she will install
the proper guards/handrails and will call back ones
11
Page 166 of 194
(sic.) the work is completed. I reminded her that the
work shall be carried out in a manner accepted as
good workmanship.
5.9
94.
The MSO states that it was a “very long” conversation, but his entry in the
electronic information system is short, including only what he believed to be the
most important facts. He says that many residents become angry and make
accusations, but he does not record those types of comments. He denies being
rude to Ms A.
95.
The Complainant contends that during the June 14 phone call, the MSO‟s “bad
attitude” continued. She states that he remained evasive and refused to provide
her with anything in writing. She said she was trying to cooperate despite telling
him his behaviour was unacceptable.
96.
When my investigator questioned the MSO about the extent to which he
explained the requirements for compliance, he stated that Ms A said she would
install the guard and handrail and call him back when it was done. He said she
therefore knew what she was doing.
97.
The MSO said he could not design the deck, and that his job is to inform a
resident about the compliance requirements set out in the Code. He explained
that he would not suggest to a resident how repairs should be done, although he
may have told Ms A she could go to Home Depot to look at examples of guards
and handrails.
98.
The MSO's position was supported by the Manager. In response to questions
about the level of detail an MSO can provide regarding deficiencies, he said that
under no circumstances could an MSO “design” anything for a resident.
99.
This view is in contrast to that of the Director and the Executive Director who said
they expected MSOs to use lay terms, explain deficiencies and tell residents in
clear language what they must do to come into compliance.
100.
Ms A contends that during her conversation with the MSO, she tried to take notes
of the work that needed to be done based on his limited instructions. On June 21,
when she believed the deck was in compliance, she sent an e-mail to the MSO.
Inspection #4
101.
On June 22, the MSO inspected the property for the fourth time. He took
photographs showing an extension on one of the handrails leading up the steps
to match the other handrail. The photographs also showed that the Complainant
had added two vertical pieces of wood in the middle of the handrail on either side
of the elevated portion of the deck.
12
Page 167 of 194
102.
On June 24, 2010, the MSO e-mailed Ms A to inform her that the work did not
meet the required standards. He wrote:
Repairs shall be carried out in a manner accepted as
good workmanship in the trades concerned and with
material suitable and sufficient for the purpose.
The required guard shall comply with the Toronto
Municipal Code, Chapter 629, Property Standards,
guards shall not be less than 1,070 millimetres high
and openings through any guard shall be of a size
that will prevent the passage of a spherical object
having a diameter of 100 millimetres.
The required handrail shall be installed and
maintained in accordance with the Code, handrail
shall be provided on two sides of stairs 1,100
millimetres in width or greater.
5.10
103.
The MSO said he measured the height of Ms A's handrail as 900mm, and found
it was too short. No notation was made in the file but the MSO told my
investigator that he recalled the height.
104.
The information contained in the June 24 e-mail to Ms A is incorrect. The
requirement for her guard is 900, not 1070 mm. Further, the Code only requires
one handrail on exterior stairs that serve a single dwelling unit.
105.
When asked about the apparent discrepancy between the Code and his e-mail,
the MSO told my investigator that his e-mail was accurate.
106.
Ms A states that when she spoke with the MSO after receiving his e-mail, he
raised a new compliance issue that she had not used the right type of wood to
build the handrail. She submits that he provided no further explanation.
“Frustrated” and “confused,” Ms A wrote to the Manager on June 28.
Escalation of the Complaint
107.
On June 30, the Manager responded. He wrote:
Municipal Licensing and Standards does not instruct as to
how repairs are to be carried out; however Section 19 of
Chapter 629 sets out the requirements for guards and
handrails. I have asked the officer to provide you with the
applicable sections to assist you and your contractor to bring
the guards and handrails in compliance.
13
Page 168 of 194
108.
The Manager also wrote that he does not interfere with a file before the courts
and asked the Complainant to speak directly with the MSO to resolve the
outstanding requirements. He concluded:
It would be my position you have had significant time
to bring the property into compliance and that the
officer has acted properly in the handling of the
investigation.
109.
On July 9, Ms A answered, questioning why the Manager did not provide her with
specifics, instead of referring her back to the MSO. She said she sought a written
explanation that would indicate the exact basis for the finding of non-compliance.
Ms A told my investigator she felt powerless to question the MSO's interpretation
of the Code without an understanding of the contravention.
110.
The Complainant wrote that it should have been quite obvious to the Manager
that she wanted to rectify any non-compliance and that she had been acting
diligently. She wrote:
…although you are now attempting to defend your
actions or inactions and those of your staff, I believe
that I was and still am being unfairly treated… The
service I received from MLS was not transparent, was
not honest, and was not efficient or professional.
111.
On July 15, the Manager replied. Regarding her concerns about the MSO, he
wrote:
Attempts are made to contact and inform property
owners by business cards or telephone calls when
possible. Contact with individuals is not always
obtained and the formal process for notification for
Court action is the issuing of a Summons.
112.
The Manager said he was attaching a copy of Section 19 with the pertinent
sections highlighted. He drew the Complainant‟s attention to Section 7 of the
Code, which refers to the good workmanlike and suitable materials requirement.
He concluded,
when reading Sections 629-7 and 629-19 and comparing the
requirements set out in these sections you will better
understand the requirements set out in the regulations and
what remains to be completed.
113.
The Manager told my investigator that he had concerns about the materials the
Complainant used. In particular, he questioned the use of 2X4s to construct the
14
Page 169 of 194
handrails. He also had concerns that the guard and handrails were attached to
the deck with numerous nails. None of these concerns were set out in his letter to
Ms A or noted in the file.
114.
On July 15, Ms A spoke to the Director, expressing her frustration with the
process and setting out a formal complaint in writing.
115.
The MLS complaint compliance protocol covers the investigation of resident
complaints. The complaint is escalated through a series of three stages if a
resident is not satisfied with the response provided at each phase. First, it goes
to the supervisor/manager, then the program area head, and finally the Executive
Director. A review is expected at each stage and investigations are to be
completed in 10 days.
116.
On August 15, the Director responded to Ms A's July 15 letter and apologized for
the delay. He informed the Complainant that he had reviewed the pictures of her
deck and said modifications were needed to clear the outstanding Order.
117.
The Director wrote,
With respect to the way the file was handled and your
concern that more could have been done to inform and
assist you in this regard, I agree…I gather from the
information in your letter to me that you had no
indication that there were outstanding deficiencies and
that non-compliance could lead to a prosecution. In
that regard I am prepared to work with you to resolve
the remaining issues if you demonstrate your
willingness comply [sic] voluntarily.
118.
He concluded by asking her to contact him.
119.
The Complainant‟s first court date was August 20. She states that she made a
number of calls to the Director before then but received no reply.
120.
On August 19, Ms A sent him a fax. She reminded the Director that her court
date was the following day and asked that he contact her. She did not hear back.
121.
She also e-mailed the Executive Director on August 13 when the Director failed
to respond to her July 15 letter of complaint within ten days as set out in the MLS
complaints protocol.
122.
Ms A never received a response to her August 13 e-mail to the Executive
Director.
15
Page 170 of 194
5.11
5.12
123.
When questioned, the Executive Director said he believed that his Director had
replied on his behalf. He added that he would only become involved if Ms A's
concerns were not resolved.
124.
The Director said he was not aware of Ms A's August 13 correspondence to the
Executive Director.
Prosecution
125.
On August 20, the Complainant attended her first court date. She was given the
option of a pre-trial meeting with the Prosecutor, which she accepted. She made
additional changes to her property prior to her first court date, attaching lattice to
the handrail to function as a guard.
126.
The Prosecutor informed my investigator that she was satisfied a violation of the
Order existed on February 26, but needed to determine whether compliance had
been subsequently reached. She said compliance has an impact on the penalty,
but it does not negate the offence for which the charge was laid.
127.
On September 1, the Prosecutor‟s office requested an update from MLS.
Inspection #5
128.
On September 3, the MSO inspected the Complainant‟s property for the fifth time
in order to provide the Prosecutor with a status report.
129.
On September 7, he wrote to the Prosecutor: “there have (sic) been some
improvement in the above subject property, however compliance has not been
achieved as of September 3 / 10, safety issue involved.”
130.
On the same day, the Prosecutor requested more detail. She asked, “what
specifically was done, what remains, what safety issues, etc.”
131.
On September 8, the MSO sent her pictures of the deck and said, “the handrail is
not extended to the last step and no support provided, without extension there
will be no support in event of a fall or trip.”
132.
The Prosecutor asked the MSO whether the deficiency had been communicated
to the property owner.
133.
The MSO replied, “we sent her a copy of the section of the bylaw and also
verbally told her what to do in order to bring the property into compliance. Steps
needs (sic) to take to extend the handrail to both sides of last steps.”
134.
Ms A states that neither the MSO, nor the Manager or Director mentioned the
length of the handrail despite numerous opportunities to do so.
16
Page 171 of 194
5.13
135.
The MSO admits he did not tell Ms A about the handrail length. As she had
complained to his manager, he said the matter was out of his hands.
136.
On October 4, the Prosecutor offered Ms A a plea of guilty. In exchange, she
would recommend that the court impose a nominal fine.
137.
The Complainant states that she accepted the plea because she was
“exhausted” and “stressed out” from the process. She states that she did not
want to plead guilty because she found the process so unfair, but she wanted the
“nightmare” over.
Post Prosecution
138.
For almost five months MLS made no efforts to pursue the issue.
139.
On January 25, 2011, Ms A received a notice of re-inspection fee for the
September 3, 2010 inspection.
140.
On January 31, she sent a letter to the MLS Etobicoke/York office to dispute the
fee. Given the lack of communication, she believed that the fee was unfair.
141.
On February 11, the Manager responded. He said that since full compliance was
not reached, a fee was charged for the inspection.
142.
On February 28, the Complainant received a voicemail from the Director
indicating that he had a solution but wanted to talk to her.
143.
On March 1, Ms A wrote to the Director and asked that he put his decision in
writing. She advised my investigator that she was reluctant to speak with him
because she had spent over a year trying to work with MLS.
144.
She alleged that the MLS change of attitude was a result of my investigation.
145.
The Director replied the same day, saying he would write once they had talked.
146.
On March 18, the Complainant wrote back saying she wanted to rely on the
Ombudsman process. She asked him to put the fees in abeyance pending the
outcome of the investigation.
147.
The Director responded to the March e-mail in an April 4, 2011 letter. On the
issue of the outstanding violation related to the handrails and guards, he included
a set of drawings from Toronto Building, which “are standardized to meet the
requirement of the existing building codes.” He believed that the plans would be
of assistance to Ms A and offered to arrange for someone to provide her with
clarification or an interpretation of the details.
17
Page 172 of 194
5.14
148.
Regarding the inspection fees, the Director explained that MLS records showed
that it reversed two of the four re-inspection charges applied to the Complainant‟s
property since 2009. He suggested that he was prepared to reverse the
remaining two charges since, “I am persuaded that if you were able to access the
attached drawings, you could have corrected the violation earlier in the process.”
149.
Ms A states she was “livid" upon receiving the letter. She contends that the MLS
continued enforcement action was in response to her complaint to the
Ombudsman. She also denies that two of her fees were reversed.
150.
When informed of the renewed enforcement activity, the Prosecutor expressed
surprise. She noted that MLS is primarily complaint driven, and that normally it
would not pursue a particular property without a complaint.
151.
Various staff confirmed that MLS responds to complaints primarily but my
investigator was informed that in some visible cases, such as graffiti, it may be
more proactive.
152.
Ms A sold the property in the spring of 2011, effectively suspending any further
action against her with respect to this property.
MLS Operating Procedures
153.
The MSO was asked if there were operational procedures he could have
reviewed for technical guidance. He told my investigator that no operational
policy or procedure exists, but he would refer to the Municipal Code for guidance.
154.
The Municipal Code section on property standards was significantly amended in
April 2008 with further amendments that year and again in 2009. The copy of the
Code used by the MSO to support his enforcement activities predated those
changes.3 The amendments to the Code in 2008 and 2009 set out different
requirements and cover them comprehensively.
155.
The MSO told my investigator that his reliance on the outdated Municipal Code
explained the technical errors that appeared in Schedule 'A'.
156.
MLS management indicated that meetings with staff take place to review relevant
case law and legislative changes.
3
Item 7 of Appendix A contains the version of the Code relied on by the MSO when he prepared Schedule ‘A’ of the Complainant’s Property Standards
Order.
18
Page 173 of 194
6.0
Policies and Procedures
6.1
Training
7.0
157.
There is an operational procedure for communication and training of staff when
new protocols, policies or by-laws are enacted, or when by-laws are amended. A
staff member is assigned as a project lead to review the implementation of
legislative changes. The individual reports to the Directors, who decide whether
to hold centralized training or refer the matter to managers for local training.
158.
All MSOs are required to take Ontario Association of Property Standards Officers'
training prior to or at the beginning of their employment. The training is
administered by MLS.
159.
MLS also conducts in-house training. Its training manual contains a module on
guards and handrails. It is dated May 2005, and contains the same information
used by the MSO in preparing Schedule „A‟. The section on general property
standards inspections is dated September 2005.
160.
The module on note-taking is dated May 2009. Its focus is on ensuring that
sufficient notes are taken to support successful prosecution. It cautions MSOs to
only record the facts that are critical to prosecution.
161.
There are new modules on client relations and conflict management that postdate the events of this case, both of which are dated April 2011.
Directive Regarding Ombudsman Investigation
162. On January 31, 2011, one working day after I notified the City Manager of my
intent to investigate, the Executive Director of MLS sent an e-mail to the
Etobicoke York District Manager, who forwarded it to the MSO and District
Supervisors:
Let staff know that for any questions that are asked by
the Ombudsman‟s staff, in any form (email, telephone
etc.) I would like to know the question asked and the
answer provided.
Please keep me in the loop every step of the way
throughout this investigation.
163.
When the e-mail was discovered, my staff re-interviewed the MSO, the Manager,
the Supervisor, and the Executive Director. The first three acknowledged receipt
of the directive and all initially denied responding to it. They also recalled being
told about the confidentiality of the investigation and the caution against divulging
the details of the interview with anyone. At first, the MSO and the Supervisor
19
Page 174 of 194
both said that since they were only copied on the e-mail, they did not believe that
the directive applied to them.
164.
The Manager told my investigator that he forwarded the e-mail to the appropriate
staff but did not follow up. He believed it was their responsibility to respond
directly to the Executive Director.
165.
The MSO informed my investigator that he took notes for his own purposes and
kept them locked in his desk.
166.
When the Executive Director was re-interviewed, he said that only the Supervisor
responded to his directive. She sent him an e-mail setting out the questions
asked and answers provided during the interview.
167.
The Executive Director acknowledged the importance of confidentiality during the
investigation process. He said he was interested in learning about the broader
concerns raised by the complaint. The Executive Director explained, “I want to
know specifically what the issues are, and what the answers are to those issues.”
He also acknowledged that the wording of the directive was inappropriate, and
stated that it did not reflect his true intention.
168.
In a further interview, the Supervisor corrected her initial evidence and told my
investigator that she had provided the Executive Director with a summary of the
interview.
169.
The Supervisor states that she felt like she was between “a rock and a hard
place.” She understood my investigator‟s instructions to keep the contents of the
interview confidential, but felt she had no other choice than to comply with the
directive. She felt under “duress” given the circumstances.
8.0
Ombudsman Findings
8.1
Duty of Fairness
170.
The job of an MSO is indisputably challenging. They are called upon to inspect
private residences, and in doing so, often play a policing function in seeking
compliance with the Municipal Code.
171.
When MLS is unable to get voluntary compliance, it has the power to lay charges
that ultimately may result in a court hearing.
172.
With this function, comes an imperative for public accountability and trust. Both
the process and decision-making must be transparent and fair.
173.
A fair and effective mechanism for responding to property standard violations is
crucial both to the integrity of MLS and to maintaining public confidence. It
benefits residents, City employees and the public interest at large.
20
Page 175 of 194
8.2
8.3
Failure to Communicate
174.
Communications were unacceptable. MLS failed to convey critical information
that could have helped the Complainant comply with the Order. This failure
began with the MSO and went up the chain of command to the senior executive
of MLS. Residents are entitled to a high standard of public service from their
government along with respectful customer service
175.
While the Director of Investigations eventually recognized the validity of the
Complainant‟s allegations, this was only communicated to her ten months after
she first raised the issue with MLS. The Director acknowledged that had Ms A
received the requested information in a timely fashion, she could have corrected
the violation much earlier.
176.
For reasons which escape me, the MSO and the District Manager chose to
provide her with the most rudimentary information and simply refused to be
helpful. This is unacceptable and well short of the customer service standard the
public is entitled to receive and the City expects its employees to deliver.
177.
The MSO's reliance on the re-inspection fee to inform the Complainant of her
non-compliance was inappropriate. If the MSO had concerns about the deck, he
should have communicated this to her in a timely manner. His excuse that he did
not have her contact information contradicts his earlier statement. When asked,
he advised that he would use 411 if a resident's telephone number was not on
file. In this instance, he inexplicably failed to follow his usual practice.
178.
The continued insistence by MLS that it cannot “design” alterations or show a
resident how to come into compliance misses the point. There is a significant
difference between instructing on how repairs are to be carried out, and informing
a resident in clear language as to how the structure in question is deficient. MLS
failed on this count.
179.
Repeatedly directing the Complainant to the Code in response to her questions
was inappropriate. She was asking for clarification as to how she could come
into compliance because her reading of the legislation differed from that of the
MSO.
180.
Instead of responding to her request in terms that could be more easily
understood, MLS continued to insist that the solution she sought was set out in
the Code, a 59 page document. The divide between requester and the
respondent in this case, constitutes a complete communication breakdown. It is
an example of bad public service.
Unreasonable Conduct
181.
By taking no steps to communicate in a responsive or responsible way with the
resident, the MSO failed to adequately meet her needs.
21
Page 176 of 194
8.4
182.
The MSO provided inaccurate and vague information to the Complainant. At
times, he relied on outdated information and obsolete legislation.
183.
The MSO‟s insistence that only the provisions of the Code could be used to
communicate the extent of the Complainant‟s non-compliance was contrary to
the approach articulated by senior management. MSOs are expected to use lay
terms, explain deficiencies and tell residents in clear language what they must do
to come into compliance. Providing the Complainant with relevant sections of
the Code may in theory appear to be responsive but by any objective standard,
this approach cannot be considered reasonable customer service.
184.
Although I cannot conclude definitively whether the Complainant and the MSO
spoke in 2009, I find her credible in the consistency with which she described the
events from the outset.
185.
Even if I were to accept the MSO‟s position that he did not speak to the
Complainant until June 2010, his failure to communicate with her during this
period is unprofessional and his conduct unacceptable.
186.
While the MSO has the discretion to lay a charge, his decision to do so in this
case is questionable, given that the Complainant was attempting to come into
compliance and was actively seeking additional information that would allow her
to do so.
187.
The MSO should have been aware of that. He should have recognized that his
approach was not working and adapted accordingly.
188.
There was no reasonable justification for the clarity of the MSO‟s explanation of
non-compliance to the Prosecutor and a complete absence of one to the
Complainant.
Flawed Process: Content of Order
189.
Schedule „A‟ is difficult to understand and incorrect in places.
190.
While Schedule „A‟ may make sense to a licensed tradesperson, the intent is to
inform the resident in language that is easily understood, as well as to provide a
rationale for the City‟s decision to issue an Order. The Order, as written, failed
on both counts. Further, the version of the Code used to reference the alleged
contraventions was outdated. The citations used to illustrate non-compliance
were wrong.
191.
MLS has undertaken a review of its practices related to information provided in
orders and notices. This came about as a result of an investigation I conducted in
2010, in which the City undertook to do a review and make necessary changes. It
should be noted that this review began after the Order was issued to the
Complainant in this investigation.
22
Page 177 of 194
8.5
8.6
Lack of Training and Support
192.
The training and ongoing professional development for the MSO was lacking.
193.
MLS manuals and directives are out of date.
194.
The MSO relied on an outdated Municipal Code and included incorrect
information to prepare the Order. He was apparently unaware the Code had
been amended more than once since April 2008. However, the fault is not his
alone. Both his supervisor and the manager failed to catch the errors as well.
195.
According to MLS, staff are supposed to be kept apprised of relevant case law
and legislative changes through regular management meetings. In addition, the
MLS operational procedure describes a process where a "project lead" is to
review the implementation of legislative changes. The Directors then decide how
the information will be disseminated to staff whether by local training through
managers, or through centralized training.
196.
Regardless of the process used by MLS, it must be consistent and rigorous in
ensuring that its employees are kept up to date on developments within the law
which could impact job performance.
197.
There is a lack of understanding about the supervisor‟s role in reviewing
prosecution files. The Supervisor in this case believed that her responsibility was
administrative in nature, while the Director stated that the review was more
comprehensive, and should include an examination of the entire file to determine
whether a reasonable process was followed and whether laying a charge is
appropriate under the circumstances.
Poor Record Keeping
198.
In my most recent annual report, I recommended that the Toronto Public Service
set standards for record keeping:
The Toronto Public Service set standards for
record keeping-keeping in every area of its
operation by 2011, and that these standards
include guidelines…
199.
The recommendation was based on our experience of investigating City
complaints at the City. While poor record keeping spanned many areas of the
Toronto Public Service, this is the second investigation of MLS where it appears
as a significant deficiency.
200.
My investigation revealed that MLS had a number of files related to this
complaint, with no discernable order to them. Some had missing documents
while others contained multiple copies of the same material.
23
Page 178 of 194
8.7
9.0
201.
Certain actions, such as conversations between MLS staff and the Complainant
were not recorded anywhere. In those cases where a record existed, the
information that was captured lacked sufficient detail.
202.
When questioned on this issue, the District Manager suggested that given the
workload of his office, not all contacts/conversations are recorded.
203.
Best practice suggests that all contacts including telephone calls should be
recorded contemporaneously, or as soon as possible thereafter. This becomes
even more important when a complaint has been filed about poor service.
204.
Deficient record keeping creates a variety of problems down the road. Memories
fade over time. The lack of information makes it very difficult to determine what
happened in subsequent reviews of an issue or event. Public service has an
obligation to ensure high standards of service and good record keeping is no
exception to that standard.
Management of the Complaint
205.
MLS failed to respond appropriately to the complaint about the MSO‟s conduct.
206.
The actions of the Manager were inadequate and contrary to MLS policy. He
never investigated the resident's complaint and was dismissive in his attitude
towards her.
207.
No where in law or policy can the Manager‟s claim be supported that a
prosecution would prevent him from reviewing a complaint about staff.
208.
The Director acknowledged more could have been done, but failed to live up to
his pledge to resolve the matter. The Director did not meet the service standards
referenced in the MLS complaint protocol.
209.
The Executive Director‟s response to the resident's complaint was also
inadequate and contrary to MLS policy.
Actions of the Executive Director
210.
The Executive Director stated that his intent was to understand the broader
issues raised by the complaint. However it is the impact of his action that is at
issue.
211.
The directive issued to staff to report back to him on the contents of their
interactions with my Office undermined the confidentiality provisions of my
governing legislation and the integrity of my investigation.
24
Page 179 of 194
212.
He obtained the questions asked and responses given to my investigator from at
least one of his employees. This despite the fact that he himself is a witness in
my investigation, and was subsequently interviewed.
213.
The Executive Director placed his employees in a very difficult position. They
were either to be potentially insubordinate by not following his directive or to
breach the Ombudsman‟s confidentiality provisions legislated by the City of
Toronto Act.
214.
The City Manager issued a memorandum on Ombudsman investigations, dated
August 4, 2011, to Deputy City Managers and Division Heads. Among other
requirements regarding the Ombudsman investigation process, the City Manager
stated that:
1.
When employees are interviewed, they should not speak to others and
should hold the information they divulge in confidence. This is important in
keeping with the provisions of COTA.
2.
While managers should be very clear about the Ombudsman process and
at liberty to enquire about that, we should not be asking our employees
anything about the content of an investigation and what they may have
said to Ombudsman staff.
10.0 Ombudsman Conclusions
215.
Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 3, section 3-36 provides that the Ombudsman,
in undertaking an investigation, shall have regard to whether the decision,
recommendation, act or omission in question may have been:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Contrary to law;
Unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly
discriminatory;
Based wholly or partly on a mistake of law or fact;
Based on the improper exercise of a discretionary power; or
Wrong.
216.
There are generally accepted definitions of these terms in both case law and the
ombudsman field. I have considered those definitions in reaching my
conclusions.
217.
The treatment of Ms A by MLS was wrong. Its actions and omissions breached
principles of procedural fairness and were unreasonable, pursuant to section 336 of the Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 3.
218.
The Order was difficult to understand and failed to provide clear direction on how
the Complainant could come into compliance. MLS continuously failed to
25
Page 180 of 194
communicate with and provide the Complainant with the requisite information in a
way that was easily understood. This failure went right up the chain of command.
219.
The MSO made a mistake of law by relying on outdated legislation.
220.
The training and supervision provided by MLS in this instance were ineffective
and cursory. There is a lack of clarity about the role and expectations of the
supervisor regarding the review of enforcement files that are sent for prosecution.
221.
The failure to investigate the complaint in accordance with the complaint
compliance protocol was a breach of MLS standards. The Manager dismissed
the complaint on more than one occasion. He sent her back to the very person
she was complaining about, unacceptable conduct on the part of any public
servant.
222.
The Director took a month to respond to the complaint, and did not reply to her
thereafter. The Executive Director never responded to the Complainant despite
the requirements of the standard to do so.
223.
The Executive Director‟s instruction to staff was oppressive, in that it could be
construed as heavy handed and an imposition of unreasonable conditions. The
effect of his actions also contravened the spirit of my governing legislation.
11.0 Ombudsman Recommendations
224.
225.
In my MLS investigation, “A Duty to Care,” which was completed after the events
that led to this Complainant‟s prosecution, I made a number of recommendations
pertaining to policies and procedures that also apply to this matter. Because the
City accepted my recommendations in that investigation, I am confirming that the
following will be implemented and reported in writing to my Office no later than
September 30, 2011:
i)
That MLS ensure its notices, orders and schedules
provides clear and sufficient information in order that
the recipient can understand its actions.
ii)
That MLS develop a service standard to ensure that a
resident is provided with clear, prompt and complete
answers.
iii)
That MLS follow its Complaint Compliance Protocol
and that all managers are trained on its provisions.
Recommendations 1 to 12 are made in the public interest to address the
systemic issues arising from this complaint. They are intended to put in place the
26
Page 181 of 194
necessary policies, standards and processes to prevent a repetition of a similar
event occurring to other residents in the future.
I recommend:
(1)
That MLS ensure employees are kept up-to-date and well trained on new and
existing legislation, policies and procedures.
(2)
That MLS ensure all manuals and divisional policies are up to date, and reviewed
annually to ensure their accuracy and relevance; and that the updating where
required be completed by December 31, 2011.
(3)
That MLS' training unit ensure that recommendations 1 and 2 are implemented.
(4)
That MLS develop a service standard to ensure non-compliance is
communicated to residents within two days of inspection.
(5)
That MLS develop a service standard to ensure files are thoroughly reviewed
prior to a charge being laid.
(6)
That MLS ensure accurate and complete record keeping by its staff.
(7)
That MLS, in keeping with the Toronto Public Service‟s commitment to good
customer service, ensure its customer service standard is applied by all staff and
that timely professional communications take place with all residents.
(8)
That management and employees alike be held to account for their job duties,
and performance managed according to City standards.
(9)
That management and employees who fail to meet these standards be
counselled in a timely way and that performance feedback is provided according
to the escalation process of the City's performance management system.
(10)
That the City Manager holds management and employees accountable to the
requirements set out in his August 4, 2011 memorandum on Ombudsman
investigations.
(11)
That all management and employees be appropriately counselled regarding their
actions or inactions in this matter.
(12)
That MLS report in writing to the Ombudsman on the completion of these
recommendations by the end of 2011.
27
Page 182 of 194
Recommendations 13 to 15 relate to the individual aspects of this complaint.
(13)
That by September 30, 2011, the Executive Director of MLS provides the
Complainant with a written apology for the actions and omissions noted in these
investigation findings.
(14)
That by September 23, 2011, MLS consults with my Office on the draft of the
apology prior to its issuance.
(15)
That the City reverses the re-inspection fees in view of the circumstances and
findings of this investigation.
12.0 The City’s Response
226.
In accordance with section 172(2) of the City of Toronto Act, I notified the City of
my findings and recommendations to provide it with an opportunity to make
representations.
227.
The City did not dispute my findings. With the exception of adjusting some
deadlines, the City concurred with my recommendations.
228.
In some instances, the City went further than my recommendations. For instance,
where I recommended that a service standard be developed to ensure files are
thoroughly reviewed prior to a charge being laid, MLS stated that it will also
include a review of other enforcement options.
229.
Upon receiving an Ombudsman‟s notice of intent to investigate, the City Manager
has undertaken to remind staff of the provisions contained in the City of Toronto
Act regarding Ombudsman confidentiality.
230.
With respect to my recommendation that the City reverse re-inspection fees, I
note that MLS has already begun that process with Revenue Services.
(Original signed)
______________________________
Fiona Crean
Ombudsman
September 19, 2011
28
Page 183 of 194
Appendix A – Relevant Legislation
1. Section 15.1 (3) of the Building Code Act, 1992 S.O. 1992, c.23 states that the council of a
municipality may pass a by-law to prescribe standards for the maintenance and occupancy
of property within the municipality, and require property that does not conform with the
standards to be repaired.
2. The City‟s property standards are set out in section 629 of the Toronto Municipal Code.
Section 629-4A of the Code states that:
No person shall use, occupy, permit the use or occupancy of, rent, or
offer to rent, any property that does not conform with the standards
prescribed in this chapter.
3. Section 15.2 (1) of the Building Code Act provides that,
Where a by-law under section 15.1 is in effect, an officer may, upon
producing proper identification, enter upon the property at any
reasonable time without a warrant for the purpose of inspecting the
property to determine,
(a)
whether the property conforms with the standards prescribed in the
by- law; or
(b)
whether an Order made under subsection (2) has been complied
with.
4. The Order to install the guards and handrails was made pursuant to subsection (2), which
states that,
An officer who finds that a property does not conform with any of the
standards prescribed in a by-law passed under section 15.1 may make
an Order,
(a)
stating the municipal address or the legal description of the
property;
(b)
giving reasonable particulars of the repairs to be made or stating
that the site is to be cleared of all buildings, structures, debris or
refuse and left in a graded and levelled condition;
(c)
indicating the time for complying with the terms and conditions of
the Order and giving notice that, if the repair or clearance is not
carried out within that time, the municipality may carry out the repair
or clearance at the owner‟s expense, and
29
Page 184 of 194
(d)
indicating the final date for giving notice of appeal from the Order.
5. Section 629-7 of the Toronto Municipal Code:
§ 629-7. Manner of making repairs.
A. All repairs shall be made in a good workmanlike manner with materials that are
suitable and sufficient for the purpose and free from defects.
B. Without restricting the generality of Subsection A:
(1) The requirement that repairs be made in a “good workmanlike
manner” includes:
(a) Ensuring that the component repaired can perform its intended
function.
(b) Finishing the repair in a manner reasonably compatible in
design and colour with adjoining decorative finishing materials.
(2) The requirement that repairs be made with “materials that are
suitable and sufficient for the purpose” includes a requirement for
materials reasonably compatible in design and colour with adjoining
decorative finishing materials.
6. Section 629-19 of the Toronto Municipal Code sets out the requirements for guards and
handrails. The relevant sections follow:
§ 629-19. Stairs, guards, handrails and other structures.
A. All stairs, verandas, porches, decks, loading docks, ramps, balconies, fire escapes
and other similar structures and all treads, risers, guards, handrails, supporting
structural members or other appurtenances attached to them shall be maintained
free from defects and hazards, capable of supporting all loads to which they may be
subjected, and in a safe, clean, sanitary condition and in good repair.
C. Guards, for all buildings of three or fewer storeys in building height, having a
building area not exceeding 600 square metres and used for residential
occupancies, business and personal services occupancies, mercantile occupancies
or medium and low-industrial occupancies shall be installed and maintained to
comply with the following:
[Amended 2008-04-29 by By-law No. 349-2008; 2008-09-25 by Bylaw
No. 983-2008;16 2009-10-01 by By-law No. 932-200917]
30
Page 185 of 194
(1) Required guards.
(a)
Except as provided in Subsection C(1)(b) and (c), every
surface to which access is provided for other than
maintenance purposes, including but not limited to flights of
steps and ramps, exterior landings, porches, balconies,
mezzanines, galleries and raised walkways, shall be protected
by a guard on each side that is not protected by a wall for the
length where:
[1]
[2]
There is a difference in elevation of more than 600
millimetres between the walking surface and the adjacent
surface; or
The adjacent surface within 1.2 metres from the walking
surface has a slope of more than one vertical to two
horizontal.
(b) Guards are not required:
[1] At loading docks;
[2] At floor pits in repair garages; or
[3] Where access is provided for maintenance purposes only.
(2) Height of guards.
(a) Except as provided in Subsection C(2)(b) to (d), all guards
shall be not less than 1,070 millimetres high.
(b)
All guards within dwelling units shall be not less than 900
millimetres high.
(c) Exterior guards serving not more than one dwelling unit shall
be not less than 900 millimetres high where the walking surface
served by the guard is not more than 1,800 millimetres above
the finished ground level.
(d) Guards for flights of steps, except in required exit stairs, shall
be not less than 900 millimetres high.
(e) The height of guards for flights of steps shall be measured
vertically from a line drawn through the leading edge of the
treads served by the guard.
31
Page 186 of 194
(4) Openings in guards.
(a) Except as provided in Subsection C(4)(b), openings through
any guard that is required by Subsection C(1) shall be of a size
that will prevent the passage of a spherical object having a
diameter of 100 millimetres unless it can be shown that the
location and size of openings that exceed this limit do not
represent a hazard.
(b) Openings through any guard that is required by
Subsection C(4), and that is installed in a building of industrial
occupancy, shall be of a size that will prevent the passage of a
spherical object having a diameter of 200 millimetres unless it
can be shown that the location and size of such openings that
exceed this limit do not represent a hazard.
(c) Unless it can be shown that the location and size of openings
that do not comply with the following limits do not represent a
hazard, openings through any guard that is not required by
Subsection C(1), and that serves a building of other than
industrial occupancy, shall be of a size that:
[1] Will prevent the passage of a spherical object having a
diameter of 100 millimetres; or
[2] Will permit the passage of a spherical object having a
diameter of 200 millimetres.
(5) Climbing prevention in guard design.
(a) Guards required by Subsection C(1), except those in industrial
occupancies and where it can be shown that the location and
size of openings do not represent a hazard, shall be designed
so that no member, attachment or opening will facilitate
climbing.
(b) Guards shall be deemed to comply with Subsection C(5)(a)
where any elements protruding from the vertical and located
within the area between 140 millimetres and 900 millimetres
above the floor or walking surface protected by the guard:
[1] Are located more than 450 millimetres horizontally and
vertically from each other;
[2] Provide not more than 15 millimetres horizontal offset;
[3] Do not provide a toe-space more than 45 millimetres
horizontally and 20 millimetres vertically; or
32
Page 187 of 194
[4] Present more than a slope of one vertical to two horizontal
slope on the offset.
E. Handrails for all buildings of three or fewer storeys in building height, having a
building area not exceeding 600 square metres and used for residential occupancies,
business and personal services occupancies, mercantile occupancies or medium and
low-industrial occupancies shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the
following:
[Added 2008-04-29 by By-law No. 349-2008; amended 2009-1001 by By-law No. 932-200920]
(1) Required handrails.
(a) Except as permitted in Subsection E(1)(b) and (c), a handrail
shall be provided:
[1] On at least one side of stairs or ramps less than 1,100
millimetres in width;
[2] On two sides of curved stairs or ramps of any width, except
curved stairs within dwelling units; and
[3] On two sides of stairs or ramps 1,100 millimetres in width or
greater.
(b) Handrails are not required for:
[1] Interior stairs having not more than two risers and serving a
single dwelling unit;
[2] Exterior stairs having not more than three risers and serving
a single dwelling unit;
[3] Ramps with a slope of not less than a slope of one vertical
to12 horizontal; or
[4] Ramps rising not more than 400 millimetres.
(c) Only one handrail is required on exterior stairs having more than
three risers if the stairs serve a single dwelling unit.
(2) Continuity of handrails.
(a) Except as provided in Subsection E(2)(b), at least one required
handrail shall be continuous throughout the length of the stair or
ramp, including landings, except where interrupted by:
[1] Doorways; or
[2] Newel posts at changes in direction.
33
Page 188 of 194
(b) For stairs or ramps serving a single dwelling unit, at least one
handrail shall be continuous throughout the length of the stair or
ramp, except where interrupted by:
[1] Doorways;
[2] Landings; or
[3] Newel posts at changes in direction.
(3) Termination of handrails.
(a) Handrails shall be terminated in a manner that will not obstruct
pedestrian travel or create a hazard.
(b) Except for stairs and ramps serving a single dwelling unit, at least
one handrail at the sides of a stair or ramp shall extend
horizontally not less than 300 millimetres beyond the top and
bottom of each stair or ramp.
7. The following are the relevant sections from the version of the Municipal Code relied upon
when the MSO prepared the Complainant‟s Order:
§ 629-19. Stairs, guards, handrails and other structures.
A. All stairs, verandas, porches, decks, loading docks, ramps, balconies, fire escapes
and other similar structures and all treads, risers, guards, handrails, supporting
structural members or other appurtenances attached to them shall be maintained
free from defects and hazards, capable of supporting all loads to which they may
be subjected, and in a safe, clean, sanitary condition and in good repair.
C. All required guards and handrails shall be installed in accordance with and
maintained to comply with the Ontario Building Code.
34
Page 189 of 194
APPENDIX 2
Page 190 of 194
MINUTES
PROPERTY STANDARDS COMMITTEE
Professional Centre - 945 3rd Avenue E - Suite 220
SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 - 1:00 PM
MEMBERS
Rick Holland, Chair
PRESENT:
Rick Beaney
Ruthann Carson
George Mackowski
MEMBERS
Bernie Fishman
ABSENT/REGRETS:
STAFF PRESENT:
Kaitlyn Patchell, By-law Enforcement Officer
Justin Teakle, Secretary
1.
CALL TO ORDER
The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:00 PM.
2.
CALL FOR ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
There was no additional business.
3.
DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST
There was no disclosure of Pecuniary Interest.
4.
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
a.
5.
Minutes of the Property Standards Committee meeting held on July 17,
2018.
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CHAIR
The Building Code Act of Ontario gives the Committee all the powers and
functions of the Officer who made the Order and the Committee may confirm,
modify or rescind the Order be it to demolish or repair, or extend the time for
complying with the Order if, in the Committee’s opinion, the Order is fair and
the general intent and purpose of the Building Code Act are maintained.
Please be advised that if anyone other than the owner, occupant or their
agent or interested parties as copied on the Order wishes to receive notice of
the decision of the Property Standards Committee, or in the event that the
Committee defers its decision respecting the appeal, such person or persons
must leave their names and addresses in writing with the Secretary of the
Property Standards Committee prior to leaving the hearing.
In addition the municipality or any owner or occupant or person affected by
the Committee’s decision may appeal to a judge of the Superior Court of
Justice of Ontario by notifying the clerk of the corporation in writing and by
applying to the Superior Court of Justice for an appointment within 14 days
after the sending of a copy of the decision.
6.
APPEALS
Page 191 of 194
a.
Appeal of Property Standards Order dated July 16, 2018 re 257 10th
Street E by Grey Bruce Property Rentals Inc.
The Chair invited the appellant to present their evidence.
Jordan Kruisselbrink, representing Grey Bruce Property Rentals Inc.,
was sworn in by the Chair. Mr. Kruisselbrink explained that Grey Bruce
Property Rentals Inc. has owned the property for 20 years and there
have been no previous concerns. The problem only began when the
neighbouring property had a fire and was vacant. He advised the
Committee that the garbage that had accumulated adjacent to the rear
of their property did not originate from their property. He explained that
the property is managed by Hope Grey Bruce and provided a letter
from them to the Committee explaining their procedures with managing
their tenants garbage. The letter noted they have not had any issues
with improper disposal by the tenants. Mr. Kruisselbrink explained that
indoor bins are provided to tenants to store garbage and that an
outdoor storage bin would attract more off-site garbage. Mr.
Kruisselbrink requested that the Committee rescind the order.
The Chair asked the Committee for questions relating to the evidence
of the appellant.
The Committee asked the appellant where the garbage is originating
from, when the problem began, and the number of total units on the
property.
Mr. Kruisselbrink replied that they looked for an indication of where the
garbage had come from and were not able to identify a source. He
stated that it is not logical that all garbage is from the tenants and Hope
Grey Bruce provides bag tags to the tenants. The problem began in
February of 2018 and the order was appealed because the garbage is
not from their property. There are 4 units total in the building.
The Chair asked By-law Enforcement for questions relating to the
evidence of the appellant, but there were none.
The Chair invited the By-law Enforcement Officer to present their
evidence.
The Chair affirmed Kaitlyn Patchell, By-law Enforcement Officer. Ms.
Patchell advised the Committee that she received a complaint about
garbage on February 15, 2018 and has received multiple other
complaints about garbage in this area. Ms. Patchell contacted the
owner to find out whether there is a garbage room inside of the
building as there is not an external garbage enclosure. A notice letter
was sent to the appellant on February 28, 2018. From communications
from the appellant it was unclear whether an indoor garbage room is
provided. The order was issued July 16, 2018 requiring a ventilated
indoor storage room or an exterior enclosure for garbage storage.
The Chair asked the Committee for questions relating to the evidence
of the By-law Enforcement Officer.
The Committee asked Ms. Patchell whether there has been garbage
accumulating there recently, the frequency of garbage pick up
downtown, and whether the neighbouring property to the west has a
garbage enclosure for their tenants.
Ms. Patchell replied that there has not been any garbage at the site for
a while now and that garbage pick up is weekly downtown. The
neighbouring property does have their own garbage enclosure for their
tenants. She further noted that even though there has not been any
Page 192 of 194
garbage outside the subject property recently, a garbage room directly
vented to the outside or an exterior enclosure is still required by the
Property Standards By-law.
The Chair asked the appellant if he understood that the matter before
the Committee is that the property requires either an interior garbage
room or exterior enclosure.
Mr. Kruisselbrink replied that he did understand. He noted that most
buildings downtown do not have separate rooms for garbage and that
on the subject property there is no room to provide an exterior
enclosure. He explained that tenants are provided with tote containers
to store their garbage in their unit until pick-up day.
The Committee asked Ms. Patchell to clarify if bins inside of the units
would need to be ventilated and whether the rear fire escape extends
over City property.
Ms. Patchell replied that if the garbage is store inside, it must be
ventilated to the exterior and that the fire escape does extend over City
property.
The Committee noted that an outdoor bin could potentially be put
underneath the fire escape with City permission.
Mr. Kruisselbrink replied that they have considered the idea of an
exterior bin, but feel that it would attract more garbage from elsewhere.
He also noted that all of the units have windows and/or vents to the
outside. He stated that the City should amend the Property Standards
By-law.
Ms. Patchell noted that whether the required storage is indoors or
outdoors is up to the owner.
The Committee noted there are other properties nearby where garbage
accumulates outside.
The Committee recessed at 1:26 PM to deliberate in private.
The Committee reconvened at 1:52 PM.
"The Committee carefully considered making our decision, but feels
that the lack of a room or exterior garbage enclosure is an existing
non-conforming type of situation. The Committee therefore rescinds
the order and recommends that City Council consider amending the
Property Standards By-law to consider such situations."
7.
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FOR WHICH DIRECTION IS
REQUIRED
There was no correspondence received.
8.
DISCUSSION OF OTHER BUSINESS
a.
The Chair asked for follow up on a previous decisions of the
Committee.
Ms. Patchell responded that a final inspection has not yet been
completed with the property in question.
The Chair expressed that it would be good for the Committee to know
the outcome of their decisions.
The Committee requested that the City Clerk provide a follow-up report
on recent decisions at a future meeting of the Committee.
Page 193 of 194
9.
CORRESPONDENCE PROVIDED FOR INFORMATION
There was no correspondence provided.
10.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 1:57 PM.
Signature on file.
Chair
Signature on file.
Secretary
Page 194 of 1946 ADJOURNMENT
No summary available.
6 ADJOURNMENT ADJOURNMENT