Committee - Committee of Adjustment Agenda Preview — April 7, 2026
Hook: Open Space Becomes Private Rental Units
Owen Sound · Committee of Adjustment · April 7, 2026
Summary
One-sentence summary: The agenda confronts distributist challenges as private rental density replaces public green space while corporations fight perpetual maintenance burdens that shift financial costs from city infrastructure to individual property owners indefinitely.
This meeting represents a critical juncture in Owen Sound’s housing strategy. The distributist lens reveals a struggle over the allocation of public space and burden: * **Land Conversion:** The proposal to build on recently closed and sold open space at 2090 9th Avenue East shifts the city’s resource allocation from public green space to private rental density, potentially increasing demand for social housing in that specific neighborhood. * **Financial Burdens:** The Kepler Real Estate appeal touches on a systemic issue: does the city have the right to enforce perpetual maintenance orders that bind owners to third-party costs indefinitely, or is this an overreach of municipal power? * **Community Impact:** Reducing setbacks at 865 16th Street East directly impacts neighborly privacy and safety, challenging the Official Plan’s intent to maintain adequate open space and buffering properties. * **Housing Mix:** While the 2090 9th Avenue project promises affordable units, the conversion of open space into high-density rentals (35 units) illustrates the trade-off between quantity of housing and the quality of the neighborhood environment.
Top Newsworthy Developments
Murphy Homes Challenging Residential Setbacks The agenda opens with a significant request from Murphy Homes and Design Inc. regarding 865 16th Street East. The developer proposes a two-storey, six-unit apartment building on an 836.1-square-metre site sandwiched between residential neighborhoods and major commercial corridors like the Circle K and LCBA/Zehrs plaza. While staff recommend a compromise rear yard setback of 5.0 metres, the applicant is challenging the General Residential (R5) zone's standard 7.5-metre buffer, seeking to reduce it to just 3.8 metres. This move threatens to strip away the "buffering properties" that define quiet streetscapes. The proposal, framed as infill intensification to align with the City’s Vision 2050, risks altering the density and character of a low-density area in favor of a higher volume of housing units.
Massive Infill Project on Former Open Space A major development is poised to transform the landscape at 2090 9th Avenue East. The applicant is seeking approval for a four-storey, 35-unit rental apartment building on land previously designated as open space and recently sold to the developer. The proposal requests critical variances, including a 6.3-metre rear yard setback and 4.78-metre setbacks for patios along the west façade. Notably, the project includes a commitment to integrate four rent-geared-to-income units, representing 10% affordable housing. However, the shift from open space to high-density living (optimizing municipal services) raises questions about who benefits from the conversion of public green space into private rental units.
Corporate Appeal Against Perpetual Maintenance Clauses The meeting transitions into Property Standards Committee business at 3:00 P.M., featuring a potentially contentious appeal by Kepler Real Estate Inc. The corporation is fighting Order OSBY-2025-1092 issued January 20, 2026, which demands specific compliance measures. Kepler argues that Item 3 imposes an unfair "perpetual maintenance" obligation for ice and snow removal, transforming a one-time compliance fix into an indefinite financial burden. Furthermore, the appeal claims Item 1 improperly restricts the owner from using their own salaried staff for sanitation. If upheld, these clauses force property owners into third-party service contracts indefinitely. Conversely, failure to resolve these disputes could lead the city to execute repairs itself and place a lien on the property, highlighting the tension between municipal regulatory power and private property autonomy.
Stormwater and Drainage Conditions Approvals for the projects at 865 16th Street East and 2090 9th Avenue East are contingent on strict environmental conditions. Staff analysis confirms that the 865 16th Street project faces stormwater runoff affecting approximately 68% of its surface area, requiring a specific Grading and Drainage Plan. The 2090 9th Avenue project seeks to utilize a shared 68-space parking lot with an existing building to minimize surface impervious surfaces. These conditions represent a direct financial and logistical cost to developers, testing the limits of what the city will accept to manage infrastructure strain.
Key Topics & Sections
Meeting Details
- Jurisdiction
- Owen Sound
- Body
- Committee of Adjustment
- Date
- April 7, 2026
- Transcript Status
- Agenda package summary and extracted subreport text
- 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
4.a Minutes of the Committee of Adjustment meeting held on March 3, 2026 CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FOR WHICH DIRECTION IS REQUIRED There are no correspondence items being presented for consideration. ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CHAIR Please be advised that the Planning Act of Ontario indicates that if anyone other than the applicant or agent wishes to receive notice of the decision of the Committee of Adjustment, or in the event that the Committee defers its decision or notice of further proceedings respecting the application, such person or persons must leave their names and addresses in writing with the SecretaryTreasurer of the Committee prior to leaving the hearing. In addition, only the applicant, the Minister or a specified person or public body that has an interest in the matter has the right to appeal the decision of the Committee of Adjustment within the defined appeal period. More information concerning how to appeal a decision of the Committee of Adjustment to the Ontario Land Tribunal may be obtained from the Community Services Department (Planning Division) in City Hall. APPLICATIONS
The Committee of Adjustment agenda for April 7, 2026, features a potential shift in residential density at 865 16th Street East. Murphy Homes and Design Inc. seeks to construct a two-storey, six-unit apartment building, challenging the General Residential (R5) zone's standard 7.5-metre rear yard setback by proposing a reduced 3.8-metre distance. While strict zoning aims to ensure consistent streetscapes and adequate open space, staff recommend a modified approval of a 5.0-metre setback. This recommendation balances the applicant's desire for densification against the intent of buffering properties, arguing the change is minor and aligns with the Official Plan. Under the planning agenda, approval is contingent on conditions outlined in Schedule 'E'. Notably, the notice procedure requires interested parties to leave names and addresses with the Secretary-Treasurer if they wish to receive decisions or appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal, as only applicants or specified bodies can typically appeal. No correspondence items are presented for consideration. This case represents a localized push for affordable housing options in a low-density area, testing the balance between community amenity standards and development pressure.
Page 7 of 614 Staff Report Report To: Committee of Adjustment Report From: Sabine Robart, Manager of Planning & Heritage Meeting Date: April 7, 2026 Report Code: CS-26-027 Subject: Minor Variance A04-2026 for 865 16th Street East Recommendations: THAT in consideration of Staff Report CS-26-027 respecting Minor Variance A04-2026 by Murphy Homes and Design Inc. for the property known as 865 16th Street East, the Committee of Adjustment approves the modified minor variance as the Committee concludes that the modified variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the City’s Official Plan and Zoning By-law, is minor in nature, and desirable for the appropriate development and use of the lands, subject to the conditions outlined in Schedule ‘E’. Highlights: An application for Minor Variance (A04-2026) has been submitted by Murphy Homes and Design Inc. proposing to construct a twostorey, six (6) unit residential building at 865 16th Street East. The provisions of the General Residential (R5) Zone require apartment buildings to have a rear yard setback of 7.5 m. The intent of this provision is to ensure that developments provide for a consistent streetscape, appropriate amenity area and landscaped open space, and buffering between properties The application is proposing a 3.8 metre rear yard setback. Planning staff recommend that approval of a modified rear yard setback of 5.0 metres subject to the conditions outlined in Schedule ‘E’ meets the four tests of a minor variance. Staff Report CS-26-027: Minor Variance A04-2026 for 865 16th Street East Page 1 of 13
7.a Application File No. A04-2026 for 865 16th Street East
On the upcoming Committee of Adjustment agenda, Murphy Homes and Design Inc. seeks a minor variance for 865 16th Street East in Owen Sound. The 836.1-square-metre site sits in the southwest corner of 9th and 16th Streets East, sandwiched between residential lots and commercial neighbors like a Circle K and an LCBA/Zehrs plaza. Staff Report CS-26-027 notes the proposal aligns with the City’s Vision 2050 strategic plan and Corporate Climate Change Adaptation Plan, framing the request as infill intensification that efficiently utilizes existing municipal services. Under the Ontario Planning Act (s. 41), the application aims to deviate from current zoning to facilitate development in this mixed-use corridor. The Committee will evaluate whether the variance is necessary to achieve the project's objectives while maintaining compatibility with surrounding residential and commercial land uses. No monetary figures or vote counts are anticipated in this preview, as the hearing has not yet occurred. The decision will impact local density and land-use patterns near a key commercial node, balancing infill efficiency against neighborhood compatibility.
Page 8 of 614 Vision 2050 - Strategic Plan Alignment: Strategic Plan Priority: The recommendation contributes to core service delivery or a corporate initiative that enables service delivery for one or more strategic priorities. The subject application represents a legislated review process. Climate and Environmental Implications: This supports the objectives of the City’s Corporate Climate Change Adaptation Plan by considering climate adaptation in the development of the City’s strategies, plans, and policies. The development represents intensification and infill within a settlement area, which makes efficient use of land and existing municipal services. Previous Report/Authority: Ontario Planning Act (s. 41) City of Owen Sound Official Plan City of Owen Sound Zoning By-law (2010-078, as amended) Background & Proposal: An application for Minor Variance (A04-2026) has been submitted by Murphy Homes and Design Inc. Property Description The subject property, municipally known as 865 16th Street East, is located in the southwest corner of the intersection of 9th Avenue East and 16th Street East adjacent to the Circle K convenience store. The property has a lot frontage of 27.2 metres on 16th Street East, a lot depth of 30.8 metres and is 836.1 square metres in size. Surrounding land uses include: North: Commercial along 16th St. E., residential East: Commercial (16th St. E. commercial area – LCBO, Zehrs plaza) South: Residential West: Residential Staff Report CS-26-027: Minor Variance A04-2026 for 865 16th Street East Page 2 of 13
7.b Application File Nos. A03-2026, B01-2026, and B02-2026 for 2090 9th Avenue East
A proposed four-storey, 35-unit rental apartment building at 2090 9th Avenue East in Owen Sound seeks minor variances from the Zoning By-law to intensify this settlement area. Staff recommend approval contingent on a 6.3-metre rear yard setback for the apartment and a 4.78-metre setback for at-grade patios along the west façade, alongside a 1.5-metre landscape buffer on the south. The project includes 10% affordable housing units (four rent-geared-to-income units) and utilizes a shared 68-space parking lot with an existing building to minimize surface impervious surfaces. Previously designated as open space, the land was recently closed and sold to the applicant for this high-density development. The proposal aligns with the Provincial Planning Statement and County of Grey Official Plan by optimizing municipal services, supporting active transportation, and adding much-needed housing mix within the primary settlement area. The Committee of Adjustment will evaluate if these conditions satisfy the four statutory variance tests before making a final decision.
Page 40 of 614
requirements of the Zoning By-law to facilitate the construction of
the proposed, four-storey, 35-unit apartment building.
Staff recommend approval of a modified variance, subject to
conditions.
Recommended conditions of approval will require that the Site Plan
be modified to provide for, among other matters, a minimum 1.5
metre wide landscape buffer strip along the southern interior lot
line, a 6.3 metre rear yard setback of the proposed apartment, and
a 4.78 metre setback of the proposed at-grade patios/balconies
located along the rear (west) façade.
Strategic Plan Alignment:
Strategic Plan Priority: This report supports the delivery of Core Service.
The subject application represents a legislated review process.
Climate and Environmental Implications:
This supports the objectives of the City’s Corporate Climate Change
Adaptation Plan by considering climate adaptation in the development of the
City’s strategies, plans, and policies.
Of particular note:
The development represents intensification and infill within a
settlement area, which makes efficient use of land and existing
municipal services.
Previous Report/Authority:
City of Owen Sound 2021 Official Plan
City of Owen Sound Zoning By-law (2010-078, as amended)
Staff Report CS-25-046 – Request by Barry’s Construction to Purchase a
Portion of the 21st Street East Unopened Road, West of 9th Avenue East
Staff Report CS-25-067 – Stop Up and Close and Declare Surplus – Part of
21st Street East Road Allowance
Staff Report CS-26-029: Minor Variance A03-2026 for 2090 9th Avenue East
Page 2 of 24
Page 41 of 614
Background & Proposal:
The subject property is located on the west side of 9th Avenue East,
approximately 150 metres north of the intersection of 9th Avenue East and
20th Street East. The lands have approximately 79 metres of frontage along
9th Avenue East and 6,256.5 square metres of lot area and currently contain
an existing, three-storey, 23-unit apartment building and surface parking
area.
Surrounding land uses include:
North: residential (single detached dwellings, townhouses, apartments –
Odawa Heights)
East: residential (single detached dwellings), industrial (indoor storage)
South: residential (single detached dwellings, townhouses, apartments)
West: residential (single detached dwellings)
A portion of the subject lands were formerly part of the 21st Street East road
allowance which was stopped up and closed and declared surplus by the City
in July of 2025, via By-law No. 2025-078. The lands were subsequently sold
to the applicant, in accordance with the City’s Disposition of Land By-law
(2012-195).
The subject lands are designated ‘Residential’ on Schedule ‘A’ – Land Use of
the City’s 2021 Official Plan and are zoned ‘General Residential’ (R5) by the
City’s Zoning By-law (2010-078, as amended). For location context and
surrounding land uses, please see the Orthophoto in Schedule ‘A’. For the
planning policy context, please see the Official Plan and Zoning Map in
Schedule ‘B’. It merits note that the Official Plan mapping illustrates the area
of the lands that were formerly part of the 21st Street East road allowance
designated as ‘Open Space’. These lands have become merged with the
overall land holding owned by the applicant and as such, the Residential land
use designation applies, in accordance with Section 1.3 of the City’s Official
Plan. A full description of the property is included in Schedule ‘C’.
The lands are subject to consent applications B01-2026 and B02-2026, which
have the effect of severing the subject property to facilitate the construction
of a new, four-storey, 35-unit apartment building, including ten per cent
(10%) affordable units, and establishing an easement for shared stormwater
infrastructure, site access, and parking arrangements between the severed
and retained parcels.
Staff Report CS-26-029: Minor Variance A03-2026 for 2090 9th Avenue East
Page 3 of 24
Page 42 of 614
A minor variance is requested to provide the following relief from Zoning Bylaw 2010-078, as amended, to facilitate the construction of the 35-unit
apartment building:
Regulation
Required
Proposed
Variance
Rear yard
setback
(Sec. 6.6. R5 –
Dwelling,
Apartment) (west
side)
7.5 m
4.0 m
3.5 m
Building height
(Sec. 6.6. R5 –
Dwelling,
Apartment)
12 m
14 m
2m
Rear yard
setback for a
porch/deck
(Sec. 5.8) (west
side)
4.5 m
2.48 m
2.1 m
Off-street
parking
(Sec. 5.18)
73 spaces
68 spaces
5 spaces
Planting strip
abutting another
use or lot line
(Sec. 5.23.2)
(south side)
1.5 m
0.5 m
1.0 m
(By-law
section)
A fulsome review and analysis of the proposed minor variance is outlined
below.
Analysis:
As stipulated in the Planning Act [Sec. 45(1)], a minor variance may be
authorized by the Committee of Adjustment, provided that the four tests of a
Staff Report CS-26-029: Minor Variance A03-2026 for 2090 9th Avenue East
Page 4 of 24
Page 43 of 614
variance are met. All decisions with respect to a planning matter must also
be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement.
Provincial Planning Statement
The 2024 Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) has been reviewed with regard
to the proposed application. The PPS requires that settlement areas be the
focus for growth and development and land use patterns within settlement
areas should be based on densities and mix of land uses which efficiently use
land and resources, optimize existing and planned infrastructure and public
service facilities, and support active transportation. Planning authorities are
required to support general intensification and redevelopment to support the
achievement of complete communities.
The subject lands are within a fully serviced settlement area. The proposal
for a high-density residential development consisting of 35 rental apartments
in a compact urban form, having access to full municipal services, public
transit, parks, and amenities, supports the type of efficient, cost-effective
development that is envisioned by the PPS.
Policy 2.2.1 of the PPS further requires planning authorities to provide an
appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities to meet
projected needs of current and future residents of the regional market area.
The PPS defines housing options as meaning a range of housing types and
tenures including townhouses, multi-unit residential buildings, life lease and
land lease communities, and affordable housing. Affordable, in the case of
rental housing, means the least expensive of: (1) a unit for which the rent
does not exceed 30 per cent of gross annual household income for low- and
moderate-income households or, (2) a unit for which the rent is at or below
the average market rent of a unit in the regional market area. The Planning
Justification Report submitted in support of the requested minor variance
indicates that the proposed development will provide for 10 per cent (10%)
affordable units. The proposed development will add 35 rental units,
including four (4) affordable units, to the City’s housing stock and contribute
to providing a range and mix of housing options to meet the needs of current
and future residents, as required by the PPS.
The proposal is consistent with the policies of the PPS.
County of Grey Official Plan
The City of Owen Sound is designated as a ‘Primary Settlement Area’ in the
2019 County of Grey Official Plan (County OP). The County OP promotes a
Staff Report CS-26-029: Minor Variance A03-2026 for 2090 9th Avenue East
Page 5 of 24
Page 44 of 614
full range of land uses within Primary Settlement Areas. Land use policies
and development standards are to be in accordance with the local Official
Plan. The County was provided notice of the application in accordance with
the requirements of the Planning Act and have no objections to the
requested variance.
Test 1: Conformity with the Official Plan
The subject property is designated ‘Residential’ on Schedule ‘A’ – Land Use of
the City’s 2021 Official Plan (OP). Apartment dwellings are among the uses
permitted within the Residential designation.
The area of the severed parcel proposed through Consent B01-2026 is
approximately 0.34 hectares. A total of 35 units are proposed to be
constructed on the severed property, resulting in an overall density of 103
units per net residential hectare. This is considered high density residential
development, in accordance with policy 3.1.2.1 of the OP.
In accordance with policy 3.1.2.2, high density residential may be permitted,
up to a maximum of 125 units per net residential hectare, subject to the
following criteria:
a. The proposed density is deemed appropriate and compatible
within the neighbourhood and provides an acceptable height
and density transition to existing residential uses and lands
designated medium density or low density residential.
The subject lands are within an existing established residential
neighbourhood of the City. The lands are surrounded by a variety of
existing residential uses of various forms and densities including an
existing, 23-unit apartment building to the east, single detached
dwellings and townhouses to the south, single detached dwellings to
the west, and the unopened road allowance of 21st Street East and
townhouses to the north. This area of the City, as well as lands within
the adjacent East Bluffs Planning Area, as identified on Schedule ‘A1’ of
the OP, have experienced significant medium to high density
residential development over the last five (5) years, including:
Hedera (907-1027 22nd Street East), consisting of 36 cluster
townhouse dwelling units in nine (9) buildings.
1832 7th Avenue East, consisting of eight (8) cluster townhouse
dwelling units in two (2) buildings.
9th Avenue Estates (2380 9th Avenue East), consisting of 19
cluster townhouse dwelling units in six (6) buildings.
Staff Report CS-26-029: Minor Variance A03-2026 for 2090 9th Avenue East
Page 6 of 24
Page 45 of 614
The Douglas (1723 8th Avenue East), consisting of a three-storey
apartment building with a total of 23 dwelling units.
Odawa Heights (2239 9th Avenue East), consisting of a fivestorey apartment building with a total of 59 dwelling units.
10th Avenue Estates, consisting of six (6) cluster townhouse
buildings and two (2) apartments, for a total of 94 units.
The proposed high density residential development consisting of a fourstorey, 35-unit rental apartment building is compatible with the
existing residential neighbourhood. Recommended conditions of
approval of the requested variance will require, among other matters,
that the final Site Plan be modified to provide for an increased rear
yard setback of the proposed apartment building and associated atgrade patios and that existing vegetation on-site be retained to ensure
a compatible built form and adequate buffering between the proposed
development and existing single detached dwellings to the west.
The proposed development does not exceed the maximum density
provisions of the City’s Zoning By-law. The requested variance for an
increase in building height is discussed further in the balance of this
report, in consideration of the four tests provided by the Planning Act.
b. Surface parking is minimized in favour of more intensive forms
of parking.
The proposed, 35-unit apartment building and the existing, 23-unit
apartment building will share access via 9th Avenue East and a surface
parking area containing 68 spaces. The use of a shared parking
arrangement minimizes the overall surface parking area. Shared
vehicular entrances on arterial and collector roads is supported by the
policies of the City’s OP.
c. The proposal demonstrates a high standard of urban design and
architectural design.
An elevation of the front of the proposed 35-unit apartment building
has been submitted in support of the requested variance and is
attached as Schedule ‘D’. A standard four storey apartment building is
proposed, with balconies and at-grade patios along the front and rear
façades serving each unit. The implementation of urban design
considerations and site functionality and attractiveness will be ensured
through the site plan approval process and related development
agreements.
Staff Report CS-26-029: Minor Variance A03-2026 for 2090 9th Avenue East
Page 7 of 24
Page 46 of 614
d. Appropriate consideration has been given to screening,
landscaping, overlook, shadow impacts, and other conflict
mitigation measures.
The proposed apartment building is situated on the westerly portion of
the site. The location of the building is generally constrained by the
location of the existing 23-unit apartment building and related surface
parking area. Matters related to screening, landscaping, and shadow
impact of the proposed development are discussed further in the
balance of this report, in consideration of the four tests provided by the
Planning Act. Conditions of approval of the requested minor variance
are recommended to ensure that the proposed development is
adequately buffered from existing residential land uses through the use
of landscaping, fencing, and retention of existing mature coniferous
and deciduous trees and shrubs on-site.
The proposed development will also be subject to further review at the
time of Site Plan Approval as it relates to landscaping, buffering, and
screening.
e. The proposal identifies and implements any required
transportation improvements.
A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) is not required in support of the proposed
35-unit apartment building. The subject lands front onto and have
access via 9th Avenue East, which is designated as a Minor
Arterial/Future Collector Road by the Transportation Plan (Schedule ‘C’)
of the City’s OP and generally intended to carry large volumes of traffic
from Provincial Highways and other County roads.
f. Infrastructure capacity is not exceeded.
The subject property has access to full municipal water, wastewater,
and stormwater services within the 9th Avenue East road allowance.
The proposed development will require site plan approval, in
accordance with the City’s Site Plan Control By-law (2019-185) and as
part of this process, a Servicing Feasibility Study together with a
Servicing Plan, Stormwater Management Report, and Grading and
Drainage Plan will be required.
Staff Report CS-26-029: Minor Variance A03-2026 for 2090 9th Avenue East
Page 8 of 24
Page 47 of 614
g. If applicable, safe access, flood prevention, and geotechnical
stability is achieved to the satisfaction of the City and the Grey
Sauble Conservation Authority; and,
There are no Hazard Lands on or within proximity to the subject lands
that would present an access, flooding, and/or geotechnical stability
concern.
h. The proposal satisfies all other applicable policies of the Official
Plan.
Conformity of the proposed development with the housing
intensification and infill and Urban Design policies of the OP is
discussed further in the balance of this report. The proposed
development conforms to policies of the OP, subject to the
recommended conditions outlined in Schedule ‘E’.
Policy 3.1.2.5 of the OP requires density to be allocated in residential areas
subject to the availability of adequate hard and soft services, access to a
collector or arterial road, and proximity to compatible land uses including,
but not limited to, local institutional and neighbourhood commercial uses. OP
policies generally encourage housing intensification and infill development,
subject to the criteria of policy 3.1.8.2:
a. The proposed development meets locational and other criteria
of this Plan.
The proposed residential density conforms to the requirements of
policy 3.1.2.2, of the OP, as outlined above. As demonstrated in the
balance of this report, the proposed development optimizes the use of
land, resources, and existing municipal services and public service
facilities and will add to the range and mix of housing options within
the City that is supported by the policies of the PPS and the OP.
b. The type, size, and scale of the proposed development is
compatible with adjacent development and planned land use.
The proposed four-storey, 35-unit apartment building is compatible
with the existing residential neighbourhood and is of similar size and
scale to recent residential development constructed and/or approved
within the City’s East Bluffs Planning Area.
Staff Report CS-26-029: Minor Variance A03-2026 for 2090 9th Avenue East
Page 9 of 24
Page 48 of 614
c. The existing infrastructure, including sewer and water services,
can support additional development.
Existing municipal water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure is
available within the 9th Avenue East road allowance to service the
proposed development. The provision of further technical plans and
studies including a Servicing Feasibility Study together with a Servicing
Plan and a Stormwater Management Report will be required as part of
a future site plan approval application.
d. The existing community and recreational facilities such as
schools and parks are adequate to meet the additional demand.
The subject lands are adjacent to the City’s East Bluffs Planning Area,
containing two (2) existing secondary schools within the French and
Catholic School Boards as well as a Community Park, known as Stoney
Orchard Park. As a fully serviced regional service centre, the City has
access to various parks, public service facilities, and transit available to
meet the needs of residents.
e. Required parking can be accommodated.
The development will provide a total of 68 parking spaces that will be
shared between the proposed, 35-unit apartment building and the
existing, 23-unit apartment building. The proposed parking will provide
a minimum of one (1) parking space per dwelling unit, with ten (10)
spaces remaining for visitor use, consistent with the intent and purpose
of the City’s Zoning By-law as discussed further in ‘Test 2’ below.
f. The local road network can accommodate any additional traffic.
The subject lands have frontage on and access via 9th Avenue East,
designated as a Minor Arterial/Future Collector Road by the
Transportation Plan (Schedule ‘C’) of the City’s OP, and generally
intended to carry larger volumes of traffic.
Staff Report CS-26-029: Minor Variance A03-2026 for 2090 9th Avenue East
Page 10 of 24
Page 49 of 614
g. Intensification of a heritage building or a building in a Heritage
Conservation District shall be subject to the protection and
preservation of the heritage character of the building or area in
accordance with Heritage Conservation policies.
There are no built heritage resources identified on or in proximity to
the subject lands, nor are the lands within an identified Heritage
Conservation District.
The development conforms to the Residential designation policies of the
City’s OP, subject to the recommended conditions.
Variance for Rear Yard Setbacks (West Side)
The Urban Design policies of the City’s OP state that the City may define,
within any development area, building heights and setbacks, or in some
cases ‘build to’ lines that are consistent with the intended form of
development and relevant guidelines. Within a residential area, such heights
and setbacks should be consistent with the general form of existing
development. Increased setbacks may be required where high buildings are
proposed (policy 8.6.1.3).
The application is requesting a reduction in the required rear yard setback for
the proposed, 35-unit apartment building. The required setback is 7.5 metres
and the proposed setback is 4 metres. A variance of 3.5 metres is being
requested. The application is also requesting a reduction in the required rear
yard setback for a porch/deck. Based on the submitted Site Plan and Building
Elevations, the proposed apartment building includes at-grade patios and
balconies on the front and rear façades serving each unit. The patios/
balconies on the west (rear) façade are setback 2.48 metres from the rear
lot line, whereas 4.5 metres is required, resulting in a variance of 2.1
metres.
The setback provisions of the City’s Zoning By-law implement the policies of
the City’s Official Plan and are intended to ensure a compatible built form,
that sufficient area remains on the property to provide certain amenities
such as parking and landscaped open space, and that adequate spatial
separation is provided between property lines. Conformity of the requested
reduction in the required rear yard setbacks with the intent and purpose of
the Zoning By-law is discussed further in Test 2 below. In summary,
recommended conditions of approval will require modifications to the Site
Plan to increase the rear yard setback of the proposed apartment building
Staff Report CS-26-029: Minor Variance A03-2026 for 2090 9th Avenue East
Page 11 of 24
Page 50 of 614
and associated at-grade patios/balconies to ensure a compatible built form
and that adequate spatial separation is provided at the rear lot line.
Variance for Building Height
The Urban Design policies of the OP (Sec. 8.6.7) require that the City
consider the potential impact of abrupt changes in building height and scale
on surrounding uses and protected views when considering Zoning By-law
and site plan approvals. Generally, the City will seek compatible building
forms (policy 8.6.7.2). Where the height or mass of a proposed building may
significantly shadow or cause increased wind conditions on an adjacent open
space or solar collector, the City may require a study be undertaken to
assess the impact and may develop and enforce setback requirements, site
plan requirements, and design guidelines to ameliorate the problem.
The application is requesting an increase in the maximum permitted building
height for an Apartment within the R5 Zone. The maximum permitted
building height is 12 metres. The proposed building height is 14 metres. A
variance of 2 metres is being requested.
A Shadow Impact Analysis was submitted in support of the requested
variance for an increase in building height and is attached as Schedule ‘D’.
The Shadow Impact Analysis measures the impact of sun and shadow during
the spring equinox (March 21), summer solstice (June 21), fall equinox
(September 21), and winter solstice (December 21), at the times specified
within the City’s Shadow Study Criteria. The analysis demonstrates that in no
case is 50 per cent (50%) or more of any property shaded for more than two
interval times (a four-hour equivalency), which meet the requirements of the
City’s Shadow Study Criteria. Shadows are illustrated as moving relatively
quickly from west to east across the site. The height of the proposed building
does not cause the rear yards of the existing single detached dwellings to the
west, fronting onto 8th Avenue East, to be shaded for more than two (2)
hours. On the east side of the proposed apartment building, shadows are
predominately contained within the surface parking area, with limited
encroachment onto the existing, 23-unit apartment building except for the
evening hours (6 pm) of the spring, summer, autumn, and winter solstice.
Furthermore, it merits note that the City is currently in the process of
updating its Official Plan and Zoning By-law. On March 23, 2026, City Council
considered Staff Recommendation Report CS-26-023 and directed staff to
bring forward by-laws for the adoption of the new Official Plan and Zoning
By-law. The City’s new Zoning By-law will reduce the number of residential
Staff Report CS-26-029: Minor Variance A03-2026 for 2090 9th Avenue East
Page 12 of 24
Page 51 of 614
zones from six (6) to three (3). The Medium Density Residential (R4) and
General Residential (R5) Zones will be combined into a single, Medium
Density Residential (R2) Zone, which will permit 14 metres of building height
for apartments as-of-right.
Variance for Off-Street Parking
The policies of the City’s OP require that all new development and
redevelopment, including the reuse of existing buildings, be required to
provide adequate off-street parking and loading spaces in accordance with
the standards established in the Zoning By-law. Access and egress to all offstreet parking or loading spaces shall be limited in number and designed to
minimize danger to vehicular and pedestrian traffic (policy 5.1.4.3).
The Site Plan submitted in support of the requested variance proposes 73
off-street parking spaces. A 3.0 metre wide by 15 metre long road widening
is required along the 9th Avenue East frontage of the property. Conveyance
of the road widening will result in two (2) parking spaces being located
within the reduced, 3.0 metre by 3.0 metre wide sight triangles at the
southern site access point with 9th Avenue East. One (1) additional parking
space is located within the sight triangle at the northern site access point
with 9th Avenue East and requires removal, for a total of three (3) spaces.
The loss of two (2) additional parking stalls is anticipated to be required,
resulting from required modifications to the Site Plan to comply with the
minimum planting strip provisions of the Zoning By-law, as discussed further
below.
In total, the development will provide 68 off-street parking spaces that will
be shared between the proposed, 35-unit apartment building and the
existing, 23-unit apartment building. The proposed parking provides a
minimum of one (1) off-street parking space per dwelling unit, with ten (10)
spaces remaining for visitor use, consistent with the purpose and intent of
the City’s Zoning By-law, as discussed further in ‘Test 2’ below.
The design of the proposed off-street parking area generally conforms to the
Urban Design policies of the OP as follows:
Shared vehicular access to the parking area is provided via two (2)
access points off 9th Avenue East. Shared access onto arterial and
collector roads is supported by the policies of the OP.
The development provides four (4) accessible parking spaces, in
proximity to the main building entrances, whereas three (3) are
Staff Report CS-26-029: Minor Variance A03-2026 for 2090 9th Avenue East
Page 13 of 24
Page 52 of 614
required by the Zoning By-law and Accessibility for Ontarians with
Disabilities Act.
The parking area is connected to the main building entrances and
the City street via internal, 1.8 metre wide sidewalks.
Adequate lighting will be further reviewed at the time of site plan
approval. The provisions of the City’s Zoning By-law require parking
lot lighting to be downward facing and dark sky compliant.
Policy 5.1.4.14 of the OP requires parking and charging stations for electric
vehicles to be provided in new development and redevelopment. The
provision of dedicated EV parking and charging stations will be further
reviewed through a future site plan approval application.
Variance for Minimum Planting Strip (South Side)
The Urban Design policies of the Official Plan require parking areas to be
adequately landscaped in accordance with urban design guidelines. Parking
areas should maintain distinct street edges through appropriate landscaping
or structures (8.6.6.5). Further, wherever a residential type of use abuts a
parking area or a loading area, the City may develop and enforce setback
requirements, site plan requirements, and design guidelines to provide
adequate visual and aural separation and privacy for the residential use
(policy 8.6.7.4).
The development proposes a row of 14 parking spaces, a loading space, and
an outdoor waste receptacle/garbage collection area abutting an existing
residential use to the south. The provisions of Section 5.23.2 of the City’s
Zoning By-law implement the policies of the Official Plan by requiring parking
and loading areas to be adequately buffered through the use of fencing and
landscaping where they abut another use or undeveloped land in any zone.
Section 5.23.2 of the Zoning By-law requires that a minimum of 1.5 metres
of land abutting the lot line shall be used for no other purpose than a
planting strip, consisting of a row of trees, a continuous hedgerow of
evergreens or shrubs, a berm, a wall, or a privacy fence not less than 1.5
metres high, immediately adjacent to the lot line and arranged in such a way
to form a dense or opaque screen, with the remainder used for shrubs,
flower beds, grass, ground cover or a combination thereof. The submitted
Site Plan provides a 0.5 metre wide setback from the southern interior side
lot line to the back of the parking lot curb, which does not meet the
requirements of Section 5.23.2 of the City’s Zoning By-law. A variance of 1.0
metre to the minimum planting strip provisions is being requested. The
Staff Report CS-26-029: Minor Variance A03-2026 for 2090 9th Avenue East
Page 14 of 24
Page 53 of 614
landscape treatment of the proposed, 0.5 metre planting strip is not known
however, in discussions with the applicant, it was noted that a 1.5 metre
high fence would be provided along the southern interior side lot line.
In the opinion of Planning staff, the proposed 0.5 metre planting strip does
not provide for adequate visual and aural separation of the parking, loading,
and garbage collection area from adjacent, existing residential land uses to
the south, consistent with the policies of the City’s OP. The proposed width of
0.5 metres is not sufficient for accommodating a minimum 1.5 metre high
fence, as proposed by the applicant, together with shrubs, flower beds, grass
or ground cover as required by the Zoning By-law. In consulting with the
City’s Engineering Services Division on the requested variance, it has been
identified that the 7.5 metre wide southern site access can be reduced to a
width of 6.0 metre in order to achieve a minimum 1.5 metre wide planting
strip along the southern interior side lot line. The reduced site access may
cause the fire route, as shown on the submitted Site Plan, to shift slightly
north and/or the site entrance to be tapered, resulting in a loss of
approximately two (2) additional parking stalls that have been accounted for
in the overall request for reduction in parking. Recommended conditions of
approval will require that the Site Plan be revised to provide for a 6.0 metre
wide southern vehicular site access and a 1.5 metre wide planting strip along
the southern interior side lot line consisting of a 1.5 metre high solid board
fence, together with the planting of shrubs, as required by the City’s Zoning
By-law, and to the satisfaction of the City’s Manager of Planning & Heritage.
It merits note that at the time of pre-consultation for the proposed
development, it was indicated that the applicant be required to meet the
minimum planting strip provisions of the Zoning By-law, as it relates to
buffering of the parking area from adjacent land uses and the City street.
The provision of 7.5 metre wide vehicular site entrances via 9th Avenue East
was also recommended. It is understood that both a 1.5 metre wide planting
strip and 7.5 metre wide site access points are unable to be achieved on site
in consideration of the location of the existing, 23-unit apartment building. In
the opinion of Planning staff, a smaller site access width is more preferrable
to achieve compliance with the Zoning By-law and maintain compatibility
between existing residential uses and the parking and loading functions of
the proposed and existing apartments, consistent with the policies of the
City’s OP.
The proposal conforms to the policies of the City’s Official Plan, subject to the
recommended conditions.
Staff Report CS-26-029: Minor Variance A03-2026 for 2090 9th Avenue East
Page 15 of 24
Page 54 of 614
Test 2: Conformity with the Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-law
The property is zoned ‘General Residential’ (R5) by the City’s Zoning By-law
(2010-078, as amended). Apartments are among the uses permitted in the
R5 Zone.
Variance for Rear Yard Setbacks (West Side)
The provisions of the General Residential (R5) Zone require single and semidetached dwellings, duplexes, and apartments to have a rear yard setback of
7.5 metres. The intent of this provision is to ensure a compatible built form,
that adequate rear yard amenity/landscaped open space is provided, and
that adequate spatial separation is provided between property lines.
The rear lot line of the subject property is outlined in ‘orange’ on the Site
Plan Markup attached as Schedule ‘G’. The rear yard abuts three (3) existing
single detached dwellings, fronting onto 8th Avenue East. The existing single
detached dwellings, as well as other surrounding residential land uses, have
expansive rear yards which do assist in the setback of the proposed
apartment building. It is noted that the siting of the proposed, 35-unit
apartment building on the subject property is somewhat constrained by the
location of the existing, 23-unit apartment building, site access, and surface
parking area.
The development is proposing a rear yard setback of the proposed apartment
building of 4 metres, whereas 7.5 metres is required, resulting in a variance
of 3.5 metres. As well, at-grade patios/balconies are proposed on the west
(rear) façade. Section 5.8.3 of the Zoning By-law permits a porch or deck to
project into a required front, rear or side yard. The intent of this provision is
to permit a porch or a deck to be located within a required yard, while also
ensuring that adequate amenity/landscaped open space is provided. Section
5.8.3 of the Zoning By-law permits a porch or deck to project a maximum of
3 metres into a required rear yard. Accordingly, the required setback of the
proposed at-grade patios/balconies is 4.5 metres, whereas 2.48 metres is
proposed, resulting in a variance of 2.1 metres.
Based on the submitted Grading and Drainage Plan, a drainage swale is also
proposed between the rear lot line, and the proposed at-grade
patios/balconies. The drainage swale is proposed to be setback 1.2 metres
from the rear lot line. Planning staff conducted a site visit at the property on
March 27, 2026. Existing vegetation consisting of mature confierous and
deciduous trees and a cedar hedge were observed at the site visit, existing
Staff Report CS-26-029: Minor Variance A03-2026 for 2090 9th Avenue East
Page 16 of 24
Page 55 of 614
along various portions of the rear lot line. Photos of the site visit are
provided in Schedule ‘H’.
In the opinion of Planning staff, the requested reduction in the required rear
yard setbacks does not provide for adequate separation between property
lines in order to retain the existing landscaping on-site and install new
fencing to buffer the development, together with the proposed drainage
swale and at-grade patios/balconies shown on the submitted Site Plan. The
proximity of the proposed patios to the proposed drainage swale is also a
concern, as it relates to potential encroachment of residential uses on this
area.
In reviewing the submitted Site Plan, Planning staff have identified the
following modifications that could be implemented to increase the rear yard
setback of the proposed apartment and associated at-grade patios and
balconies on the upper-storeys:
The width of the parking lot drive aisle can be reduced from 6.5
metres to 6.0 metres.
The width of the proposed internal sidewalks can be reduced from
1.8 metres to 1.5 metres.
Landscaped areas at the front of the proposed apartment building
(outlined in ‘red’ on the Site Plan Markup attached as Schedule ‘G’),
can be reduced to align with the footprint of the at-grade
patios/balconies (approximately 1.2 metre width).
In total, the above noted modifications to the Site Plan would achieve an
additional setback of approximately 2.3 metres. The proposed apartment
building would generally achieve a rear yard setback of 6.3 metres, whereas
7.5 metres is required, resulting in a variance of 1.2 metres, and the setback
of the proposed at-grade patios/balconies would exceed the minimum
required by the Zoning By-law (4.5 metres required, whereas 4.78 metres
provided).
The above noted modifications to the Site Plan have been included as
recommended conditions of approval outlined in Schedule ‘E’ and serve to
ensure a compatible built form and that adequate spatial separation is
provided between property lines, consistent with the intent and purpose of
the City’s Zoning By-law.
Staff Report CS-26-029: Minor Variance A03-2026 for 2090 9th Avenue East
Page 17 of 24
Page 56 of 614
Variance for Building Height
The general intent and purpose of the maximum building height provisions of
the Zoning By-law are to ensure a compatible built form. As discussed in
‘Test 1’ above, the Shadow Study submitted in support of the application
demonstrates that the requested increase in building height is compatible
with the surrounding neighbourhood. The Shadow Study was prepared in
accordance with the City’s Shadow Study Criteria and demonstrates that in
no case is 50 per cent (50%) or more of any neighbouring property shaded
for more than two interval times (a four-hour equivalency).
Variance for Off-Street Parking
The parking provisions of the Zoning By-law require parking for apartments
to be provided at a rate of 1.25 spaces per dwelling unit. The intent of the
by-law is to ensure that a minimum of one (1) space per dwelling unit is
provided, with 0.25 spaces allocated to visitor parking.
The proposed development will provide a total of 68 parking spaces, shared
between the proposed, 35-unit apartment building and the existing, 23-unit
apartment building, for a total of 58 units. The proposed parking provides a
minimum of one (1) parking space per dwelling unit, with ten (10) spaces
remaining for visitor use (1.17 spaces per unit), consistent with the intent
and purpose of the By-law.
Variance for Minimum Planting Strip (South Side)
The minimum planting strip provisions outlined in Section 5.23 of the City’s
Zoning By-law implement the policies of the City’s Official Plan and are
generally intended to ensure that parking and loading areas are adequately
buffered from adjacent properties and the City street. As discussed in Test 1
above, recommended conditions of approval will require that the Site Plan be
revised to provide a reduced southern vehicular site entrance width onto 9th
Avenue East, in order for the proposed development to achieve a minimum
1.5 metre wide planting strip from the interior southern side lot line, shared
with an existing residential use.
The proposal maintains the general intent and purpose of the City’s Zoning
By-law, subject to the recommended conditions.
Staff Report CS-26-029: Minor Variance A03-2026 for 2090 9th Avenue East
Page 18 of 24
Page 57 of 614
Test 3: Minor in Nature
Determining whether a requested variance is minor in nature requires
consideration of the impact of the requested variance on surrounding
properties and the City street.
Variance for Rear Yard Setbacks (West Side)
As outlined in Test 2 above, recommended conditions of approval will require
that the Site Plan be revised to generally achieve a 6.3 metre rear yard
setback of the proposed, four-storey, 35-unit apartment building and a 4.78
metre setback of the proposed at-grade patios/balconies on the rear (west)
façade. The required modifications to the Site Plan will ensure a compatible
built form and that adequate spatial separation is provided at the rear lot
line.
As noted, staff conducted a site visit at the property on March 27, 2026, and
observed existing vegetation along various portions of the rear lot line. The
existing mature trees and cedar hedging provide an appropriate buffer
between the rear yards of the existing single detached dwellings fronting
onto 8th Avenue East and the proposed development. Retention of the
existing vegetation is necessary to ensure compatibility between the
proposed apartment and existing residential land uses.
Recommended conditions of approval will require the following, to the
satisfaction of the City’s Manager of Planning & Heritage:
1. Provision of a Tree Survey and Tree Preservation and Planting Plan,
prepared by a qualified arborist in accordance with the City’s Site
Development Engineering Standards, to confirm ownership of the
existing vegetation along the rear (west) lot line and identify
vegetation to be retained and removed as part of the development. For
clarity, vegetation located on neighbouring properties is not permitted
to be removed without the consent of the neighbouring property
owner. Vegetation to be retained requires tree protection hoarding
located three (3) metres (10 feet) beyond the canopy drip line for the
duration of the construction period in accordance with the City’s Site
Development Engineering Standards.
2. That any trees located on the subject lands that are proposed for
removal require replacement at a ratio of 2:1, in accordance with the
City’s Residential Tree Preservation Policy.
Staff Report CS-26-029: Minor Variance A03-2026 for 2090 9th Avenue East
Page 19 of 24
Page 58 of 614
Recommended conditions of approval will also require that the provision of a
1.8 metre high solid board fence along portions of the rear lot line be
reviewed at the time of site plan approval. The installation of fencing along
portions of the rear lot line where existing vegetation is to be retained (cedar
hedge row) may not be possible or preferrable, in order to limit soil
disturbance within the canopy drip line and mitigate potential impacts of
construction on the existing vegetation.
Variance for Building Height
The submitted Shadow Study, prepared in accordance with the City’s Shadow
Study Criteria, demonstrates that the requested increase in building height
will not cause a negative impact on adjacent properties as it relates to
shadowing. The proposed, four-storey apartment will not cause 50 per cent
(50%) or more of any property to be shaded for more than two interval
times (a four-hour equivalency).
Variance for Off-Street Parking
The development will provide parking at a rate of one (1) space per dwelling
unit, with ten (10) spaces remaining for visitor use, consistent with the
intent and purpose of the City’s Zoning By-law. The subject lands also have
direct access to the City’s transit system. A stop for the East Bayshore Route
exists immediately in front of the subject property. No impacts to the City
street or surrounding land uses are anticipated by the requested reduction in
parking.
Variance for Minimum Planting Strip
As discussed in Test 1 above, recommended conditions of approval will
require that the Site Plan be revised to ensure a minimum 1.5 metre wide
planting strip is provided along the southern interior side lot line to ensure no
negative impacts of the proposed parking, loading, and garbage collection
area on adjacent existing residential land uses.
The proposal is deemed to be minor in nature, subject to the recommended
conditions.
Test 4: Desirable for the Development and Use of the Lands
The area of the subject lands proposed to be developed for a four-storey, 35unit apartment building have been vacant for some time and likely enjoyed
by existing residents as open green space. While the proposed development
represents a change in land use within the existing residential
Staff Report CS-26-029: Minor Variance A03-2026 for 2090 9th Avenue East
Page 20 of 24
Page 59 of 614
neighbourhood, the proposal for residential intensification and infill
development that has access to full municipal services, transit, parks, and
amenities, is supported by the policies of the PPS and the City’s OP. Further,
the proposed development will add 35 rental units, including four (4)
affordable units, to the City’s housing stock and contribute to providing a
range and mix of housing options to meet the needs of current and future
residents.
The proposal is deemed to be desirable for the development and use of the
lands.
Comments Received:
In accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act (Sec. 45, O. Reg.
200/96), notice of the subject application was provided on March 20, 2026,
to the public and prescribed bodies. Comments received by the SecretaryTreasurer as of the writing of this report are described below and included in
Schedule ‘F’.
City of Owen Sound Engineering & Public Works Department
Comment has been received from the City’s Engineering & Public Works
Department with no objections to the requested variance, subject to the
fulfillment of conditions related to Consent B01-2026 and B02-2026, and
that the applicant obtain Site Plan Approval in accordance with the City’s Site
Plan Control By-law (2019-185).
Grey County
Comment has been received from Grey County with no objection to the
requested minor variance.
Canada Post
Comment has been received from Canada Post with no objection to the
requested variance. The proposal adheres to Canada Post’s multi-unit policy
and will be serviced by owner installed Lock Box Assembly. The provision of
Community Mail Boxes will be further reviewed at the time of site plan
approval.
City of Owen Sound Building Division
Comment has been received from the City’s Building Division with no
objections to the requested variance. Development of the subject lands will
Staff Report CS-26-029: Minor Variance A03-2026 for 2090 9th Avenue East
Page 21 of 24
Page 60 of 614
be subject to further review at the time of Site Plan Approval and Building
Permit application.
Public Comments
Three (3) written comments from members of the public have been received
as of the writing of this report with objections to the requested variance and
related consent for lot creation (B01-2026) and easement (B02-2026) and
are attached as Schedule ‘I’. The public comments received related to the
retention of existing vegetation (cedar hedge row and mature deciduous and
coniferous trees), and installation of privacy fencing have been addressed
throughout the Analysis section of this report and related conditions of
approval outlined in Schedule ‘E’. In addition, the following merits note:
Grading and Drainage
The comments received also express concerns with the proposed
development as it relates to the impact of grading and drainage on adjoining
properties. Conditions of approval will require that the applicant obtain site
plan approval and that a stormwater management plan, together with a
grading and drainage plan be provided as part of this process and approved
by the City’s Engineering Services Division. The grading and drainage plan
submitted in support of the requested variance provides for a stormwater
catch basin (No. 4) into the design to handle pre-existing drainage patterns
of the existing single detached dwellings to the west.
Setbacks
Comments received express concerns with the requested variance to the
minimum rear yard setback of the proposed apartment building and related
at-grade patios and balconies and potential negative impact as it relates to
loss of privacy. Recommended conditions of approval will require
modifications to the Site Plan that will achieve a 4.75 metre setback for the
proposed at-grade patios/balconies, which meets the requirements of the
City’s Zoning By-law. The proposed, four-storey, 35-unit apartment building
will be setback 6.3 metres from the rear lot line which ensures a compatible
built from and provides adequate spatial separation between lot lines,
consistent with the intent and purpose of the City’s Zoning By-law.
Impacts of Construction
Comments received indicate concerns with the potential impact of
construction of the proposed four-storey 35-unit apartment building on the
foundations of existing dwellings. The Ontario Building Code requires that all
Staff Report CS-26-029: Minor Variance A03-2026 for 2090 9th Avenue East
Page 22 of 24
Page 61 of 614
construction does not adversely affect adjacent structures. Comments
received form the City’s Building Division indicate that, as part of a Building
Permit application, the applicant’s qualified engineer is to provide a letter
confirming that the foundation construction method proposed (e.g., slab on
grade, full foundation wall, piles, etc.), will not adversely affect nearby
structures or provide a monitoring and mitigation strategy to protect nearby
structures, if required, based on the foundation construction method
proposed.
Financial Implications:
None to the City.
Communication Strategy:
Notice of the minor variance application was given in accordance with
Section 45(5) of the Planning Act and Ontario Regulation 200/96.
Consultation:
The application was circulated to various City Departments and our
commenting agencies as part of the consultation process.
Attachments:
Schedule 'A': Orthophoto
Schedule 'B': Official Plan and Zoning Map
Schedule 'C': Property Details
Schedule 'D': Supporting Plans and Studies:
i.
Site Plan
ii.
Grading and Drainage Plan
iii.
Front Building Elevation
iv.
Shadow Study
v.
Planning Justification Report
Schedule 'E': Conditions of Approval
Schedule 'F': Staff & Agency Comments
Schedule 'G': Site Plan Markup
Schedule 'H': Site Visit Photos – March 27, 2026
Schedule 'I': Public Comments
Staff Report CS-26-029: Minor Variance A03-2026 for 2090 9th Avenue East
Page 23 of 24
Page 62 of 614
Recommended by:
Jacklyn Iezzi, BES., Senior Planner
Sabine Robart, RPP, MCIP, Manager of Planning & Heritage
Submission approved by:
Pam Coulter, BA, RPP, Director of Community Services
For more information on this report, please contact Jacklyn Iezzi, Senior
Planner at planning@owensound.ca or 519-376-4440 ext. 1261.
Staff Report CS-26-029: Minor Variance A03-2026 for 2090 9th Avenue East
Page 24 of 24
Page 63 of 614
±
764
754
794
215
5
214
2150
1
2140
211
210
5
5
907
E
7
213
to 10
27
9
3
213
0
790
9
1
Av
e
784
785
765
216
5
213
0
2092
205
7
208
6
204
9
204
216
E
775
206
9
217
E
9th
t St
755
207
7
tA
211
21s
tS
214
780
770
745
2125
774
21s
2239
2181
795
744
Schedule 'A': Orthophoto
208
0
3
206
1
206
0
202
5
0
2090
Ave
E
205
6
2099
1
204
5
204
1
2095
203
750
203
5
208
9
2020
9
1
207
201
196
195
3
195
1
194
9
193
9
929 30
0 115
5
9
1280
SubjectProperty
865
9
198
8
196
8
195
8
195
60
940
200
0
Meters
1990
46
1995
198
5
197
5
20th St E
945
66
19
197
5
935
19
76
9
201
815
198
205
1360
807
5
925
19
80
206
0
890
850
8
5
5
860
820
810
804
202
1
199
1300
207
960
740
202
4
13
20
203
205
8th
2042
20
19
Information shown on these drawings/maps/charts
196
is compiled from
7numerous sources and may not
1935 or accurate
be complete
1887
Page 64 of 614
±
206
9
R5
4
79
2140
211
5
R5
213
210
5
MR
907
Av
e
2150
R3 131
E
E
R5
to 10
27
5
9th
78
795
0
790
1
215
2
2239
9
216
214
9
214
3
213
7
2181
0
208
6
208
0
20
43
206
0
E
205
1
203
6
2090
7
2099
R5
204
8th
2042
205
Ave
205
0
R4
M1
206
1
5
204
1
202
4
203
R4
5
208
9
2020
203
207
8
8
1939
194
6
301
930
940
960
890
1980
1950
193
606
Meters
90
OFFICIAL PLAN
Employment
Residential
Open Space
198
5
197
5
R4
196
20th St E
945
195
M2
1280
1995
935
196
ZoneM1
(R5)
Hazard Lands
925
198
8
3
194
9
1902 15
1
201
5
865
1
9
5
5
815
9
Special Provision
205
202
5
195
192
R4
200
196
9
R4 195
860
850
98
19
197
Zoning
5
0
807
Subject Property
5
206
201
820
810
804
1
9
LEGEND
9
202
198
1300
207
1
R4
ZH
R5
2095 14.27
1360
20
49
750
5
216
E
211
t St
775
755
7
tA
217
2092
2 07
780
770
R3
21s
tS
785
R5 2125
14.57
765
745
21s
4
Schedule 'B': Planning Policy
7
M1
14.75 'B'
Information shown on these drawings/maps/charts
1935 from numerous sources and may not
R5
is compiled
be complete or accurate
1887
Page 65 of 614
SCHEDULE C
PROPERTY DETAILS
Property Information
Severed
Retained
Civic Address
TBD
2090 9th Avenue East
Roll Number
TBD
425901000629100,
425901000629101
Legal Description
TBD
FIRSTLY: PT LT 29 E/S
DOUGLAS ST AND N/S ST.
VINCENT ST PL OWEN SOUND;
PT LT 30 E/S DOUGLAS ST AND
N/S ST. VINCENT ST PL OWEN
SOUND PT 1, 16R360; LT 29
W/S STAVELY ST AND N/S ST.
VINCENT ST PL OWEN SOUND;
LT 30 W/S STAVELY ST AND
N/S ST. VINCENT ST PL OWEN
SOUND; OWEN SOUND
SECONDLY: PART NORTH ST
PLAN OWEN SOUND 21ST ST
EAST (FORMERLY NORTH ST)
WEST OF 9TH AVENUE EAST,
PART 1 16R12260 (CLOSED BY
BYLAW NO. 2025-078,
REGISTERED AS GY276261);
OWEN SOUND; SUBJECT TO AN
EASEMENT IN GROSS
Site Frontage
13.5 m (9th
Avenue East)
65 m (9th Avenue East)
Site Depth
102 m
43 m
Report: CS-26-029
Page 1 of 2
Page 66 of 614
File: A03-2026
Property Information
Severed
Retained
Site Area
3,409 square
metres
2,847 square metres
Existing Structures
Vacant
Existing 23-unit apartment
building and surface parking
area
Road Access/Frontage
9th Avenue East
9th Avenue East
Available Servicing
Detail
Potable Water
300 mm ø polyvinyl chloride – 9th Ave E
Wastewater
450 mm ø concrete pipe – 9th Ave E
450 mm ø reinforced concrete – former 21st Street
East road allowance (subject to easement
GY276261)
Stormwater
900 m ø concrete pipe – 9th Ave E
Planning Policy
Detail
County of Grey Official
Plan
Primary Settlement Area
City of Owen Sound
Official Plan
Residential
City of Owen Sound
Zoning By-law 2010078, as amended
General Residential (R5)
Report: CS-26-029
Page 2 of 2
Page 67 of 614
File: A03-2026
SCHEDULE D
SUPPORTING PLANS & STUDIES
A03-2026
i)
Site Plan prepared by GEI Consultants Canada Ltd., dated March 11,
2024, and last revised December 16, 2025.
ii)
Grading and Drainage Plan by GEI Consultants Canada Ltd., dated March
11, 2024, and last revised December 16, 2025.
iii)
Front Building Elevation prepared by Barry’s Construction Ltd. Dated
February 3, 2026.
iv)
Shadow Study prepared by Grey Bruce Property Rentals Inc.
v)
Planning Justification Report by Ron Davidson Land Use Planning
Consultant Inc. dated February 3, 2026
Report: CS-26-
Page 1 of 1
Page 68 of 614
File: A03-2026
NOTES:
1.
TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY PERFORMED BY GM BLUEPLAN
ENGINEERING LTD./GEI CONSULTANTS CANADA LTD. ON
FEBRUARY 2, 2024
2.
REFER TO FULL SET OF DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION AND DETAILS.
CITY OF OWEN SOUND
KEY PLAN
NOT TO SCALE
LEGEND:
BUILDING ENTRANCE
TESTHOLE LOCATION AND LOCATION
EXISTING CATCH BASIN
EXISTING SANITARY OR STORM MANHOLE
HYDRANT
EXISTING GRADE
HYDRO POLE
DIRECTION OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
EXISTING SWALE
FIRE ROUTE
FIRE ROUTE
FENCELINE
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER
EXISTING STORM SEWER
FI
R
EXISTING WATERMAIN
E
RO
UT
EXISTING GAS LINE
E
PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER
PROPOSED STORM SEWER
PROPOSED WATERMAIN
TACTILE WALKING SURFACE INDICATOR PLATE
OPSD 310.039
185.40
PROPOSED GRADE
#1 BENCHMARK EL. 214.077m
TOP/NAIL IN HYDRO POLE ON WEST SIDE OF 9TH AVENUE
EAST, APPROXIMATELY 24.7m SOUTH-EAST OF THE
FIRE ROUTE
NORTH-EAST CORNER OF SUBJECT PROPERTY (AS SHOWN).
#2 BENCHMARK EL. 213.968m
PARCEL 1
TO BE RETAINED
TOP OF SOUTH-WEST CORNER OF CONCRETE PATIO OF
BUILDING A2, BAYFIELD LANDING AT 2050 9TH AVENUE EAST
(AS SHOWN).
PARCEL 1 - TO BE RETAINED
EXISTING APARTMENT - R5 ZONING
MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE
REQUIRED
PROPOSED
COMPLIES
13.50 m
65.90 m
YES
2
2847.5 m
2
MINIMUM LOT AREA
450 m
MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE
40%
23.74%
YES
MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK
6.5 m
10.77 m
YES
MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK
7.5 m
14.02 m
YES
MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK (INT)
1.2 m (South)
4.0 m (North)
3.63 m (South)
21.82 m (North)
YES
YES
MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK (EXT)
3.0 m
N/A
N/A
MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT
12.0 m
<12.0 m
YES
MAXIMUM DENSITY
1.0 FSI
0.71 FSI
YES
8
DEC. 16/25
REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS
WED
1.25 SPACES PER UNIT
29
30
YES
7
OCT. 27/25
UPDATED SEVERANCE AND ZONING INFORMATION
WED
ACCESSIBLE PARKING PER AODA
2
2
YES
6
JUNE 2/25
REVISED PER CITY ENGINEERING REVIEW
WED
5
APR. 21/25
REVISED FOR LAND ACQUISITION FROM CITY
WED
4
FEB. 21/25
FOR PRECONSULTATION SUBMISSION
WED
3
NOV. 20/24
REVISED FIRE ROUTE & ADDED MORE PARKING
WED
2
APR. 2/24
POSSIBLE FIRE ROUTE FOR DISCUSSION
WED
1
MAR. 12/24
FOR INITIAL INTERNAL REVIEW
WED
NO.
DATE
REVISION DESCRIPTION
CH'KD
YES
PARCEL 2
TO BE SEVERED
FILE:B:\Working\BARRY'S CONSTR AND INSULATION\2401604 - 224024 SP - Broadview Courts Apartments, OS\Drawings\224024spl-10.dwg LAYOUT:2 - Site Layout
LAST SAVED BY:Lortwi4144, 12/16/2025 1:54:04 PM PLOTTED BY:Twining, Lori 12/16/2025 1:56:22 PM
PARKING SPACES
BICYCLE PARKING SPACES
10% OF VEHICLE PARKING
3
YES
3
LOADING SPACES
1 SPACE PER 25+ UNIT MULTI RES
FIRE ROUTE
1
1
YES
REQUIRED
PROPOSED
COMPLIES
13.50 m
13.50 m
YES
(*) DENOTES MINOR VARIANCE REQUIRED
PARCEL 2 - TO BE SEVERED
PROPOSED APARTMENT - R5 ZONING
MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE
2
3,409 m
2
Consultants
Canada
MINIMUM LOT AREA
450 m
MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE
40%
22.96%
YES
MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK
6.5 m
>6.5 m
YES
MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK
7.5 m
*4.0 m (Prop. Building)
*2.48 m (Prop. Balcony)
NO
NO
MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK (INT)
1.2 m (South)
4.0 m (North)
3.93 m (South)
15.71 m (North)
YES
YES
MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK (EXT)
3.0 m
N/A
N/A
MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT
12.0 m
*14.0 m±
NO
MAXIMUM DENSITY
1.0 FSI
0.92 FSI
YES
9TH AVENUE EAST
1.25 SPACES PER UNIT
44
*43
NO
CITY OF OWEN SOUND
ACCESSIBLE PARKING PER AODA
2
2
YES
5
6
YES
YES
GEI CONSULTANTS CANADA LTD.
1260-2ND AVENUE EAST, UNIT 1
OWEN SOUND, ONTARIO N4K 2J3
(519)376-1805
BROADVIEW COURTS APARTMENTS
PARKING SPACES
SITE LAYOUT PLAN
BICYCLE PARKING SPACES
10% OF VEHICLE PARKING
LOADING SPACES
1 SPACE PER 25+ UNIT MULTI RES
(*) DENOTES MINOR VARIANCE REQUIRED
1
1
DRAWN BY :
APPROVED BY :
PROJECT NO. :
LVT
WED
2401604 (224024)
DESIGNED BY :
DATE :
SCALE :
LVT
MARCH 11, 2024
1:300
YES
DRAWING NO. :
2
Page 69 of 614
NOTES:
1.
TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY PERFORMED BY GM BLUEPLAN
ENGINEERING LTD./GEI CONSULTANTS CANADA LTD. ON
FEBRUARY 2, 2024
2.
REFER TO FULL SET OF DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION AND DETAILS.
CITY OF OWEN SOUND
KEY PLAN
NOT TO SCALE
LEGEND:
BUILDING ENTRANCE
TESTHOLE LOCATION AND LOCATION
EXISTING CATCH BASIN
EXISTING SANITARY OR STORM MANHOLE
HYDRANT
EXISTING GRADE
HYDRO POLE
DIRECTION OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
EXISTING SWALE
FENCELINE
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER
EXISTING STORM SEWER
EXISTING WATERMAIN
EXISTING GAS LINE
PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER
PROPOSED STORM SEWER
PROPOSED WATERMAIN
TACTILE WALKING SURFACE INDICATOR PLATE
OPSD 310.039
185.40
PROPOSED GRADE
#1 BENCHMARK EL. 214.077m
TOP/NAIL IN HYDRO POLE ON WEST SIDE OF 9TH AVENUE
EAST, APPROXIMATELY 24.7m SOUTH-EAST OF THE
NORTH-EAST CORNER OF SUBJECT PROPERTY (AS SHOWN).
#2 BENCHMARK EL. 213.968m
TOP OF SOUTH-WEST CORNER OF CONCRETE PATIO OF
BUILDING A2, BAYFIELD LANDING AT 2050 9TH AVENUE EAST
FILE:B:\Working\BARRY'S CONSTR AND INSULATION\2401604 - 224024 SP - Broadview Courts Apartments, OS\Drawings\224024spl-10.dwg LAYOUT:4 - Grading & Drainage
LAST SAVED BY:Lortwi4144, 12/16/2025 1:54:04 PM PLOTTED BY:Twining, Lori 12/16/2025 1:59:06 PM
(AS SHOWN).
8
DEC. 16/25
REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS
WED
7
OCT. 27/25
UPDATED SEVERANCE AND ZONING INFORMATION
WED
6
JUNE 2/25
REVISED PER CITY ENGINEERING REVIEW
WED
5
APR. 21/25
REVISED FOR LAND ACQUISITION FROM CITY
WED
4
FEB. 21/25
FOR PRECONSULTATION SUBMISSION
WED
3
NOV. 20/24
REVISED FIRE ROUTE & ADDED MORE PARKING
WED
2
APR. 2/24
POSSIBLE FIRE ROUTE FOR DISCUSSION
WED
1
MAR. 12/24
FOR INITIAL INTERNAL REVIEW
WED
NO.
DATE
REVISION DESCRIPTION
CH'KD
Consultants
Canada
GEI CONSULTANTS CANADA LTD.
1260-2ND AVENUE EAST, UNIT 1
OWEN SOUND, ONTARIO N4K 2J3
(519)376-1805
BROADVIEW COURTS APARTMENTS
9TH AVENUE EAST
CITY OF OWEN SOUND
GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN
DRAWN BY :
APPROVED BY :
PROJECT NO. :
LVT
WED
2401604 (224024)
DESIGNED BY :
DATE :
SCALE :
LVT
MARCH 11, 2024
1:300
DRAWING NO. :
4
Page 70 of 614
1'-4"
Conceptual for Planning Application
T/O TYP. PARAPET
T/O CONC. CORE SLAB
T/O BALCONY PARAPET
7'-0"
7'-4"
10"
U/S CONC. CORE SLAB
T/O CONC. CORE SLAB
U/S CONC. CORE SLAB
U/S CONC. CORE SLAB
T/O CONC. CORE SLAB
T/O CONC. CORE SLAB
U/S CONC. CORE SLAB
U/S CONC. CORE SLAB
T/O CONC. CORE SLAB
T/O CONC. CORE SLAB
U/S CONC. CORE SLAB
U/S CONC. CORE SLAB
T/O CONC. CORE SLAB
T/O CONC. CORE SLAB
U/S CONC. CORE SLAB
U/S CONC. CORE SLAB
10"
9'-10"
10"
4'-0"
GRADE T/O SLAB ON GRADE
4'-0"
T/O SLAB ON GRADE GRADE
FRONT ELEVATION
6"
T/O 6" CONC. FOOTING
6"
T/O 6" CONC. FOOTING
FRONT
AREA:
PAGE:
6
PROJECT #2026-OS1
DATE:
-
FEBRUARY 3, 2026
SCALE:
NOT TO SCALE
DRAWN BY:
ROBERT TOLTON
CLIENT:
ADDRESS:
29/30
2090 9TH AVENUE EAST
MUNICIPALITY:
Page 71 of 614
GREY, OWEN SOUND
LOT:
44'-10"
9'-10"
10"
9'-10"
10"
9'-10"
9'-10"
10"
9'-10"
10"
44'-10"
9'-10"
10"
9'-10"
10"
2'-0"
T/O TYP. PARAPET
T/O CONC. CORE SLAB
2'-0"
T/O TYP. PARAPET
SHADOW STUDY
SHADOW DIAGRAM – SUMMER SOLSTICE
2090 9 th AVENUE EAST, OWEN SOUND
SUMMER SOLSTICE – JUNE 21, 10am
SUMMER SOLSTICE – JUNE 21, 12pm
Page 72 of 614
SHADOW STUDY
SHADOW DIAGRAM – SUMMER SOLSTICE
2090 9 th AVENUE EAST, OWEN SOUND
SUMMER SOLSTICE – JUNE 21, 2pm
SUMMER SOLSTICE – JUNE 21, 4pm
Page 73 of 614
SHADOW STUDY
SHADOW DIAGRAM – SUMMER SOLSTICE
2090 9 th AVENUE EAST, OWEN SOUND
SUMMER SOLSTICE – JUNE 21, 6pm
Page 74 of 614
SHADOW STUDY
SHADOW DIAGRAM – SUMMER SOLSTICE
2090 9 th AVENUE EAST, OWEN SOUND
AUTUM EQUINOX – SEPTEMBER 21, 10am
AUTUM EQUINOX – SEPTEMBER 21, 12pm
Page 75 of 614
SHADOW STUDY
SHADOW DIAGRAM – SUMMER SOLSTICE
2090 9 th AVENUE EAST, OWEN SOUND
AUTUM EQUINOX – SEPTEMBER 21, 2pm
AUTUM EQUINOX – SEPTEMBER 21, 4pm
Page 76 of 614
SHADOW STUDY
SHADOW DIAGRAM – SUMMER SOLSTICE
2090 9 th AVENUE EAST, OWEN SOUND
AUTUM EQUINOX – SEPTEMBER 21, 6pm
Page 77 of 614
SHADOW STUDY
SHADOW DIAGRAM – SUMMER SOLSTICE
2090 9 th AVENUE EAST, OWEN SOUND
WINTER SOLSTICE – DECEMBER 21, 10am
WINTER SOLSTICE – DECEMBER 21, 12pm
Page 78 of 614
SHADOW STUDY
SHADOW DIAGRAM – SUMMER SOLSTICE
2090 9 th AVENUE EAST, OWEN SOUND
WINTER SOLSTICE – DECEMBER 21, 2pm
WINTER SOLSTICE – DECEMBER 21, 4pm
Page 79 of 614
SHADOW STUDY
SHADOW DIAGRAM – SUMMER SOLSTICE
2090 9 th AVENUE EAST, OWEN SOUND
SPRING EQUINOX – MARCH 21, 10am
SPRING EQUINOX – MARCH 21, 12pm
Page 80 of 614
SHADOW STUDY
SHADOW DIAGRAM – SUMMER SOLSTICE
2090 9 th AVENUE EAST, OWEN SOUND
SPRING EQUINOX – MARCH 21, 2pm
SPRING EQUINOX – MARCH 21, 4pm
Page 81 of 614
SHADOW STUDY
SHADOW DIAGRAM – SUMMER SOLSTICE
2090 9 th AVENUE EAST, OWEN SOUND
SPRING EQUINOX – MARCH 21, 6pm
Page 82 of 614
SHADOW STUDY
SHADOW DIAGRAM – SUMMER SOLSTICE
2090 9 th AVENUE EAST, OWEN SOUND
In summary, this Shadow Study demonstrates that the proposed 4 storey
apartment building is not anticipated to have a significant impact on the
surrounding land uses, as it will not cause 50 percent or more of any adjacent
property to be shaded for more than two interval times (a four-hour equivalency).
Page 83 of 614
Ron Davidson
Land Use Planning Consultant Inc.
_________________________________________
February 3, 2026
City of Owen Sound
808 2nd Avenue East
Owen Sound, ON
N4K 2H4
Attention:
Sabine Robart
Manager of Planning & Heritage
Dear Sabine:
Re: Planning Justification Report
Applications for Consent and Minor Variance
2090 9th Avene East, Owen Sound
Owner: Grey Bruce Property Rentals Inc.
Further to recent pre-consultation discussions involving the City of Owen Sound and Grey
Bruce Property Rentals Inc., I am submitting this Planning Justification Report on behalf of the
developer.
Proposal:
The subject property comprises 6,256.5 square metres of land and is occupied by a threestorey / 23-unit apartment building. From this parcel, the landowner wishes to sever a vacant
parcel comprising 3409 square metres of land upon which a four-storey / 35 unit apartment
building will be constructed.
Based on discussions with the owner, it is the intention that the proposed 35-unit apartment
building would include 20% accessible units and 10% affordable units.
Approval of a Consent application is necessary to sever the lands.
In order to construct the apartment building in the manner shown on the Site Plan, a Minor
Variance is also necessary for the following reasons:
_____________________________________________________________________
265 BEATTIE STREET
OWEN SOUND
TEL: 519-371-6829
ronalddavidson@rogers.com
ONTARIO
N4K 6X2
www.rondavidson.ca
Page 84 of 614
Planning Justification Report
2090 9th Avenue East
Owen Sound
to increase the maximum building height provision of an apartment building from 12.0
metres to 14.0 metres;
to reduce the minimum rear yard requirement from 7.5 metres to 4.0 metres, plus a
further reduction to 2.48 metres for the balconies; and,
to reduce the minimum parking requirements associated with the new apartment building
from 44 spaces to 43 spaces.
An additional Consent application will be required in the future to provide reciprocal easements
between the severed and retained parcels to deal with servicing and allow for a shared access
and parking. The exact location of the proposed servicing will not be determined until the Site
Plan Agreement stage, and therefore the additional Consent application cannot be filed until
then.
Subject Lands:
The subject property is located along the west side of 9th Avenue East, in the City of Owen
Sound.
This holding appears as two parcels on the City’s GIS mapping; however, this is incorrect as
only one lot exists. A portion of the subject property was previously part of the 21st Street East
road allowance but was sold to the developer by the City of Owen Sound, to facilitate the
construction of the new apartment building.
The site comprises 6,256.5 square metres of lot area. The existing three-storey apartment
building known as “Broadview Courts” is located on the east side of the property. A parking
area is situated to the rear of the building. A large grassed area exists further west, with these
particular lands being the development envelope for the new apartment building. The former
road allowance that now forms part of the subject property is also grassed and will be used for
access and parking.
Adjacent Lands:
A variety of residential dwelling types and an industrial facility exist within close proximity of the
subject lands, along with an industrial use. Townhouses occupy the lands to the immediate
north and south of the site. Semi-detached dwellings exist to the east, along the opposite side
of 9th Avenue East. A public storage business is located to the northeast. Detached dwellings
are located to the west.
2|Page
Page 85 of 614
Planning Justification Report
2090 9th Avenue East
Owen Sound
City of Owen Sound Zoning By-law:
The subject property is zoned ‘R5’ (General Residential) on Schedule A of the City’s
Comprehensive Zoning By-law. A variety of residential housing types are permitted in the ‘R5’
zone, including detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, duplexes, townhouses,
apartment buildings, boarding houses, lodging house, and group homes.
The size of the proposed severed and retained parcels comply with the minimum lot area and
frontage provisions of the ‘R5’ zone. A Minor Variance is not required to facilitate the
severance.
The development intended on the vacant severed parcel, however, requires relief from the
building height, rear yard, and parking requirements, as stated above.
City of Owen Sound Official Plan:
i. ‘Residential’ Land Use Designation
According to Schedule A of the City of Owen Sound Official Plan, the subject property is
designated ‘Residential’. A variety of residential dwelling types is permitted within this land use
designation, including detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, duplexes, townhouses,
apartment buildings, and accessory residential units. The Official Plan promotes such a
variety of dwelling types in order to ensure that housing can be provided for everyone within
the community.
According to Section 3.1.2.1, a residential development having a density between 61 and 125
units per hectare would constitute high density. The new apartment building would bring the
density of the subject lands, including the existing apartment buildings, to 92.7 units per
hectare. The following policies are therefore pertinent:
3.1.2.2
High-density Residential may be permitted up to a maximum density of 125 units
per net residential hectare subject to the satisfaction of the following criteria:
i.
The proposed density is deemed appropriate and compatible within the
neighbourhood and provides an acceptable height and density transition to
existing residential uses and lands designated Medium-density or Low-density
Residential;
ii.
Surface parking is minimized in favour of more intensive forms of parking;
3|Page
Page 86 of 614
Planning Justification Report
2090 9th Avenue East
Owen Sound
iii.
The proposal demonstrates a high standard of urban design and architectural
design;
iv.
Appropriate consideration has been given to screening, landscaping, overlook, shadow impacts and other conflict mitigation measures;
v.
The proposal identifies and implements any required transportation
improvements;
vi.
Infrastructure capacity is not exceeded;
vii.
If applicable, safe access, flood prevention and geotechnical stability is
achieved to the satisfaction of the City and the Grey Sauble Conservation
Authority; and,
viii. The proposal satisfies all other applicable policies of this Official Plan.
Comments:
The proposed building exceeds the building height requirement, albeit by only two
metres. The 14-mere building will only be four metres taller than the 10-metre building
height permitted on the abutting lands, which is not significant. In a situation like this, it is
also important to assess the potential impact that the new building would have on the
adjacent houses to the west in terms of sun blockage. In this regard, a Shadow Study
has been conducted in accordance with the City’s policies and has concluded that:
“….the proposed 4-sotrey apartment building is not anticipated to have a significant
impact on the surrounding land uses, as it will not cause 50 percent or more of any
adjacent property to be shaded for more than two interval times (a four-hour
equivalency).”
This passes the shadow tests established the City.
The proposed development involves surface parking. A more intensive form of parking is
not feasible;
The developer has erected other apartment buildings in the City, all of which are of high
standard urban design and architectural design. Building elevation drawings of the
proposed development have been submitted to the City;
4|Page
Page 87 of 614
Planning Justification Report
2090 9th Avenue East
Owen Sound
Following approval of the Minor Variance application, the developer will be making a Site
Plan Application submission which will include a Landscaping Plan showing fencing,
landscaping, etc. With regard to buffering, it should be noted that the mature cedar
hedges existing portions of the rear lot line will assist in screening the proposed
apartment building from the dwellings to the west;
With regard to transportation improvements, a new entrance will be constructed along the
north side of the subject property, thereby giving the two apartment building properties
two entrances/ exits, both of which will be shared;
Sufficient municipal water and sanitary sewage disposal capacity exist to service the
additional 35 units;
At the Site Plan Agreement stage, the developer will submit engineered drawings that
address stormwater management; and,
The proposal conforms with all relevant policies of the Official Plan.
3.1.2.5
Density shall be allocated in residential areas in accordance with the following:
a.
Lands shall have access to hard services at sufficient capacity for the
intended density.
b.
Adequate soft services such as parks, schools, emergency services, transit
and similar shall be available as required to support the intended density.
c.
Lands intended for medium and high-density uses should have direct
access to collector or arterial roads and proximity to compatible land uses
including but not limited to local institutional and neighbourhood
commercial uses.
Comments:
Full municipal hard and soft services are readily available to service the additional 35-unit
apartment building and its tenants.
The expanded development on these lands will possess two access point to/from 9th
Avenue East, a road which is recognized on Schedule C of the City’s Official Plan as
‘Collector / Future Arterial’. Children residing within the new apartment units can attend
the nearby Catholic or private schools, both of which are within walking distance, or will
5|Page
Page 88 of 614
Planning Justification Report
2090 9th Avenue East
Owen Sound
be enrolled in other schools within Owen Sound which will require bussing.
Transportation will likely be required for shopping.
ii. General Residential Policies
3.1.8 Residential Intensification
3.1.8.2
Housing intensification, infill development, and/or conversion of non-residential
buildings to a residential use is supported subject to the following policies:
a.
The proposed development meets locational and other criteria of this
Plan.
b.
The type, size and scale of the proposed development is compatible with
adjacent development and planned land use.
c.
The existing infrastructure, including sewer and water services, can
support additional development.
d.
The existing community and recreational facilities, such as schools and
parks are adequate to meet the additional demand.
e.
Required parking can be accommodated.
f.
The local road network can accommodate any additional traffic.
g.
Intensification of a heritage building or a building in a Heritage
Conservation District shall be subject to the protection and preservation
of the heritage character of the building or area in accordance with
Heritage Conservation policies.
Comments:
The proposed apartment building complies with the locational criteria for high-density
residential housing, as explained above;
An apartment building already exists on the subject property. Other dwelling types in the
area include townhouses, semi-detached dwellings, and detached dwelling. A second
apartment building on the subject property should be deemed compatible with the area;
Full municipal services are readily available to service the development;
6|Page
Page 89 of 614
Planning Justification Report
2090 9th Avenue East
Owen Sound
Two schools exist within walking distance of the site, as explained above. Students not
enrolled in these schools will likely require bussing. The subject lands are not located
within walking distance of commercial or recreational facilities, which seems to be
consistent with other high-density developments that have been occurring within the City;
Adequate parking will be provided. Although relief from the parking standards of the
Zoning By-law is required to allow for the development on the severed parcel to have one
fewer space than normally permitted, the retained parcel will provide one more parking
spaces than required by the Zoning By-law. Overall, the parking is sufficient. At a later
date, the developer will enter into reciprocal operating easements so the parking will be
shared.
9th Avenue East is a busy road that carries heavier volumes of trucks during peak traffic
times. There should be no issue in having this road accommodate the additional vehicles
associated with the 35 new apartments. A second entrance onto 9th Avenue East will be
constructed, which should assist with traffic flow for vehicles leaving and returning to the
site; and,
The proposal does not involve a heritage or a building within a Heritage Conservation
District.
iii. Compatibility
8.6.7.2
The City shall consider the potential impact of abrupt changes in building height
and scale on surrounding uses and protected views when considering zoning bylaws and site plan approvals. Generally, the City will seek compatible building
forms.
8.6.7.3
Where the height or mass of a proposed building may significantly shadow or
cause increased wind conditions on an adjacent open space or solar collector, the
City may require a study be undertaken to assess the impact and may develop and
enforce setback requirements, site plan requirements and design guidelines to
ameliorate the problem.
Comment:
The Shadow Study meets the standards established by the City with regard to
shadowing impact on neighbouring properties.
iv. Lot Creation
The creation of new lots is regulated by the consent policies of Section 9.3.2 of the Official
Plan. The following policies are relevant:
7|Page
Page 90 of 614
Planning Justification Report
2090 9th Avenue East
Owen Sound
9.3.2.4
Regard shall be had to the following criteria when considering an application
for consent:
a.
The lands front onto an existing, assumed public road that is maintained on
a year round basis.
b.
The consents shall have the effect of infilling in existing areas and not
extending existing development.
c.
Creation of the lot does not compromise the long-term use of the remaining
land or retained parcel.
d.
The size of the parcel of land created by consent should be appropriate for
the use proposed.
e.
Soil and drainage conditions are suitable or can be made suitable to permit
the proper siting of buildings.
f.
Impact on any adjacent built heritage or archaeological resource.
9.3.2.5
No parcel shall be created which does not conform to the provisions of the
Zoning By-law except where a minor variance has been approved.
9.3.2.6
On the granting of an application for consent, appropriate conditions may be
imposed, including necessary road widening, which may include the entering into
of agreements with the City to ensure fulfillment of the conditions and/or City
policies.
Comments:
The severed and retained parcels will provide frontage along a public road;
The severance clearly represents infilling, as residential development already exists
in all directions;
The severance does not compromise the long-term use of the subject lands. Following
the lot creation and intended apartment building construction, there will not be any
further opportunity for development to occur on the subject lands;
The size of the two resulting lots is appropriate for the intended use. Both parcels
comply with the minimum lot area and frontage standards of the ‘R5’ zone;
8|Page
Page 91 of 614
Planning Justification Report
2090 9th Avenue East
Owen Sound
There are no concerns with regard to soil conditions for the proper citing of buildings;
No impact on the adjacent building heritage should occur as the abutting lands would not
be described as having built heritage;
A 3.0 metre x 15.0 metre road widening has been requested by the City and is shown
on the Site Plan;
v. Servicing
Section 4.1.4 Services of the Owen Sound Official Plan states:
4.1.4.2
The City will extend existing water supply and sewers with adequate capacity as
development occurs at the applicant’s cost.
Comments:
The developer is aware that the cost of providing municipal water and sanitary sewer
lines to the apartment building on the severed lot will be their responsibility.
In view of the foregoing, it is evident that the proposed development conforms to the
City’s Official Plan.
Tests of a Minor Variance:
Section 45(1) of the Planning Act lists four tests that a Minor Variance must pass in order to be
approved. Below is an evaluation of the requested Zoning By-law review within the context of
these four tests.
This evaluation, however, does not include the proposed parking space reduction because it is
unnecessary. Whereas the development on the severed parking is one space short, an extra
parking space will be made available on the retained parcel. A parking agreement will ensure
that the severed parcel can utilize that extra space.
With regard to the proposed relief from the building height and rear yard provisions, please
consider the following:
1.
Does the variance maintain the intent and purpose of the Official Plan?
The subject lands are designated ‘Residential’ on Schedule A of the City of Owen Sound
Plan. As explained above, a series of residential dwelling types are permitted within this
9|Page
Page 92 of 614
Planning Justification Report
2090 9th Avenue East
Owen Sound
land use designation, including high density dwellings such as apartment buildings.
The Official Plan does not include specific requirements for building height and lot line
setbacks, as that’s the purpose of a Zoning By-law. The Official Plan does, however,
require high density development to consider potential impacts on neighbouring land
uses. The potential impact of the new apartment building on the detached dwellings
located to the west has been discussed above.
2.
Does the variance maintain the intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law?
The purpose of the building height provision in the Zoning By-law is generally to ensure
that a new building is not dominant over the buildings on the neighbouring properties. On
this note, the new apartment building will be 2.0 metres taller than what is currently
permitted, which represents an increase of 16.7%. This is not a substantial increase. As
well, the Shadow Study has concluded that the shadow impact on neighbouring lands is
acceptable based on the City’s standard.
The purpose of the rear yard provision for residential buildings is generally to ensure that
a property maintains sufficient private amenity space for the residents of the building.
Despite the reduction, sufficient open space should remain to fulfil this function.
3.
Is the variance minor in nature?
This test has traditionally been interpreted as meaning “what impact will the variance
have on the neighbours?” The impact of the reduced rear yard and increased building
height should be minimal.
It should be noted that the geometry of the site and the location of the existing building
restricts the siting of the proposed building. In order to limit the reduction of the rear yard
requirement, the depth of the building has been reduced to 15.24 metres, the front of the
building has been pushed towards the parking area, and the size of the decks has been
reduced to 1.5 metres.
Complying with the current 12-metre building height is not possible, as a smaller building
would render the project economically unviable. With the additional 2.0 metres of
building height, the developer is able construct a fourth floor with 12 additional rental
units, which helps in making the project workable.
4.
Is the variance requested desirable for the appropriate and orderly development and use
of the lands and buildings?
10 | P a g e
Page 93 of 614
Planning Justification Report
2090 9th Avenue East
Owen Sound
The proposed development is located within an area of Owen Sound that is represented
by a mix of residential dwelling types and densities. The site is currently occupied by one
apartment building, and a second apartment building would seem appropriate for the site.
The site is located on an existing collector road and the City’s bus route, and therefore
the expanded apartment building can be easily accessed by private and public
transportation.
The proposal variance is desirable for the appropriate and orderly development and use
of the lands and buildings.
Provincial Planning Statement:
The Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) generally directs urban type development to
the designated settlement areas, such as Owen Sound.
The PPS strongly encourages development within an urban area to be serviced with
municipal water and sanitary sewers. Full municipal services will be provided to the new
development on the severed parcel.
The PPS gives clear direction to the City in requiring a variety of residential dwelling types
and tenures to be created within a community in order to ensure that housing can be
provided for everyone. The development will result in an additional 35 rental units.
The PPS promotes infilling, intensification, and the efficient use of land and
infrastructure, which describes the proposed development.
In view of the foregoing, it is very clear that the proposed lot creation and development are
consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement.
Conclusion:
The submit Consent and Minor Variance applications have merit and can be given
favourable consideration.
Sincerely,
Ron Davidson, BES, RPP, MCIP
c.c. Stuart Doyle
11 | P a g e
Page 94 of 614
SCHEDULE E
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
MINOR VARIANCE A03-2026
1. That the Site Plan be revised to provide for a 6.0 m wide southern
vehicular site access and a 1.5 m wide planting strip along the
southern interior side lot line consisting of a 1.5 m high solid board
fence, together with the planting of shrubs, as required by the City’s
Zoning By-law (2010-078, as amended), to the satisfaction of the
City’s Manager of Planning & Heritage.
2. That the final Site Plan be revised as follows in order to provide a 6.3
m rear yard setback of the proposed, four-storey 35-unit apartment
and 4.78 m setback of the proposed at-grade patios/balconies located
on the rear (west) façade, to the satisfaction of the City’s Manager of
Planning & Heritage:
a. The width of the parking lot drive aisle reduced from 6.5 m to
6.0 m.
b. The width of the proposed internal sidewalks reduced from 1.8 m
to 1.5 m.
c. The landscaped areas at the front of the proposed apartment
building reduced to align with the footprint of the at-grade
patios/balconies (approximately 1.2 m width).
With the implementation of recommended conditions #1 and #2 noted above,
the applicant requires the following relief from the Zoning By-law (2010-078,
as amended), to facilitate the construction of the proposed four-storey, 35unit apartment building:
File: A03-2026
Page 1 of 2
Page 95 of 614
Regulation
(By-law section)
Rear yard setback
(Sec. 6.6. R5 –
Dwelling,
Apartment) (west
side)
Building height
(Sec. 6.6. R5 –
Dwelling,
Apartment)
Off-street parking
(Sec. 5.18)
Required
Proposed
Variance
7.5 m
6.3 m
1.2 m
12 m
14 m
2m
73 spaces
68 spaces
5 spaces
3. Provision of a Tree Survey and Tree Preservation and Planting Plan,
prepared by a qualified arborist in accordance with the City’s Site
Development Engineering Standards and to the satisfaction of the
City’s Manager of Planning & Heritage, to confirm ownership of the
existing vegetation along the rear (west) lot line and identify
vegetation to be retained and removed as part of the proposed
development. For clarity, vegetation located on neighbouring
properties is not permitted to be removed without the consent of the
neighbouring property owner. Vegetation to be retained requires tree
protection hoarding located three (3) metres (10 feet) beyond the
canopy drip line for the duration of the construction period in
accordance with the City’s Site Development Engineering Standards.
4. That any trees located on the subject lands that are proposed for
removal require replacement at a ratio of 2:1, in accordance with the
City’s Residential Tree Preservation Policy.
5. That Site Plan Approval be obtained in accordance with the requirements
of the Planning Act and development agreement(s) be executed (if
required) and securities thereunder be posted (if required) prior to the
establishment of any use on the property or issuance of any Building
Permit to the satisfaction of the City. The following matters will be required
to be addressed through the Site Plan Approval process:
a. Provision of a 1.8 m high solid board fence, to be provided along
portions of the rear (west) lot line and the planting of coniferous
trees provided on the west side of the fence, to the satisfaction of
File: A03-2026
Page 2 of 2
Page 96 of 614
the City’s Manager of Planning & Heritage. The installation of fencing
along portions of the rear lot line where existing vegetation is to be
retained (cedar hedge row) may not be possible or preferrable in
order to limit soil disturbance within the canopy drip line and
mitigate potential impacts of construction on the existing vegetation.
b. Landscaping.
c. Buffering and screening of the proposed development including
parking area, loading space, and outdoor garbage/waste collection
area.
d. Parking and charging stations for electric vehicles.
e. Execution of a Site Plan Agreement with the City including provisions
related to snow storage, site lighting, among other matters.
f. Design and signage of accessible parking stalls in accordance with
the City’s Zoning By-law, AODA, and Site Development Engineering
Standards.
g. Site servicing including provision of a Servicing Feasibility Study
together with a Servicing Plan, Stormwater Management Report, and
grading and drainage plan.
6. That all conditions related to Consent B01-2026 and B02-2026 be fulfilled,
to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor.
File: A03-2026
Page 3 of 2
Page 97 of 614
SCHEDULE F
STAFF & AGENCY COMMENTS
Minor Variance A03-2026
City of Owen Sound Engineering & Public Works Department – March 31, 2026
Canada Post – March 26, 2026
County of Grey – March 27, 2026
City of Owen Sound Building Division – March 23, 2026
Report: CS-26-029
Page 1 of 1
Page 98 of 614
File: A03-2026
Staff Report
Engineering Services Division
Public Works & Engineering Department
Date:
March 31, 2026
Application:
A03/2026
To:
Staci Landry, Secretary-Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment
Jacklyn Iezzi, Senior Planner
Sabine Robart, Manager of Planning and Heritage
Pam Coulter, Director of Community Services
Lara Widdifield, Director of Public Works & Engineering
From:
Matthew Pierog, Engineering Technologist
Subject:
Application for Minor Variance – Engineering Review
Municipal Address: 2090 9th Avenue East
Assessment Roll: 425901000629100, 425901000629101
Legal Description: FIRSTLY: PT LT 29 E/S DOUGLAS ST AND N/S ST.
VINCENT ST PL OWEN SOUND; PT LT 30 E/S DOUGLAS ST AND N/S ST.
VINCENT ST PL OWEN SOUND PT 1, 16R360; LT 29 W/S STAVELY ST AND
N/S ST. VINCENT ST PL OWEN SOUND; LT 30 W/S STAVELY ST AND N/S ST.
VINCENT ST PL OWEN SOUND; OWEN SOUND SECONDLY: PART NORTH ST
PLAN OWEN SOUND 21ST ST EAST (FORMERLY NORTH ST) WEST OF 9TH
AVENUE EAST, PART 1 16R12260 (CLOSED BY BYLAW NO. 2025-078,
REGISTERED AS GY276261); OWEN SOUND; SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT IN
GROSS
Applicant: Barry’s Construction and Insulation Ltd.
Background:
Refer to description provided by the City’s Planning Division.
Recommendation:
Further to our review of the above noted application, the Public Works and
Engineering Department recommends approval of this application for minor
variance by the Committee of Adjustment. Further details for the property
Page 1 of 3
Page 99 of 614
APPLICATION for MINOR VARIANCE – ENGINEERING REVIEW
A03/2026
2090 9th Avenue East
continued
are expected to be refined during the concurrent Consent Application and
forthcoming Site Plan Approval Application.
Analysis:
Site Access:
The properties front on 9th Avenue East and 21st Street East road allowance,
classified as a future Arterial Road and an unopened road allowance,
respectively.
Based on the concurrent Consent Application (B01-02/2026), both accesses
into the development are proposed to be shared, and access easements are
required. The proposed widths for each accesses appear to meet the City’s
minimum widths (7.5 m) as per the Site Development Engineering
Standards.
It is noted that the southern entrance meets the City’s minimum driveway
width, however, a smaller driveway may be permitted (i.e. 6.0 m),, based
on the limited area on-site between the existing building and southern lot
line (variance request at southern lot line) and the properties having two (2)
separate accesses.
There does not appear to be any impact to site access required as a part of
the minor variance application submitted for the proposed development.
Parking:
The proposed parking stalls (standard, Type ‘A’ & Type ‘B’) meet the City’s
minimum dimensions for parking stall length and widths.
ESD has no concerns for the variance request for the reduction in the
parking or lot line reduction requested at the site.
Site Servicing:
Servicing will be discussed as a part of the concurrent Consent Application
and upcoming Site Plan Approval Application.
There doesn’t appear to be any impact to the existing servicing for the
development based on the minor variance application.
Grading, Drainage & Stormwater Management:
Page 2 of 3
Page 100 of 614
APPLICATION for MINOR VARIANCE – ENGINEERING REVIEW
A03/2026
2090 9th Avenue East
continued
It is the Owner’s responsibility to ensure that the overall grading, drainage
and stormwater management plans conform to Section 2.2.2 of By-law
1999-030; the City of Owen Sound Property Standards By-law, and the
approved grading plan.
A Grading and Drainage Plan prepared is not required for this Minor Variance
application, however, will be required as a part of the concurrent Consent
Application. A draft plan has been provided at this time, and it is noted that
the applicant has incorporated a SWM catchbasin (No. 4) into the design to
handle pre-existing drainage patterns, west of the proposed building.
Consultation:
This document incorporates comments from all Divisions of the Public Works
and Engineering Department. The Comments provided above were based on
the City’s most recent Engineering Standards and the records available at
the time of preparation of this report. The comments provided do not
preclude the applicant’s responsibility for meeting all applicable laws,
regulations and standards, or provide any assurances.
Prepared By:
Reviewed By:
Matthew Pierog, P.Eng.
Mason Bellamy, C.Tech.
Matthew Pierog, P.Eng.
Reviewed via email
Page 3 of 3
Page 101 of 614
CANADA POST
955 HIGHBURY AVE N
LONDON ON N5Y 1A3
POSTES CANADA
955 HIGHBURY AVE N
LONDON ON N5Y 1A3
CANADAPOST.CA
POSTESCANADA.CA
March 26, 2026
Staci Landry
Deputy Clerk | Corporate Services Department | City of Owen Sound
808 2nd Avenue East, Owen Sound, ON N4K 2H4
519-376-4440 ext 1235 | slandry@owensound.ca
Notice of Public Hearing and Application for File A03-2026
Canada Post has reviewed the proposal for the above noted Development Application and has
determined that the project adheres to the multi-unit policy and will be serviced by
developer/owner installed Lock Box Assembly.
Multi-unit buildings and complexes (residential and commercial) with a common lobby,
common indoor or sheltered space, require a centralized lock box assembly which is to be
provided by, installed by, and maintained by the developer/owner at the owner’s expense.
Buildings with 100 units or more MUST have a rear loading Lock Box Assembly with
dedicated secure mail room.
Should the description of the project change, please provide an updated plan in order for us to
assess the impact of the change on mail service.
Canada Post appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above noted application and
looks forward to working with you in the future.
The complete guide to Canada Post’s Delivery Standards can be found at:
https://www.canadapost.ca/cpo/mc/assets/pdf/business/standardsmanual_en.pdf
If you require any further information or have any questions or concerns, please contact the
undersigned.
Regards,
DarrenStevens
Darren Stevens
Delivery Services Officer
955 Highbury Ave
London ON N5Y 1A3
519-281-3428
darren.stevens@canadapost.ca
Page 102 of 614
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
planning@grey.ca
Briana Bloomfield; OS Planning; Staci Landry; Tim Simmonds; Pam Coulter; Engineering; Emily Carter
County comments for A03-2026 Kruisselbrink
Friday, March 27, 2026 10:19:53 AM
External sender <planning@grey.ca>
Make sure you trust this sender before taking any actions.
County comments for A03-2026 Kruisselbrink
Hello Owen Sound,
Please note that Grey County is taking steps to streamline development review by
limiting planning policy comments on some development applications. Unless
otherwise requested by municipal staff, County planning comments will be limited
for the following applications:
All minor variance and site plan applications; and
zoning by-law amendments and consents within settlement areas.
County planning staff may continue to provide comments where the above
applications are connected to a County application.
Grey County Ecology staff will continue to review all applications with regards to
natural heritage matters. Other County departments will continue to be circulated
through our ‘one-window’ approach and will provide comments as needed.
Given the above, a formal planning policy review of the subject application has not
been undertaken. Please be advised that all planning decisions shall conform with
the County's Official Plan. County planning staff can assist with specific questions
in this respect.
Grey County Planning Ecology staff have reviewed the application and have no
concerns.
Grey County Planning staff would note that the subject property is near four
'Abandoned Landfill: Previously Identified Sites'. In March 2015, Azimuth
Environmental Consulting undertook a Historic Landfill Site Review. In the review,
it was determined that the landfills had insufficient risk. Therefore, County
Planning staff have no concerns in this regard.
County staff have no further comments at this time. Please let us know if you have
any questions.
Best regards,
Derek McMurdie
Page 103 of 614
County of Grey, Owen Sound, ON
Page 104 of 614
Staff Report
Building Division
ROLL NO.: 4259 010 006 29100
4259 010 006 29101
DATE:
MARCH 23, 2026
TO:
STACI LANDRY, DEPUTY CLERK
FROM:
NIELS JENSEN, BUILDING OFFICIAL
SUBJECT:
MINOR VARIANCE & CONSENT APPLICATION FOR 2090 9 TH AVE E
PLANNING FILE: A03-2026 / B01 & B02-2026
MUNICIPAL ADDRESS: 2090 9TH AVE EAST
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FIRSTLY: PT LT 29 E/S DOUGLAS ST AND N/S
ST. VINCENT ST PL OWEN SOUND; PT LT 30 E/S DOUGLAS ST AND
N/S ST. VINCENT ST PL OWEN SOUND PT 1, 16R360; LT 29 W/S
STAVELY ST AND N/S ST. VINCENT ST PL OWEN SOUND; LT 30 W/S
STAVELY ST AND N/S ST. VINCENT ST PL OWEN SOUND; OWEN
SOUND SECONDLY: PART NORTH ST PLAN OWEN SOUND 21ST ST
EAST (FORMERLY NORTH ST) WEST OF 9TH AVENUE EAST, PART 1
16R12260 (CLOSED BY BYLAW NO. 2025-078, REGISTERED AS
GY276261); OWEN SOUND; SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT IN GROSSE
APPLICANT: BARRY’S CONSTRUCTION & INSULATION LTD.
BACKGROUND: The lands are subject to consent applications B01-2026 and
B02-2026, which have the effect of severing the subject property to facilitate
the construction of a new, four-storey, 35-unit apartment building and
establishing an easement for shared means of stormwater infrastructure, site
access, and parking arrangements between the severed and retained parcels.
A minor variance is requested to provide the following relief from the Zoning
By-law 2010-078, as amended, to facilitate the construction of the 35-unit
apartment building:
Provision
Rear Yard Setback
(Sec. 6.6. R5 – Dwelling,
Apartment)
Building Height
(Sec. 6.6. R5 – Dwelling,
Apartment)
Required
7.5 m
Provided
4.0 m
Variance
3.5 m
12 m
14 m
2m
Page 1 of 4
Page 105 of 614
A03 / B01& B02-2026
Building Division Review
-/Continued
Rear Yard Setback for a
Porch/Deck
(Sec. 5.8)
Off-Street Parking
(Sec. 5.18)
Planting Strip Abutting Another
Use or Lot Line
4.5 m
2.48 m
2.1 m
73 spaces
68 spaces
5 spaces
1.5 m
0.5 m
1.0 m
ANALYSIS: This document incorporates comments from the Building
Division of the Community Service Department.
The above noted site plan has been reviewed using the requirements from
the Ontario Building Code and related City and County By-laws. The following
comments reflect the results of the review:
All construction to be in accordance with either the Ontario Building
Code or successor legislation in place at the time of building permit
application.
The payment of permit fees, City, County and site specific Development
Charges will be due upon the issuance of a building permit.
DETAILED REVIEW:
application are:
Documents reviewed in conjunction with this
Ontario Building Code 2024
o C
City of Owen Sound Development Charges By-law
County of Grey Development Charges By-laws
The Building Division has the following concerns regarding the application:
Applicant to provide letter from qualified Engineer with the Building
Permit application that the foundation construction methods proposed
will not adversely affect nearby structures or, if required, a monitoring
and mitigation strategy to protect nearby structures.
The Building Division does not have any concerns regarding the application,
please be aware that the building must comply with the Ontario Building
Page 2 of 4
Page 106 of 614
A03 / B01& B02-2026
Building Division Review
-/Continued
Code in effect at the time of application and City By-laws, including but not
limited to, the following:
Design to meet the requirements of Barrier Free Design as per 3.8.
including, but not limited to, Barrier Free path of travel to public
thoroughfare as per 3.8.2.2.(c).
Building to be designed by an Architect and Engineer. Foundation to be
reviewed by qualified Engineer in consultation with a qualified GeoTechnical Engineer,
Permit drawings to include mechanical (plumbing, sprinkler, HVAC,
radon), structural, electrical, architectural details including fire
separations between units, floors, exits and occupancies meeting the
requirements of the OBC.
Site grading and drainage plan by qualified Engineer on all lots to the
satisfaction of the Engineering Division. Final grading to be verified by
the Engineer.
Sanitary sewer to be protected by a back water valve.
Water service to be protected with a back flow device.
Provisions for Firefighting including, but not limited to, location of
hydrants, location and design of access routes as per OBC 3.2.5 to be
installed by the developer if required.
Building/Demolition permit(s) may be revoked if construction not
started with 6 months of permit issuance or if construction is
substantially halted, suspended, or discontinued for a period of over
one year.
Fees and charges are to be paid at the rate current at time of building
permit issuance. The following estimated rates would apply if permit
applied for in 2026 (rates subject to change based on Fees and
Charges By-law):
Page 3 of 4
Page 107 of 614
A03 / B01& B02-2026
Building Division Review
-/Continued
o Building permit of $16.34 per m2 of gross floor area Residential
Apartment construction (min $120) plus Admin Fee of $57.89 per
unit.
o City of Owen Sound Development Charges, if applicable
o County of Grey Development Charges, if applicable
Submitted by:
Niels Jensen
Reviewed by:
Kevin Linthorne, CBO
Page 4 of 4
Page 108 of 614
NOTES:
1.
TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY PERFORMED BY GM BLUEPLAN
ENGINEERING LTD./GEI CONSULTANTS CANADA LTD. ON
FEBRUARY 2, 2024
2.
REFER TO FULL SET OF DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION AND DETAILS.
CITY OF OWEN SOUND
KEY PLAN
NOT TO SCALE
LEGEND:
BUILDING ENTRANCE
TESTHOLE LOCATION AND LOCATION
EXISTING CATCH BASIN
EXISTING SANITARY OR STORM MANHOLE
HYDRANT
EXISTING GRADE
HYDRO POLE
DIRECTION OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
EXISTING SWALE
FIRE ROUTE
FIRE ROUTE
FENCELINE
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER
EXISTING STORM SEWER
FI
R
EXISTING WATERMAIN
E
RO
UT
EXISTING GAS LINE
E
PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER
PROPOSED STORM SEWER
PROPOSED WATERMAIN
TACTILE WALKING SURFACE INDICATOR PLATE
OPSD 310.039
1.2 m
185.40
PROPOSED GRADE
#1 BENCHMARK EL. 214.077m
TOP/NAIL IN HYDRO POLE ON WEST SIDE OF 9TH AVENUE
EAST, APPROXIMATELY 24.7m SOUTH-EAST OF THE
1.2 m
FIRE ROUTE
NORTH-EAST CORNER OF SUBJECT PROPERTY (AS SHOWN).
#2 BENCHMARK EL. 213.968m
TOP OF SOUTH-WEST CORNER OF CONCRETE PATIO OF
PARCEL 1
TO BE RETAINED
BUILDING A2, BAYFIELD LANDING AT 2050 9TH AVENUE EAST
(AS SHOWN).
Rear lot line outlined
in "orange"
PARCEL 1 - TO BE RETAINED
EXISTING APARTMENT - R5 ZONING
MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE
REQUIRED
PROPOSED
COMPLIES
13.50 m
65.90 m
YES
2
2847.5 m
2
MINIMUM LOT AREA
450 m
MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE
40%
23.74%
YES
MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK
6.5 m
10.77 m
YES
MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK
7.5 m
14.02 m
YES
MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK (INT)
1.2 m (South)
4.0 m (North)
3.63 m (South)
21.82 m (North)
YES
YES
MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK (EXT)
3.0 m
N/A
N/A
MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT
12.0 m
<12.0 m
YES
MAXIMUM DENSITY
1.0 FSI
0.71 FSI
YES
8
DEC. 16/25
REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS
WED
1.25 SPACES PER UNIT
29
30
YES
7
OCT. 27/25
UPDATED SEVERANCE AND ZONING INFORMATION
WED
ACCESSIBLE PARKING PER AODA
2
2
YES
6
JUNE 2/25
REVISED PER CITY ENGINEERING REVIEW
WED
5
APR. 21/25
REVISED FOR LAND ACQUISITION FROM CITY
WED
4
FEB. 21/25
FOR PRECONSULTATION SUBMISSION
WED
3
NOV. 20/24
REVISED FIRE ROUTE & ADDED MORE PARKING
WED
2
APR. 2/24
POSSIBLE FIRE ROUTE FOR DISCUSSION
WED
1
MAR. 12/24
FOR INITIAL INTERNAL REVIEW
WED
NO.
DATE
REVISION DESCRIPTION
CH'KD
YES
1.2 m
PARCEL 2
TO BE SEVERED
1.2 m
20.0 m
BICYCLE PARKING SPACES
10% OF VEHICLE PARKING
3
YES
3
LOADING SPACES
1 SPACE PER 25+ UNIT MULTI RES
FIRE ROUTE
1
1
YES
REQUIRED
PROPOSED
COMPLIES
13.50 m
13.50 m
YES
Approx. location of
future widening.
3.0 m
3.0 m
FILE:B:\Working\BARRY'S CONSTR AND INSULATION\2401604 - 224024 SP - Broadview Courts Apartments, OS\Drawings\224024spl-10.dwg LAYOUT:2 - Site Layout
LAST SAVED BY:Lortwi4144, 12/16/2025 1:54:04 PM PLOTTED BY:Twining, Lori 12/16/2025 1:56:22 PM
PARKING SPACES
(*) DENOTES MINOR VARIANCE REQUIRED
PARCEL 2 - TO BE SEVERED
PROPOSED APARTMENT - R5 ZONING
MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE
2
3,409 m
2
Consultants
Canada
MINIMUM LOT AREA
450 m
MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE
40%
22.96%
YES
MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK
6.5 m
>6.5 m
YES
MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK
7.5 m
*4.0 m (Prop. Building)
*2.48 m (Prop. Balcony)
NO
NO
MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK (INT)
1.2 m (South)
4.0 m (North)
3.93 m (South)
15.71 m (North)
YES
YES
MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK (EXT)
3.0 m
N/A
N/A
MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT
12.0 m
*14.0 m±
NO
MAXIMUM DENSITY
1.0 FSI
0.92 FSI
YES
9TH AVENUE EAST
1.25 SPACES PER UNIT
44
*43
NO
CITY OF OWEN SOUND
ACCESSIBLE PARKING PER AODA
2
2
YES
5
6
YES
YES
GEI CONSULTANTS CANADA LTD.
1260-2ND AVENUE EAST, UNIT 1
OWEN SOUND, ONTARIO N4K 2J3
(519)376-1805
BROADVIEW COURTS APARTMENTS
PARKING SPACES
SITE LAYOUT PLAN
BICYCLE PARKING SPACES
10% OF VEHICLE PARKING
LOADING SPACES
1 SPACE PER 25+ UNIT MULTI RES
(*) DENOTES MINOR VARIANCE REQUIRED
1
1
DRAWN BY :
APPROVED BY :
PROJECT NO. :
LVT
WED
2401604 (224024)
DESIGNED BY :
DATE :
SCALE :
LVT
MARCH 11, 2024
1:300
YES
DRAWING NO. :
2
Page 109 of 614
SCHEDULE H
Site Visit Photos – March 27, 2026
Figure 1: Existing cedar hedge along rear lot line shared with 2065 8th Ave E.
Report: CS-26-
Page 1 of 6
Page 110 of 614
File: A03-2026
Figure 2: Existing cedar hedge and mature trees along rear lot line, shared with
2065 8th Ave E.
Report: CS-26-
Page 2 of 6
Page 111 of 614
File: A03-2026
Figure 3: Rear lot line shared with 2061 8th Ave E.
Report: CS-26-
Page 3 of 6
Page 112 of 614
File: A03-2026
Figure 4: Rear lot line shared with Roll No. 425901000629350.
Report: CS-26-
Page 4 of 6
Page 113 of 614
File: A03-2026
Figure 5: Existing mature coniferous trees along southern interior site lot line
shared with 2057 8th Ave E.
Report: CS-26-
Page 5 of 6
Page 114 of 614
File: A03-2026
Figure 6: Existing southern interior side lot line shared with 2020 9th Ave E.
Report: CS-26-
Page 6 of 6
Page 115 of 614
File: A03-2026
SCHEDULE I
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Minor Variance A03-2026
John and Michelle Beagan – March 31, 2026
Elly and Derek Sparnaay – March 31, 2026
C. Dickson and M. Martindill – April 1, 2026
Report: CS-26-029
Page 1 of 1
Page 116 of 614
File: A03-2026
To: Mavor lan Boddv, Citv Council mgmbers. Engineering Dept. , Citv Bv-law Office
Re: Barrv's Construction plans to build a 4 stgrv rental building and the dgtrimental ramifications it will
cause.
-
-We, John and Michelle Beagan are the Owners of
. We are the people who will be
most affected by Barry's.
- Barry's Construction, the Mayo6 City Council, Engineering Dept. and City Bylaw Office will be held
responsible for any damaged to my property, hedges, trees and any flood damage, and will be sued for
damages.
- The sale of public land was slipped into Barrys pocket without any regard to others who might have
wanted to buy the property.
-We wish to see any plans for the runoff from my property to the already existing drain. We ask for this
as Barry had his snow removal crew put all the snow into the drainage trough which in turn did not allow
our water to drain out. We had over 1 feet of water in a back yard this year.
-We would like to know the exact date of when he wants to put up a privacy fencing. Leaving our hedge
alone. We have hired a professional arborist to come and trim the cedars on Barry's side as these cedars
are home to hundred of birds that nest there every year for the last 40 years. Would an apartment
dweller prefer to see a back yard of someone s home or have foliage to look at. This helps to keep the
green space as well as keeping NW snow storms from landing on balconies.
-We would like the number of the bylaw officer as it is Barry's habit to come out on weekends when the
city hall is not open and cut down any trees that exist. His workers are usually untrained and not suitably
dressed for construction of any type.
Furthermore, we have lived here for over 30 years without anyone building behind us. lf Barry's is
granted the easement request we will have to keep our bedroom curtains and windows closed all the
time as the apartment dwellers could see right into out house. This takes away all of our privacy.
ln conclusion, in the past the Owen Sound Bylaw Officer and the Engineering Department flooded our
house and back yard over 22years ago. We agreed to put in a 3ft. deep X 60Ft.long ditch to the city
manhole by the existing apartment. lt was supposed to redirect any run off. We put up with this for years
and did not sue anyone for incompetence and damages incurred.
Respectfully submitted,
7/c/"h
" ...J
John and Michelle Beagan
Page 117 of 614
March 3'1"i,2026
Staci Landry
SecretaryTreasurer of the Committee of Adjustments
808 2nd Ave. E
Owen Sound ON
N4K2H4
Ftease note our soncerns regardingthe apptlcatlon for consent pursuantto sectr'on 53 of the ptanning act
B0l-2026 and BO2 - 2026, 2W0 9th Ave. East, Owen Sound, On. Also, for the apptlcation for a minor
variance pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act. Mlnor Variance 403-2026, 2090 th Ave E- Owen Sound
On.
a
Our house is over 100 years otd" We hane a natural stone walUfoundation" A natural limestone floor
in the cellar/basement, As do some of our other neighbours. What could be the irnplications of the
proposed apartrnent cornptex have on oe.lrfcundation and ftoor as the conetrulotion cornpany rnay
need to dlgdri{Ubtast awaythe so[id rockthat is closetothe surfaceof the gr6und.
We are putting on record our corrcerfis. We are nervous due ts the seisrnlc vibratlons when using a
Jack hammer or an excavator during the construction of the 4-story apartrnent buitding. lf cracking
and or other damage were to occur that we witt be compensated by the city, construction company,
and Grey Bruce Property Rentals lnc:
EtlySparnaay
DenekSpannaay
Owen.Sound, On-
Page 118 of 614
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Corrie Dickson
Public Notices
Comments re Minor Variance A03-2026 and Consent B01-2026 & B02-2026
Wednesday, April 1, 2026 2:13:49 PM
Warning: Unusual sender <corriedickson@hotmail.com>
You don't usually receive emails from this address. Make sure you trust this sender before
taking any actions.
Hello. Please include these comments in the Committee Meeting agenda re Minor Variance
A03-2026 and B01-2026 & B02-2026.
A03-26:
Our property abuts what is currently 2090 9th Avenue East.
Allowing new structures to be built closer to property lines than what current bylaws allow will
have a negative impact on our family.
Having increased noise, light, and foot traffic very nearby, along with having balconies almost
in our backyard will negatively impact our ability to feel safe and secure while on our own
property as well as diminish our ability to enjoy being outside on our property as we do now.
Allowing building closer to property lines than currently outlined in the city's bylaws could
decrease our property value more than if the structures were built in accordance with current
bylaws.
B01-2026 & B02-2026:
We ask that any trees outside of the proposed building lot be preserved.
We also ask that the builder erect a privacy fence between the proposed building lot and all
other abutting properties.
Thank you.
C. Dickson and M. Martindill
Sent from Outlook
Page 119 of 614
Staff Report
Report To:
Committee of Adjustment
Report From:
Jacklyn Iezzi, Senior Planner
Meeting Date:
April 7, 2026
Report Code:
CS-26-028
Subject:
Consent B01-2026 and B02-2026 for 2090 9th Avenue East
Recommendations:
THAT in consideration of Staff Report CS-26-028 respecting a consent for lot
creation and an easement providing for shared stormwater servicing
infrastructure, grading and drainage, sanitary sewer lateral, site access, and
parking for property known as 2090 9th Avenue East, the Committee of
Adjustment approves Consent Application B01-2026 and B02-2026 by Grey
Bruce Property Rentals Inc., subject to the conditions outlined in Schedule ‘E’
and Schedule ‘F’.
Highlights:
Consent applications have been submitted by Grey Bruce Property
Rentals Inc., for property known as 2090 9th Avenue East.
Consent B01-2026 is proposing to sever the subject lands for the
purposes of a new residential building lot. A four-storey, 35-unit
apartment building is proposed to be constructed on the severed
parcel.
Consent B02-2026 is proposing to establish an easement to provide
for shared stormwater infrastructure, grading and drainage,
sanitary service lateral, site access, and parking arrangements
between the existing, 23-unit apartment building on the retained
parcel and the proposed, 35-unit apartment building on the severed
parcel.
Staff Report CS-26-028: Consent B01-2026 and B02-2026 for 2090 9th Avenue
East
Page 1 of 12
Page 120 of 614
The lands are also subject to Minor Variance A03-2026, which has
the effect of providing relief from the minimum rear yard setback
and maximum building height provisions for an Apartment within
the General Residential (R5) Zone, minimum rear yard setback for
a porch/deck, off-street parking, and planting strip requirements of
the Zoning By-law to facilitate the construction of the proposed
apartment. An evaluation of the requested variance, in
consideration of the four tests provided under the Planning Act, is
provided in Staff Report CS-26-029.
Staff recommend approval of the consents, subject to conditions.
Strategic Plan Alignment:
Strategic Plan Priority: This report supports the delivery of Core Service.
The subject application represents a legislated review process.
Climate and Environmental Implications:
This supports the objectives of the City’s Corporate Climate Change
Adaptation Plan by considering climate adaptation in the development of the
City’s strategies, plans, and policies.
Of particular note:
The subject lands are within a fully serviced settlement area.
Development of the proposed severed parcel represents residential
intensification which makes efficient use of land and existing
municipal services.
Previous Report/Authority:
City of Owen Sound 2021 Official Plan
City of Owen Sound Zoning By-law (2010-078, as amended)
Staff Report CS-25-046 – Request by Barry’s Construction to Purchase a
Portion of the 21st Street East Unopened Road, West of 9th Avenue East
Staff Report CS-25-067 – Stop Up and Close and Declare Surplus – Part of
21st Street East Road Allowance
Staff Report CS-26-028: Consent B01-2026 and B02-2026 for 2090 9th Avenue
East
Page 2 of 12
Page 121 of 614
Background & Proposal:
Applications for Consent for lot creation (B01-2026) and an easement (B022026) have been submitted by Grey Bruce Property Rentals Inc., for
property municipally known as 2090 9th Avenue East.
Property Description
The subject property is located on the west side of 9th Avenue East,
approximately 150 m north of the intersection of 9th Avenue East and 20th
Street East. The lands have approximately 79 metres of frontage along 9th
Avenue East and 6,256.5 square metres of lot area and currently contain an
existing, three-storey, 23-unit apartment building and surface parking area.
Surrounding land uses include:
North: residential (single detached dwellings, townhouses, apartments –
Odawa Heights)
East: residential (single detached dwellings), industrial (indoor storage)
South: residential (single detached dwellings, townhouses, apartments)
West: residential (single detached dwellings)
A portion of the subject lands were formerly part of the unopened road
allowance of 21st Street East, which was stopped up and closed and declared
surplus by the City in July of 2025 via By-law No. 2025-078. The lands were
subsequently sold to the applicant, in accordance with the City’s Disposition
of Land By-law (2012-195), via By-law No. 2025-093.
The subject lands are designated ‘Residential’ on Schedule ‘A’ – Land Use of
the City’s 2021 Official Plan and are zoned ‘General Residential’ (R5) by the
City’s Zoning By-law (2010-078, as amended). For location context and
surrounding land uses, please see the Orthophoto in Schedule ‘A’. For the
planning policy context, please see the Official Plan and Zoning Map in
Schedule ‘B’. It merits note that the Official Plan mapping illustrates the area
of the lands that were formerly part of the 21st Street East road allowance
designated as ‘Open Space’. The lands have become merged with the overall
land holding owned by the applicant and as such, the Residential land use
designation applies, in accordance with Section 1.3 of the Official Plan. A full
description of the property is included in Schedule ‘C’.
Staff Report CS-26-028: Consent B01-2026 and B02-2026 for 2090 9th Avenue
East
Page 3 of 12
Page 122 of 614
The Proposal
Through Consent B01-2026, the applicant is proposing to sever the subject
property to create a new residential building lot. The retained lot contains an
existing, three-storey, 23-unit apartment building and is proposed to have
approximately 65 metres of frontage on 9th Avenue East, 43 metres of lot
depth, and 2,847 square metres of lot area. The vacant, severed parcel is
proposed to have approximately 13.5 metres of frontage on 9th Avenue East,
102 metres of lot depth, and 3,409 square metres of lot area. A four-storey,
35-unit apartment building is proposed to be constructed on the severed
parcel. The lands are subject to Minor Variance A03-2026, which has the
effect of providing relief from the minimum rear yard setback and maximum
building height provisions for an Apartment within the General Residential
(R5) Zone, minimum rear yard setback for a porch/deck, off-street parking,
and planting strip requirements of the Zoning By-law to facilitate the
construction of the proposed apartment. An evaluation of the requested
variance, in consideration of the four tests provided under the Planning Act,
is provided in Staff Report CS-26-029.
Through Consent B02-2026, the applicant is proposing to establish an
easement to provide for shared stormwater infrastructure, grading and
drainage, site access, and parking arrangements between the existing, 23unit apartment building on the retained parcel and the proposed, 35-unit
apartment building on the severed parcel.
Comments received from the City’s Engineering Services Division also
indicate that the existing sanitary service lateral for the existing, 23-unit
apartment building is proposed to be located on the severed parcel and will
require an easement.
The proposed Severance Plan is attached as Schedule ‘D’.
A fulsome review and analysis of the proposed consent is outlined below.
Analysis:
The subject consent is required to meet all development standards and
policies applicable to projects within the City of Owen Sound. The proposal is
required to be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and in
conformity with the City Official Plan and Zoning By-law. The application is
subject to review by City Planning, Engineering and Building staff, as well as
Staff Report CS-26-028: Consent B01-2026 and B02-2026 for 2090 9th Avenue
East
Page 4 of 12
Page 123 of 614
external commenting agencies. All applicable policies, standards, and
comments are reviewed below in the context of the subject application.
Provincial Planning Statement
The 2024 Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) has been reviewed with regard
to the proposed application. The PPS requires that settlement areas be the
focus for growth and development and land use patterns within settlement
areas should be based on densities and mix of land uses which efficiently use
land and resources, optimize existing and planned infrastructure and public
service facilities, and support active transportation. Planning authorities are
required to support general intensification and redevelopment to support the
achievement of complete communities.
The subject lands are within a fully serviced settlement area. The proposed
development of the severed parcel, consisting of a high-density residential
development with 35 rental apartments in a compact urban form, having
access to full municipal services, public transit, parks, and amenities,
supports the type of efficient, cost-effective development that is envisioned
by the PPS.
Policy 2.2.1 of the PPS further requires planning authorities to provide an
appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities to meet
projected needs of current and future residents of the regional market area.
The PPS defines housing options as meaning a range of housing types and
tenures including townhouses, multi-unit residential buildings, life lease and
land lease communities, and affordable housing. Affordable, in the case of
rental housing, means the least expensive of: (1) a unit for which the rent
does not exceed 30 per cent of gross annual household income for low- and
moderate-income households or, (2) a unit for which the rent is at or below
the average market rent of a unit in the regional market area. The Planning
Justification Report submitted in support of the requested minor variance
indicates that the proposed development will provide for 10 per cent (10%)
affordable units. The proposed development will add 35 rental units,
including four (4) affordable units, to the City’s housing stock and contribute
to providing a range and mix of housing options to meet the needs of current
and future residents, as required by the PPS.
The proposal is consistent with the policy direction provided by the PPS.
Staff Report CS-26-028: Consent B01-2026 and B02-2026 for 2090 9th Avenue
East
Page 5 of 12
Page 124 of 614
County of Grey Official Plan
The City of Owen Sound is designated as a ‘Primary Settlement Area’ in the
2019 County of Grey Official Plan (County OP). The County OP promotes a
full range of land uses within Primary Settlement Areas. Land use policies
and development standards are to be in accordance with the local Official
Plan. The County was provided notice of the application in accordance with
the requirements of the Planning Act and have no objections to the proposed
consent.
City of Owen Sound Official Plan
The subject property is designated ‘Residential’ on Schedule ‘A’ – Land Use of
the City’s 2021 Official Plan (OP). The intent of the Residential designation is
to permit the development of lands for residential uses, which shall be the
predominant area for housing within the City. Apartments are among the
residential uses permitted within this designation.
Residential Land Use Policies
Conformity of the proposed development of the severed parcel consisting of
a four-storey, 35-unit apartment building with the Residential land use
policies of the Official Plan is discussed at length in Staff Report CS-26-029.
In summary, the development conforms to the Residential designation
policies of the City’s OP for the allocation of density and housing
intensification and infill development, subject to the recommended conditions
of Minor Variance A03-2026, outlined in Schedule ‘E’, to Staff Report CS-26029.
Consent Policies (Sec. 9.3.2.4)
The OP permits lot creation through Consent where less than three (3) new
lots are created and where the proposed lots represent infilling or
redevelopment, have frontage on a public road that is maintained on a yearround basis, and are in an area serviced by municipal water and sanitary
sewers.
Based on comments received from the City’s Engineering Services Division,
recommended conditions of approval outlined in Schedule ‘E’ and ‘F’ require
the applicant to convey a 3.0 metre wide road allowance widening to the City
and to provide easements for shared access, parking, stormwater
management, grading and drainage, and sanitary sewer lateral for the
retained and severed lots.
Staff Report CS-26-028: Consent B01-2026 and B02-2026 for 2090 9th Avenue
East
Page 6 of 12
Page 125 of 614
Policy 9.3.2.4 of the OP requires regard for the following criteria when
considering an application for consent:
a. The lands front onto an existing, assumed public road that is
maintained on a year-round basis.
The lands front onto 9th Avenue East, which is an assumed public road
maintained on a year-round basis. This roadway is designated as a
Minor Arterial/Future Collector Road by the Transportation Plan
(Schedule ‘C’) of the City’s OP, generally requiring a road allowance
width of 30 metres. The present road allowance width for this roadway
is irregular, at approximately 20 metres near the southern portion of
the property. Recommended conditions of approval will require the
conveyance of a 3-metre-wide road allowance widening across the 9th
Avenue East frontage of the property to the City, from the southeast
lot corner for a length of approximately 15 metres, in accordance with
comments received from the City’s Engineering Services Division.
Through the recommended conditions of approval (Schedule ‘F’), the
applicant must also provide easements for shared access arrangements
via 9th Avenue East between the severed and retained parcels. Shared
access onto Arterial and Collector Roads is supported by the policies of
the City’s OP.
b. The consents shall have the effect of infilling in existing areas
and not extending existing development.
The proposed consent has the effect of infilling within an existing,
built-up area of the City. The lands are surrounded by a variety of
existing residential uses of various forms and densities including an
existing, 23-unit apartment building, single detached dwellings, and
townhouses. The consent will facilitate development of an underutilized
piece of land by providing access and servicing.
c. Creation of the lot does not compromise the long-term use of
the remaining land or retained parcel.
The proposed retained parcel contains an existing, three-storey, 23unit apartment building that is a permitted use within the General
Residential (R5) Zone. The size of the retained parcel meets the
minimum lot frontage and area requirements of the Zoning By-law.
The long-term use of the retained parcel is appropriate.
Staff Report CS-26-028: Consent B01-2026 and B02-2026 for 2090 9th Avenue
East
Page 7 of 12
Page 126 of 614
d. The size of the parcel of land created by consent should be
appropriate for the use proposed.
The proposed severed parcel meets the minimum lot area and frontage
requirements for an Apartment within the General Residential (R5)
Zone and is therefore appropriate for the proposed, four-storey, 35unit apartment building. Requested relief from certain site and building
regulations of the R5 Zone for the proposed four-storey, 35-unit
apartment building, including minimum rear yard setback and building
height, are discussed at length in Staff Report CS-26-029, in
consideration of the four tests for a minor variance provided by the
Planning Act.
e. Soil and drainage conditions are suitable or can be made
suitable to permit the proper siting of buildings.
The overall grading, drainage, and stormwater management at the
properties must conform to Section 2.2.2 of the City’s Property
Standards By-law (1999-030). Based on the submitted Grading and
Drainage Plan, stormwater management, grading and drainage appear
to function together across both the severed and retained parcels.
Through the recommended conditions of approval outlined in Schedule
‘E’ and Schedule ‘F’, the applicant must:
Obtain Site Plan Approval for the development of the severed
parcel in accordance with the City’s Site Plan Control By-law
(2019-185) and as part of this process, prepare and submit
grading, drainage, and stormwater management plans, prepared
by a qualified professional engineer, to the satisfaction of the
City’s Manager of Public Works and Engineering.
Provide easements for shared stormwater management
infrastructure, grading, and drainage, between the severed and
retained parcels.
f. Impact on any adjacent built heritage or archaeological
resource.
There are no identified built heritage resources or known
archaeological resources on or adjacent to the subject lands. Policy
7.1.6.2 of the City’s OP further permits development and site alteration
on lands containing archaeological resources or areas of archaeological
potential, if the significant archaeological resources have been
Staff Report CS-26-028: Consent B01-2026 and B02-2026 for 2090 9th Avenue
East
Page 8 of 12
Page 127 of 614
conserved by removal and documentation, or by presentation on site.
The City may require studies, such as an Archaeological Assessment,
prepared by a qualified person, to identify and protect archaeological
resources from destruction or alteration through development or public
works operations, in accordance with policy 7.1.6.3. City Planning staff
have reviewed the property and proposed development against the
Criteria for Evaluating Archaeological Potential by the Ministry of
Tourism, Culture, and Sport. Based on this review, it does not appear
that an Archaeological Assessment is required. The Saugeen Ojibway
Nation (SON) Environmental Office and Historic Saugeen Metis (HSM)
were provided notice of the subject consent application, in accordance
with the requirements of the Planning Act; however, no comments
have been received as of the writing of this report. In the absence of
comments received from SON and/or HSM, the completion of an
Archaeological Assessment has not been requested as a condition of
consent approval.
The proposed consent conforms to the policies outlined in Section 9.3.2.4 of
the OP, subject to the recommended conditions.
Parkland Dedication
Section 7.4.3 of the OP provides for parkland dedication. The City is
authorized to receive parkland dedication through the Planning Act at the
time of consent. For residential purposes, five per cent (5%) of the land shall
be conveyed to the City for parkland, open space, or multi-use pathway
purposes. In place of the dedication of land, the City may require cash-in-lieu
of parkland at a rate appropriate to the value of the required land.
Conditions of approval require that the applicant satisfy the 5% parkland
dedication requirement in accordance with the Planning Act and the City’s
Fees and Charges By-law No. 2025-060, to the satisfaction of the City’s
Manager of Planning & Heritage.
City of Owen Sound Zoning By-law
The subject property is zoned ‘General Residential’ (R5) by the City’s Zoning
By-law (2010-078, as amended). Apartments are among the uses permitted
in the R5 Zone.
To meet the lot creation policy for severance, the severed and retained
parcels must comply with the applicable zoning provisions in effect as of the
Staff Report CS-26-028: Consent B01-2026 and B02-2026 for 2090 9th Avenue
East
Page 9 of 12
Page 128 of 614
date of application. The severed and retained lots meet the minimum
required lot frontage and area for an Apartment within the R5 Zone.
The proposal meets the requirements of the City’s Zoning By-law, subject to
the recommended conditions.
City Staff & Agency Comments
Notice of the subject application was provided by the City’s SecretaryTreasurer on March 20, 2026, to the public and prescribed bodies, in
accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act. Comments received
by the Secretary-Treasurer as of the writing of this report are described
below and included in Schedule ‘G’.
City of Owen Sound Engineering & Public Works Department
Comment has been received from the City’s Engineering & Public Works
Department. Conditions of approval required by the Engineering Services
Division are discussed in the ‘City of Owen Sound Official Plan’ section of this
report and have been included in Schedule ‘E’ and ‘F’. In addition, it merits
note that the City has existing stormwater, wastewater, and watermain
infrastructure within 9th Avenue East, and stormwater and wastewater mains
within the unopened 21st Street East.
A portion of 21st Street East was disposed of in July of 2025, pursuant to the
City’s Disposition of Land By-law (2012-195). The portion of the lands sold
are subject to a City easement (GY276261) for existing wastewater
servicing. Conditions of approval outlined in Schedule ‘F’ will require the City
easement to be revised to include all ‘municipal infrastructure’, given the
presence of stormwater servicing infrastructure in this location. As well, a 6.0
metre by 6.0 metre triangle at the northeastern portion of the retained lands
is to be included in the City easement, given the presence of existing
wastewater servicing infrastructure in this location.
Grey County
Comment has been received from Grey County with no objection to the
subject proposal.
Canada Post
Comment has been received from Canada Post with no objection to the
subject proposal.
Staff Report CS-26-028: Consent B01-2026 and B02-2026 for 2090 9th Avenue
East
Page 10 of 12
Page 129 of 614
City of Owen Sound Building Division
Comment has been received from the City’s Building Division with no
objection to the subject proposal. Development of the severed parcel will be
subject to further review at the time of Site Plan Approval and Building
Permit application.
Public Comments
Three (3) written comments from members of the public have been received
as of the writing of this report with objections to the proposed consents and
related Minor Variance A03-2026. A fulsome analysis of Minor Variance A032026 in consideration of the four tests provided by the Planning Act, together
with the public comments received and how they are recommended to be
addressed through conditions of approval is provided in Staff Report CS-26029. The public comments are attached as Schedule ‘I’ to Report CS-26-029.
Financial Implications:
Conditions of approval will require cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication and the
payment of frontage fees.
Communication Strategy:
Notice of the consent application was given in accordance with Section 53 of
the Planning Act and Ontario Regulation 197/96.
Consultation:
The application was circulated to various City Departments and our
commenting agencies as part of the consultation process.
Attachments:
Schedule 'A':
Schedule 'B':
Schedule 'C':
Schedule 'D':
Schedule 'E':
Schedule 'F':
Schedule 'G':
Orthophoto
Official Plan and Zoning Map
Property Details
Severance Plan
Conditions of Approval – B01-2026 (Lot Creation)
Conditions of Approval – B02-2026 (Easement)
Staff & Agency Comments
Staff Report CS-26-028: Consent B01-2026 and B02-2026 for 2090 9th Avenue
East
Page 11 of 12
Page 130 of 614
Recommended by:
Jacklyn Iezzi, BES., Senior Planner
Sabine Robart, MCIP, RPP, Manager of Planning & Heritage
Submission approved by:
Pam Coulter, BA, RPP, Director of Community Services
For more information on this report, please contact Jacklyn Iezzi, Senior
Planner at planning@owensound.ca or 519-376-4440 ext. 1261.
Staff Report CS-26-028: Consent B01-2026 and B02-2026 for 2090 9th Avenue
East
Page 12 of 12
Page 131 of 614
±
764
754
794
215
5
214
2150
1
2140
211
210
5
5
907
E
7
213
to 10
27
9
3
213
0
790
9
1
Av
e
784
785
765
216
5
213
0
2092
205
7
208
6
204
9
204
216
E
775
206
9
217
E
9th
t St
755
207
7
tA
211
21s
tS
214
780
770
745
2125
774
21s
2239
2181
795
744
Schedule 'A': Orthophoto
208
0
3
206
1
206
0
202
5
0
2090
Ave
E
205
6
2099
1
204
5
204
1
2095
203
750
203
5
208
9
2020
9
1
207
201
196
195
3
195
1
194
9
193
9
929 30
0 115
5
9
1280
SubjectProperty
865
9
198
8
196
8
195
8
195
60
940
200
0
Meters
1990
46
1995
198
5
197
5
20th St E
945
66
19
197
5
935
19
76
9
201
815
198
205
1360
807
5
925
19
80
206
0
890
850
8
5
5
860
820
810
804
202
1
199
1300
207
960
740
202
4
13
20
203
205
8th
2042
20
19
Information shown on these drawings/maps/charts
196
is compiled from
7numerous sources and may not
1935 or accurate
be complete
1887
Page 132 of 614
±
206
9
R5
4
79
2140
211
5
R5
213
210
5
MR
907
Av
e
2150
R3 131
E
E
R5
to 10
27
5
9th
78
795
0
790
1
215
2
2239
9
216
214
9
214
3
213
7
2181
0
208
6
208
0
20
43
206
0
E
205
1
203
6
2090
7
2099
R5
204
8th
2042
205
Ave
205
0
R4
M1
206
1
5
204
1
202
4
203
R4
5
208
9
2020
203
207
8
8
1939
194
6
301
930
940
960
890
1980
1950
193
606
Meters
90
OFFICIAL PLAN
Employment
Residential
Open Space
198
5
197
5
R4
196
20th St E
945
195
M2
1280
1995
935
196
ZoneM1
(R5)
Hazard Lands
925
198
8
3
194
9
1902 15
1
201
5
865
1
9
5
5
815
9
Special Provision
205
202
5
195
192
R4
200
196
9
R4 195
860
850
98
19
197
Zoning
5
0
807
Subject Property
5
206
201
820
810
804
1
9
LEGEND
9
202
198
1300
207
1
R4
ZH
R5
2095 14.27
1360
20
49
750
5
216
E
211
t St
775
755
7
tA
217
2092
2 07
780
770
R3
21s
tS
785
R5 2125
14.57
765
745
21s
4
Schedule 'B': Planning Policy
7
M1
14.75 'B'
Information shown on these drawings/maps/charts
1935 from numerous sources and may not
R5
is compiled
be complete or accurate
1887
Page 133 of 614
SCHEDULE C
PROPERTY DETAILS
Property Information
Severed
Retained
Civic Address
TBD
2090 9th Avenue East
Roll Number
TBD
425901000629100,
425901000629101
Legal Description
TBD
FIRSTLY: PT LT 29 E/S
DOUGLAS ST AND N/S ST.
VINCENT ST PL OWEN SOUND;
PT LT 30 E/S DOUGLAS ST AND
N/S ST. VINCENT ST PL OWEN
SOUND PT 1, 16R360; LT 29
W/S STAVELY ST AND N/S ST.
VINCENT ST PL OWEN SOUND;
LT 30 W/S STAVELY ST AND
N/S ST. VINCENT ST PL OWEN
SOUND; OWEN SOUND
SECONDLY: PART NORTH ST
PLAN OWEN SOUND 21ST ST
EAST (FORMERLY NORTH ST)
WEST OF 9TH AVENUE EAST,
PART 1 16R12260 (CLOSED BY
BYLAW NO. 2025-078,
REGISTERED AS GY276261);
OWEN SOUND; SUBJECT TO AN
EASEMENT IN GROSS
Site Frontage
13.5 m (9th
Avenue East)
65 m (9th Avenue East)
Site Depth
102 m
43 m
Report:
Page 1 of 2
Page 134 of 614
File: B01 & B02-2026
Property Information
Severed
Retained
Site Area
3,409 square
metres
2,847 square metres
Existing Structures
Vacant
Existing 23-unit apartment
building and surface parking
area
Road Access/Frontage
9th Avenue East
9th Avenue East
Available Servicing
Detail
Potable Water
300 mm ø polyvinyl chloride – 9th Ave E
Wastewater
450 mm ø concrete pipe – 9th Ave E
450 mm ø reinforced concrete – former 21st Street
East road allowance (subject to easement
GY276261)
Stormwater
900 m ø concrete pipe – 9th Ave E
Planning Policy
Detail
County of Grey Official
Plan
Primary Settlement Area
City of Owen Sound
Official Plan
Residential
City of Owen Sound
Zoning By-law 2010078, as amended
General Residential (R5)
Report:
Page 2 of 2
Page 135 of 614
File: B01 & B02-2026
NOTES:
1.
TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY PERFORMED BY GM BLUEPLAN
ENGINEERING LTD./GEI CONSULTANTS CANADA LTD. ON
FEBRUARY 2, 2024
2.
REFER TO FULL SET OF DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION AND DETAILS.
CITY OF OWEN SOUND
KEY PLAN
NOT TO SCALE
LEGEND:
BUILDING ENTRANCE
TESTHOLE LOCATION AND LOCATION
EXISTING CATCH BASIN
EXISTING SANITARY OR STORM MANHOLE
HYDRANT
EXISTING GRADE
HYDRO POLE
DIRECTION OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
EXISTING SWALE
FIRE ROUTE
FIRE ROUTE
FENCELINE
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER
EXISTING STORM SEWER
FI
R
EXISTING WATERMAIN
E
RO
UT
EXISTING GAS LINE
E
PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER
PROPOSED STORM SEWER
PROPOSED WATERMAIN
TACTILE WALKING SURFACE INDICATOR PLATE
OPSD 310.039
185.40
PROPOSED GRADE
#1 BENCHMARK EL. 214.077m
TOP/NAIL IN HYDRO POLE ON WEST SIDE OF 9TH AVENUE
EAST, APPROXIMATELY 24.7m SOUTH-EAST OF THE
FIRE ROUTE
NORTH-EAST CORNER OF SUBJECT PROPERTY (AS SHOWN).
#2 BENCHMARK EL. 213.968m
PARCEL 1
TO BE RETAINED
TOP OF SOUTH-WEST CORNER OF CONCRETE PATIO OF
BUILDING A2, BAYFIELD LANDING AT 2050 9TH AVENUE EAST
(AS SHOWN).
PARCEL 1 - TO BE RETAINED
EXISTING APARTMENT - R5 ZONING
MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE
REQUIRED
PROPOSED
COMPLIES
13.50 m
65.90 m
YES
2
2847.5 m
2
MINIMUM LOT AREA
450 m
MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE
40%
23.74%
YES
MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK
6.5 m
10.77 m
YES
MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK
7.5 m
14.02 m
YES
MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK (INT)
1.2 m (South)
4.0 m (North)
3.63 m (South)
21.82 m (North)
YES
YES
MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK (EXT)
3.0 m
N/A
N/A
MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT
12.0 m
<12.0 m
YES
MAXIMUM DENSITY
1.0 FSI
0.71 FSI
YES
8
DEC. 16/25
REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS
WED
1.25 SPACES PER UNIT
29
30
YES
7
OCT. 27/25
UPDATED SEVERANCE AND ZONING INFORMATION
WED
ACCESSIBLE PARKING PER AODA
2
2
YES
6
JUNE 2/25
REVISED PER CITY ENGINEERING REVIEW
WED
5
APR. 21/25
REVISED FOR LAND ACQUISITION FROM CITY
WED
4
FEB. 21/25
FOR PRECONSULTATION SUBMISSION
WED
3
NOV. 20/24
REVISED FIRE ROUTE & ADDED MORE PARKING
WED
2
APR. 2/24
POSSIBLE FIRE ROUTE FOR DISCUSSION
WED
1
MAR. 12/24
FOR INITIAL INTERNAL REVIEW
WED
NO.
DATE
REVISION DESCRIPTION
CH'KD
YES
PARCEL 2
TO BE SEVERED
FILE:B:\Working\BARRY'S CONSTR AND INSULATION\2401604 - 224024 SP - Broadview Courts Apartments, OS\Drawings\224024spl-10.dwg LAYOUT:2 - Site Layout
LAST SAVED BY:Lortwi4144, 12/16/2025 1:54:04 PM PLOTTED BY:Twining, Lori 12/16/2025 1:56:22 PM
PARKING SPACES
BICYCLE PARKING SPACES
10% OF VEHICLE PARKING
3
YES
3
LOADING SPACES
1 SPACE PER 25+ UNIT MULTI RES
FIRE ROUTE
1
1
YES
REQUIRED
PROPOSED
COMPLIES
13.50 m
13.50 m
YES
(*) DENOTES MINOR VARIANCE REQUIRED
PARCEL 2 - TO BE SEVERED
PROPOSED APARTMENT - R5 ZONING
MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE
2
3,409 m
2
Consultants
Canada
MINIMUM LOT AREA
450 m
MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE
40%
22.96%
YES
MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK
6.5 m
>6.5 m
YES
MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK
7.5 m
*4.0 m (Prop. Building)
*2.48 m (Prop. Balcony)
NO
NO
MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK (INT)
1.2 m (South)
4.0 m (North)
3.93 m (South)
15.71 m (North)
YES
YES
MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK (EXT)
3.0 m
N/A
N/A
MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT
12.0 m
*14.0 m±
NO
MAXIMUM DENSITY
1.0 FSI
0.92 FSI
YES
9TH AVENUE EAST
1.25 SPACES PER UNIT
44
*43
NO
CITY OF OWEN SOUND
ACCESSIBLE PARKING PER AODA
2
2
YES
5
6
YES
YES
GEI CONSULTANTS CANADA LTD.
1260-2ND AVENUE EAST, UNIT 1
OWEN SOUND, ONTARIO N4K 2J3
(519)376-1805
BROADVIEW COURTS APARTMENTS
PARKING SPACES
SITE LAYOUT PLAN
BICYCLE PARKING SPACES
10% OF VEHICLE PARKING
LOADING SPACES
1 SPACE PER 25+ UNIT MULTI RES
(*) DENOTES MINOR VARIANCE REQUIRED
1
1
DRAWN BY :
APPROVED BY :
PROJECT NO. :
LVT
WED
2401604 (224024)
DESIGNED BY :
DATE :
SCALE :
LVT
MARCH 11, 2024
1:300
YES
DRAWING NO. :
2
Page 136 of 614
SCHEDULE E
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
B01-2026 (Lot Creation)
1.
That the applicant submit to the Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of
Adjustment a legal description of the subject lands as well as a legal
description of all easements necessary to finalize the conditions of approval
which will meet the requirements of the Registrar and request in writing
(either through presentation of deeds for stamping or a written statement)
from the Secretary- Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment a certificate
of consent, provided however that before the said certificate is issued, any
other conditions imposed by the committee have been fulfilled to the
satisfaction of the Secretary-Treasurer.
2.
That prior to final approval, the City Property Tax Division confirm there are
no outstanding taxes or charges on the lands, to the satisfaction of the
Director of Corporate Services.
3.
That the applicant pay cash-in lieu of parkland in the amount of 5% of the
land as required by the Planning Act to the Secretary-Treasurer.
4.
That the applicant provide to the Secretary-Treasurer, written confirmation
from the City Clerk that the 3 metre wide road allowance widening across the
9th Avenue East frontage of the property, from the southeast lot corner for a
length of approximately 15 metres, required by the City, has been conveyed
and registered in an acceptable manner to the City Solicitor, for which the
City Clerk will require the following to be provided at the applicant’s
expense:
a. A reference plan describing the lands subject to the road widening (to be
revised by the City’s Engineering Services Division prior to being
deposited);
b. An Acknowledgement and Direction form to be signed by the City
respecting the registration of the transfer by the applicant’s solicitor on
the City’s behalf;
c. The proposed draft transfer document including a Land Transfer Tax
Affidavit which must include the following “other” statement: “The
Report: CS-26-028
File: B01 & B02-2026
Page 1 of 3
Page 137 of 614
subject property is acquired by the municipality for the purpose of
widening the highway abutting the property and the property forms part
of that highway pursuant to Section 31(6) of the Municipal Act, 2001”.
5.
That Site Plan approval required under By-law 2019-034 be obtained and a
development agreement be executed and securities thereunder be posted
prior to the stamping of the deeds to the satisfaction of the Community
Services Department (Planning Division) and Public Works and Engineering
Department (Engineering Services Division) which shall require in addition to
any and all other site plan requirements:
a) That arrangements respecting access to the subject lands has been
made to the satisfaction of the Community Services Department
(Planning Division) and Public Works and Engineering Department
(Engineering Services Division), substantially in accordance with the
concept plan;
b) That servicing arrangements acceptable to the City have been made for
each of the separate lots (i.e., separate services demonstrated on
Servicing Plan) to the satisfaction of the City’s Public Works and
Engineering Department (Engineering Services Division).
c) Confirmation of final easement locations and dimensions to provide for
appropriate access to the lands, parking, stormwater management,
grading and drainage, and wastewater servicing.
d) That the owner prepare and submit grading, drainage and storm water
management plans, prepared by a qualified professional engineer, in
accordance with applicable zoning, to the satisfaction of the City's Public
Works and Engineering Department (Engineering Services Division).
e) That the owner complete the provisions of the approved grading and
drainage plan and storm water management plan pursuant to
development of the subject lands.
6.
That all conditions of decision B02-2026 be fulfilled and the deeds stamped,
to the satisfaction of the City’s Secretary-Treasurer.
7.
That all conditions of Minor Variance A03-2026 be fulfilled, to the satisfaction
of the City’s Secretary-Treasurer.
8.
That the applicant pay outstanding frontage charges for watermain required
by the City’s Public Works and Engineering Department (Engineering
Services Division) to the Secretary-Treasurer relevant to the severed lot(s).
Report: CS-26-028
File: B01 & B02-2026
Page 2 of 3
Page 138 of 614
The rate established by the City’s Fees and Charges By-law at the time of
this decision is $89.00 per metre of lot frontage.
9.
That the applicant pay outstanding charges for sanitary sewer required by
the City's Public Works and Engineering Department (Engineering Services
Division) to the Secretary-Treasurer relevant to the severed lot(s). The rate
established by the City’s Fees and Charges By-law at the time of this decision
is $89.00 per metre of lot frontage.
10. That the applicant pay outstanding charges for storm sewers required by the
City's Public Works and Engineering Department (Engineering Services
Division) to the Secretary-Treasurer relevant to the severed lot(s). The rate
established by the City’s Fees and Charges By-law at the time of this decision
is $76.00 per metre of lot frontage.
11. That the applicant pay outstanding charges for sidewalk required by the
City's Public Works and Engineering Department (Engineering Services
Division) to the Secretary-Treasurer relevant to the severed lot(s). The rate
established by the City’s Fees and Charges By-law at the time of this decision
is $136.00 per square metre of lot frontage.
12. That the applicant pay outstanding charges for urban roadways required by
the City's Public Works and Engineering Department (Engineering Services
Division) to the Secretary-Treasurer relevant to the severed lot(s). The rate
established by the City’s Fees and Charges By-law at the time of this decision
is $66.00 per metre of lot frontage.
Report: CS-26-028
File: B01 & B02-2026
Page 3 of 3
Page 139 of 614
SCHEDULE F
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
B02-2026 (Stormwater Management, Grading, Drainage,
Access, and Parking Easement)
1.
That the applicant submit to the Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of
Adjustment a legal description of the subject lands as well as a legal
description of all easements necessary to finalize the conditions of approval
which will meet the requirements of the Registrar and request in writing
(either through presentation of deeds for stamping or a written statement)
from the Secretary- Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment a certificate
of consent, provided however that before the said certificate is issued, any
other conditions imposed by the committee have been fulfilled to the
satisfaction of the Secretary-Treasurer.
2.
That the applicant provides to the Secretary-Treasurer written confirmation
from the City Clerk that all easements and rights-of ways required by the
City's Public Works and Engineering Department (Engineering Services
Division) or Community Services Department (Planning & Heritage Division)
have been conveyed to the City in a manner acceptable to the City Solicitor.
Specifically, the City requires that the applicant revise the existing Servicing
Easement with the City for the lands within the former 21st Street East road
allowance (Schedule to GY276261), to include:
a. Reference to all ‘municipal servicing infrastructure’.
b. A 6.0 m by 6.0 m triangle at the northeastern portion of the retained
parcel to be included in the City’s ‘municipal servicing’ easement, based
on the location of existing wastewater infrastructure.
3.
That prior to the stamping of deeds, that the applicant provide to the
Secretary-Treasurer written confirmation that arrangements have been made
respecting the access, parking, stormwater management, grading and
drainage, and sanitary servicing easements to the satisfaction of the
Community Services Department (Planning Division).
4.
That the applicant provides to the Secretary-Treasurer written confirmation
that any easements required for access, parking, stormwater management,
Report: CS-26-028
File: B01 & B02-2026
Page 1 of 2
Page 140 of 614
grading and drainage, and sanitary servicing over and/or in favour of the
retained or severed lots have been conveyed in a manner acceptable to the
City Solicitor prior to the stamping of deeds.
5.
That the applicant provide to the Secretary-Treasurer written confirmation
that an easement agreement, to the satisfaction of the City’s Solicitor, has
been executed and legally registered on title of the servient and benefitting
lands, addressing, among other matters:
a) apportionment of the ownership and responsibilities for maintenance of
various components of the stormwater management system as well as
access over and to the system to the future owners; and,
b) The rights and responsibility of the future owners in regard to the northern
and southern vehicular site access via 9th Avenue East and parking area,
including snow clearing and maintenance arrangements, among other
matters.
6. That the conditions of decisions and the deeds stamped for B01-2026, to the
satisfaction of the Secretary-Treasurer.
Report: CS-26-028
File: B01 & B02-2026
Page 2 of 2
Page 141 of 614
SCHEDULE G
STAFF & AGENCY COMMENTS
Consent B01-2026 & B02-2026
City of Owen Sound Engineering & Public Works Department – March 31, 2026
Canada Post – March 26, 2026
County of Grey – March 27, 2026
City of Owen Sound Building Division – March 23, 2026
Report: CS-26-028
Page 1 of 1
Page 142 of 614
File: B01-2026 & B02-2026
Staff Report
Engineering Services Division
Public Works & Engineering Department
Date:
March 31, 2026
Application:
B01-02/2026
To:
Staci Landry, Secretary-Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment
Jacklyn Iezzi, Senior Planner
Sabine Robart, Manager of Planning and Heritage
Pam Coulter, Director of Community Services
Lara Widdifield, Director of Public Works & Engineering
From:
Matthew Pierog, Engineering Technologist
Subject:
Application for Consent to Sever – Engineering Review
Municipal Address: 2090 9th Avenue East
Assessment Roll: 425901000629100, 425901000629101
Legal Description: FIRSTLY: PT LT 29 E/S DOUGLAS ST AND N/S ST.
VINCENT ST PL OWEN SOUND; PT LT 30 E/S DOUGLAS ST AND N/S ST.
VINCENT ST PL OWEN SOUND PT 1, 16R360; LT 29 W/S STAVELY ST AND
N/S ST. VINCENT ST PL OWEN SOUND; LT 30 W/S STAVELY ST AND N/S ST.
VINCENT ST PL OWEN SOUND; OWEN SOUND SECONDLY: PART NORTH ST
PLAN OWEN SOUND 21ST ST EAST (FORMERLY NORTH ST) WEST OF 9TH
AVENUE EAST, PART 1 16R12260 (CLOSED BY BYLAW NO. 2025-078,
REGISTERED AS GY276261); OWEN SOUND; SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT IN
GROSS
Applicant: Barry’s Construction and Insulation Ltd.
Background:
Refer to description provided by the City’s Planning Division.
Recommendation:
Page 1 of 6
Page 143 of 614
APPLICATION for CONSENT
B01-02/2026
2090 9th Avenue East
continued
Further to our review of the above noted application, the Public Works and
Engineering Department recommends approval by the Committee of
Adjustment, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the applicant provide to the Secretary-Treasurer written
confirmation from the City Clerk that the 3 m of road widening along the
frontage of 9th Avenue East, for approximately 15 m from the southern
property boundary, required by the City, has been conveyed and
registered in an acceptable manner to the City Solicitor, for which the City
Clerk will require the following to be provided at the applicant’s expense:
a. A reference plan describing the lands subject to the road widening;
b. An Acknowledgement and Direction form to be signed by the City
respecting the registration of the transfer by the applicant’s solicitor
on the City’s behalf;
c. The proposed draft transfer document including a Land Transfer Tax
Affidavit which must include the following “other” statement: “The
subject property is acquired by the municipality for the purpose of
widening the highway abutting the property and the property forms
part of that highway pursuant to section 31(6) of the Municipal Act,
2001”; and,
d. The draft reference plan is to be reviewed by the ESD prior to
depositing and transferring to the City.
2. That the owner prepares and submits a Grading and Drainage Plan and
a Stormwater Management Report, to the satisfaction of the City's
Public Works and Engineering Department (Engineering Services
Division) and the Community Services Department (Planning and
Heritage Division).
a. Based on the provided plans and reports, the applicant is to provide
a legal document (i.e. easement) which is to be registered on title
for each property to demonstrate the rights/responsibilities of each
owner regarding the private stormwater & grading/drainage.
3. That the owner prepare and submits a legal document (i.e. easement)
to the City Secretary-Treasurer, which is to detail the
rights/responsibilities of each owner regarding access/parking rights,
Page 2 of 5
Page 144 of 614
APPLICATION for CONSENT
B01-02/2026
2090 9th Avenue East
continued
and private wastewater lateral, etc., registered on title of each
property, to the satisfaction of the Manager of Planning and Heritage,
and the Manager of Public Works and Engineering.
4. That the applicant revise the existing Servicing Easement with the City
for the lands within the former 21st Street East road allowance
(schedule to GY276261) to include reference to all ‘municipal servicing
infrastructure’ in lieu of only wastewater infrastructure.
5. The City will require a ~6.0m by 6.0m triangle at the northeastern
portion of the retained lands to be included in a City ‘municipal
servicing’ easement, based on existing wastewater infrastructure.
6. That the applicant provides to the Secretary-Treasurer written
confirmation from the City’s Public Works and Engineering Department
(Engineering Services Division) that servicing arrangements acceptable
to the City have been made for each of the separate lots (i.e. separate
services demonstrated on Servicing Plan).
7. That the applicant pays outstanding frontage charges for watermain ,
wastewater, stormwater, sidewalk and urban roadways required by the
City’s Public Works and Engineering Department (Engineering Services
Division) to the Secretary-Treasurer relevant to the severed lot. The
rate established by policy of City Council applicable at the time of this
decision is $89.00 per m, $89.00 per m, $76.00 per m, $136.00 per sq
m and $66.00 per m, respectively, of lot frontage (approximately 15.0
metres total length, to be confirmed on revised drawings).
8. Payment of the Engineering Review Fee for a Consent to Sever
Application.
Analysis:
Site Access:
The properties front on 9th Avenue East and 21st Street East road allowance,
classified as a future Arterial Road and an unopened road allowance,
respectively.
Based on the Consent application, both properties will have direct access to
9th Avenue East, and share internal drive aisles/parking and accesses.
Shared access will require private easements; a legal document is required
Page 3 of 5
Page 145 of 614
APPLICATION for CONSENT
B01-02/2026
2090 9th Avenue East
continued
to be registered on each property to demonstrate the rights/responsibilities
of each owner (access & parking rights).
Parking:
Based on the proposed Severance Plan, the measurements provided for the
standard parking stall and barrier free stalls appear to meet City standards.
The applicant has noted that parking is to be shared with each lot via an
easement.
ESD has no concerns with parking as a part of the Consent Application;
comments relating to parking will be discussed as a part of the concurrent
Minor Variance Application, and future Site Plan Approval Application.
Site Servicing:
The City has existing stormwater, wastewater, and watermain infrastructure
within 9th Avenue East, and stormwater and wastewater mains within the
unopened 21st Street East. It is noted that a portion of 21st Street East was
disposed of last year through the land sale process, and a section of the
lands sold are now located in an easement, GY276261. Upon review of the
Servicing Easement, the City notes an inaccuracy; the description is to be
revised to reflect the stormwater infrastructure as well (i.e. include all
‘municipal servicing’ infrastructure).
Additionally, it appears that a portion of the City’s existing wastewater main
traverses the northeastern portion of the retained lands; the City will require
a ~6.0m by 6.0m triangle at the northeastern portion of the retained lands
to be included on a City ‘municipal servicing’ easement.
Water and wastewater servicing for the existing developed lot appears to
remain ‘as-is’ based on the application. The existing wastewater lateral will
be located on the adjacent property, this modification will require the
servicing lateral on a private easement on the retained lands.
The proposed lot limits severance allow the new servicing for water and
wastewater for the proposed building to be wholly located within the new lot
limits; this is required by the City.
Shared stormwater management will require an easement detailing the
private responsibilities.
Page 4 of 5
Page 146 of 614
APPLICATION for CONSENT
B01-02/2026
2090 9th Avenue East
continued
Road Widening:
The City’s Official Plan classifies this portion of 9th Avenue East adjacent to
this development as a Future Arterial Road (Collector Road). The present
road allowance width for this roadway is irregular, at approximately 20
metres near the southern portion of the property. The minimum road
allowance for this roadway is to be generally 30 metres. A road widening of
3 metres across the frontage of the property (9th Avenue East) is required
from the southeast lot corner to approximately 15 metres (+/-).
Grading, Drainage & Stormwater Management:
Grading, Drainage and Stormwater Management appear to function together
across both properties, based on the provided drawings; a legal document
(i.e. easement) is required to be registered on each property to demonstrate
the rights/responsibilities of each owner.
To identify the SWM responsibilities, a stormwater management report is
required as a condition of the Consent application.
It is the Owner’s responsibility to ensure that the overall grading, drainage
and stormwater management at the properties conform to Section 2.2.2 of
By-law 1999-030; the City of Owen Sound Property Standards By-law.
Fees:
Based on the Consent Application, the applicant will be required to pay
outstanding frontage fees associated with the severed lot for the watermain,
wastewater, stormwater, sidewalk and urban roadways, in accordance with
the City’s Fees & Charges By-law (2025-060), as amended. The proposed
width of the severed lot at the time of this application is approximately 15.0
metres.
The Engineering Review Fee will be $477.00 for a Consent to Sever
Application.
Consultation:
This document incorporates comments from all divisions of the Public Works
and Engineering Department. The comments provided above were based on
the City’s most recent Engineering Standards and the records available at
the time of preparation of this report. The comments provided do not
Page 5 of 5
Page 147 of 614
APPLICATION for CONSENT
B01-02/2026
2090 9th Avenue East
continued
preclude the applicant’s responsibility for meeting all applicable laws,
regulations and standards, or provide any assurances.
Prepared By:
Reviewed By:
Matthew Pierog, P.Eng.
Mason Bellamy, C.Tech.
Matthew Pierog, P.Eng.
Reviewed via email
Page 6 of 5
Page 148 of 614
Staff Report
Building Division
ROLL NO.: 4259 010 006 29100
4259 010 006 29101
DATE:
MARCH 23, 2026
TO:
STACI LANDRY, DEPUTY CLERK
FROM:
NIELS JENSEN, BUILDING OFFICIAL
SUBJECT:
MINOR VARIANCE & CONSENT APPLICATION FOR 2090 9 TH AVE E
PLANNING FILE: A03-2026 / B01 & B02-2026
MUNICIPAL ADDRESS: 2090 9TH AVE EAST
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FIRSTLY: PT LT 29 E/S DOUGLAS ST AND N/S
ST. VINCENT ST PL OWEN SOUND; PT LT 30 E/S DOUGLAS ST AND
N/S ST. VINCENT ST PL OWEN SOUND PT 1, 16R360; LT 29 W/S
STAVELY ST AND N/S ST. VINCENT ST PL OWEN SOUND; LT 30 W/S
STAVELY ST AND N/S ST. VINCENT ST PL OWEN SOUND; OWEN
SOUND SECONDLY: PART NORTH ST PLAN OWEN SOUND 21ST ST
EAST (FORMERLY NORTH ST) WEST OF 9TH AVENUE EAST, PART 1
16R12260 (CLOSED BY BYLAW NO. 2025-078, REGISTERED AS
GY276261); OWEN SOUND; SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT IN GROSSE
APPLICANT: BARRY’S CONSTRUCTION & INSULATION LTD.
BACKGROUND: The lands are subject to consent applications B01-2026 and
B02-2026, which have the effect of severing the subject property to facilitate
the construction of a new, four-storey, 35-unit apartment building and
establishing an easement for shared means of stormwater infrastructure, site
access, and parking arrangements between the severed and retained parcels.
A minor variance is requested to provide the following relief from the Zoning
By-law 2010-078, as amended, to facilitate the construction of the 35-unit
apartment building:
Provision
Rear Yard Setback
(Sec. 6.6. R5 – Dwelling,
Apartment)
Building Height
(Sec. 6.6. R5 – Dwelling,
Apartment)
Required
7.5 m
Provided
4.0 m
Variance
3.5 m
12 m
14 m
2m
Page 1 of 4
Page 149 of 614
A03 / B01& B02-2026
Building Division Review
-/Continued
Rear Yard Setback for a
Porch/Deck
(Sec. 5.8)
Off-Street Parking
(Sec. 5.18)
Planting Strip Abutting Another
Use or Lot Line
4.5 m
2.48 m
2.1 m
73 spaces
68 spaces
5 spaces
1.5 m
0.5 m
1.0 m
ANALYSIS: This document incorporates comments from the Building
Division of the Community Service Department.
The above noted site plan has been reviewed using the requirements from
the Ontario Building Code and related City and County By-laws. The following
comments reflect the results of the review:
All construction to be in accordance with either the Ontario Building
Code or successor legislation in place at the time of building permit
application.
The payment of permit fees, City, County and site specific Development
Charges will be due upon the issuance of a building permit.
DETAILED REVIEW:
application are:
Documents reviewed in conjunction with this
Ontario Building Code 2024
o C
City of Owen Sound Development Charges By-law
County of Grey Development Charges By-laws
The Building Division does not have any concerns regarding the application,
please be aware that the building must comply with the Ontario Building
Code in effect at the time of application and City By-laws, including but not
limited to, the following:
Design to meet the requirements of Barrier Free Design as per 3.8.
including, but not limited to, Barrier Free path of travel to public
thoroughfare as per 3.8.2.2.(c).
Page 2 of 4
Page 150 of 614
A03 / B01& B02-2026
Building Division Review
-/Continued
Building to be designed by an Architect and Engineer. Foundation to be
reviewed by qualified Engineer in consultation with a qualified GeoTechnical Engineer,
Permit drawings to include mechanical (plumbing, sprinkler, HVAC,
radon), structural, electrical, architectural details including fire
separations between units, floors, exits and occupancies meeting the
requirements of the OBC.
Site grading and drainage plan by qualified Engineer on all lots to the
satisfaction of the Engineering Division. Final grading to be verified by
the Engineer.
Sanitary sewer to be protected by a back water valve.
Water service to be protected with a back flow device.
Provisions for Firefighting including, but not limited to, location of
hydrants, location and design of access routes as per OBC 3.2.5 to be
installed by the developer if required.
Building/Demolition permit(s) may be revoked if construction not
started with 6 months of permit issuance or if construction is
substantially halted, suspended, or discontinued for a period of over
one year.
Fees and charges are to be paid at the rate current at time of building
permit issuance. The following estimated rates would apply if permit
applied for in 2026 (rates subject to change based on Fees and
Charges By-law):
o Building permit of $16.34 per m2 of gross floor area Residential
Apartment construction (min $120) plus Admin Fee of $57.89 per
unit.
o City of Owen Sound Development Charges, if applicable
o County of Grey Development Charges, if applicable
Page 3 of 4
Page 151 of 614
A03 / B01& B02-2026
Building Division Review
-/Continued
Submitted by:
Niels Jensen
Reviewed by:
Kevin Linthorne, CBO
Page 4 of 4
Page 152 of 614
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
STEVENS, Darren
Staci Landry
Re: Notice of Public Hearing and Application for Files A02-2026, A04-2026, A03-2026, and B01-2026 & B02-2026
Thursday, March 26, 2026 12:42:33 PM
image001.png
A04-2026_Murphy_Homes_Commenting_Letter.pdf
A03-2026_2090_9TH_AVE_E_Commenting_Letter.pdf
Warning: Unusual sender <darren.stevens@canadapost.postescanada.ca>
You don't usually receive emails from this address. Make sure you trust this sender before
taking any actions.
Hi Staci
Please see Canada Post's feedback regarding the below notes files
File # A02-2026 - Canada Post does not have any comments for this file
File # A04-2026 - Please see the attached file of Canada Post Comments
File # A03-2026 - Please see the attached file of Canada Post Comments
File # B01-2026 - Canada Post does not have any comments for this file
Please let me know if you require any further information.
Kind Regards,
DARREN STEVENS | DELIVERY PLANNING | CANADA POST | 955 HIGHBURY AVE N, LONDON ON N5Y 1A3 | 519-2813428
From: Staci Landry <slandry@owensound.ca>
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2026 11:42
To: Planning Act Prescribed Persons/Bodies <planningnotices@owensound.ca>; Brian Green
<iluvwood@live.ca>; Dinesh Shah <dinesh625@gmail.com>; Gail McCartney
<gmcart22@gmail.com>; Markus Hawco <hawcomark@gmail.com>; Tyler Hopkins
<thopkins@millerinsurance.ca>
Cc: Development Team <developmentteam@owensound.ca>
Subject: Notice of Public Hearing and Application for Files A02-2026, A04-2026, A03-2026, and B012026 & B02-2026
This Message Is From an External Sender | Ce message provient d’un expéditeur
externe
This message came from outside your organization. Please be CAUTIOUS, particularly with links and
attachments. | Ce message provient de l’extérieur de votre organisation. Veuillez faire preuve de
Page 153 of 614
PRUDENCE, particulièrement lorsqu’il s’agit de liens et de pièces jointes.
Report Suspicious
Good morning,
Please find attached the Notice of Public Hearing and application for files:
A02-2026 for 843 7th Street East
A04-2026 for PLAN 371 PT LOT 1 PT LOT 2 RP 16R1665 PARTS 1 & 2
WITH LANE
A03-2026 and B01-2026 & B02-2026 for 2090 9th Avenue East
Please contact me if you require anything additional for your review.
The public hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, April 7, 2026 at 1:00 p.m.
in the Owen Sound City Hall Council Chambers located at 808 2nd Avenue
East.
Please submit comments to Staci Landry, Deputy Clerk
(slandry@owensound.ca) by Wednesday, April 1 by 12:00 noon for
inclusion on the agenda.
Should you have any questions or require anything further for your review,
please do not hesitate to contact me or the Planning Division
(planning@owensound.ca) before 10:00 a.m. on the hearing date noted
above.
Best,
Staci Landry
Deputy Clerk
Corporate Services Department
City of Owen Sound
808 2nd Avenue East, Owen Sound, ON N4K 2H4
519-376-4440 ext. 1235
slandry@owensound.ca
www.owensound.ca
Page 154 of 614
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
planning@grey.ca
Briana Bloomfield; OS Planning; Staci Landry; Tim Simmonds; Pam Coulter; Engineering; Emily Carter
County comments for B01-2026 & B02-2026 Kruisselbrink
Friday, March 27, 2026 10:17:19 AM
External sender <planning@grey.ca>
Make sure you trust this sender before taking any actions.
County comments for B01-2026 & B02-2026
Kruisselbrink
Hello Owen Sound,
Please note that Grey County is taking steps to streamline development review by
limiting planning policy comments on some development applications. Unless
otherwise requested by municipal staff, County planning comments will be limited
for the following applications:
All minor variance and site plan applications; and
zoning by-law amendments and consents within settlement areas.
County planning staff may continue to provide comments where the above
applications are connected to a County application.
Grey County Ecology staff will continue to review all applications with regards to
natural heritage matters. Other County departments will continue to be circulated
through our ‘one-window’ approach and will provide comments as needed.
Given the above, a formal planning policy review of the subject application has not
been undertaken. Please be advised that all planning decisions shall conform with
the County's Official Plan. County planning staff can assist with specific questions
in this respect.
Grey County Planning Ecology staff have reviewed the application and have no
concerns.
Grey County Planning staff would note that the subject property is near
four 'Abandoned Landfill: Previously Identified Sites'. In March 2015, Azimuth
Environmental Consulting undertook a Historic Landfill Site Review. In the review,
it was determined that the landfills had insufficient risk. Therefore, County
Planning staff have no concerns in this regard.
County staff have no further comments at this time. Please let us know if you have
any questions.
Best regards,
Page 155 of 614
Derek McMurdie
County of Grey, Owen Sound, ON
Page 156 of 614
Staff Report
Report To:
Committee of Adjustment
Report From:
Margaret Potter, Senior Planner
Meeting Date:
April 7, 2026
Report Code:
CS-26-010
Subject:
Minor Variance Application – 843 7th Street East
Recommendations:
THAT in consideration of Staff Report CS-26-010 respecting Minor Variance
A02-2026 by Barry’s Construction and Insulation for the property known as
843 7th Street East, the Committee of Adjustment approves the modified
minor variance as the Committee concludes that the modified variance
maintains the general intent and purpose of the City’s Official Plan and
Zoning By-law, is minor in nature, and desirable for the appropriate
development and use of the lands, subject to the conditions outlined in
Schedule ‘E’.
Highlights:
An application for Minor Variance (A02-2026) has been submitted
by Barry’s Construction and Insulation.
The applicant is proposing to construct a new accessory building in
the rear yard of the existing dwelling to contain two (2) Additional
Residential Units (ARUs).
The applicant is requesting relief from the maximum number of
ARUs permitted in an accessory building, maximum accessory
building coverage, and maximum accessory building height.
Staff recommends approval of the variance to the number of ARUs
in an accessory building.
Staff finds the requested variances affecting the size of the
accessory structure to cumulatively exceed what is intended by the
Staff Report CS-26-010: Minor Variance Application – 843 7th Street East
Page 1 of 21
Page 157 of 614
Official Plan and Zoning By-law and exceed what is necessary for
the building proposed.
Staff recommend modification to the variances proposed and
recommend approval of the modified variances, subject to
conditions.
Vision 2050 - Strategic Plan Alignment:
Strategic Plan Priority: The recommendation contributes to core service
delivery or a corporate initiative that enables service delivery for one or more
strategic priorities.
The subject application represents a legislated review process.
Climate and Environmental Implications:
This supports the objectives of the City’s Corporate Climate Change
Adaptation Plan by considering climate adaptation in the development of the
City’s strategies, plans, and policies.
The proposal supports compact development and efficient use of existing
service infrastructure.
Previous Report/Authority:
Ontario Planning Act (s. 41)
City of Owen Sound Official Plan
City of Owen Sound Zoning By-law (2010-078, as amended)
Background & Proposal:
An application for Minor Variance (A02-2026) has been submitted by Barry’s
Construction and Insulation Ltd.
Property Description
The subject property is located on the south side of 7th Street East, between
8th and 9th Avenue East. The lot has approximately 13.6 metres of frontage
on 7th Street East, and 55 metres of lot depth. The property contains an
existing single detached dwelling.
Staff Report CS-26-010: Minor Variance Application – 843 7th Street East
Page 2 of 21
Page 158 of 614
There is an existing boulevard tree in front of the existing house. There are
existing trees along the westerly interior lot line in both the front and rear
yards.
The lands are accessed via a shared driveway with the neighbouring property
to the east. The property to the east was severed from the subject lands in
1998 (B1/98) and the stamped deed includes a right-of-way for this mutual
driveway.
Figure 1: Photo of Existing Dwelling taken March 24, 2025
The west side yard of the subject property slopes down to the west. This
slope is not regulated by Grey Sauble Conservation Authority (GSCA) or
zoned hazard.
Four adjacent properties to the west front on to 8th Avenue East and have
their rear yards abutting the interior side yard of the subject property. The
rear lot line of the subject property abuts the rear yard and parking lot of
Heritage Towers residential condominium apartment building located to the
south.
Surrounding land uses include:
North: Residential (single detached), Bill Inglis Park
East: Residential (single detached), Institutional (Owen Sound Muslim
Association), and Commercial uses fronting 9th Avenue East
South: Heritage Towers 5 storey apartment building (Grey Condo 33)
West: Residential (Single Detached)
Staff Report CS-26-010: Minor Variance Application – 843 7th Street East
Page 3 of 21
Page 159 of 614
The subject lands are designated ‘Residential’ in the City’s Official Plan (OP)
and are zoned ‘Medium Density Residential’ (R4) in the City’s Zoning By-law
(2010-078, as amended). For location context and surrounding land uses,
please see the Orthophoto in Schedule ‘A’. For the planning policy context,
please see the Official Plan and Zoning Map in Schedule ‘B’. A full description
of the property is included in Schedule ‘C’.
The Proposal
The applicant is proposing to construct a new accessory building in the rear
yard of the existing dwelling. The accessory structure is proposed to contain
two (2) Additional Residential Units (ARUs). A total of three (3) dwelling units
would then exist on the lot (one single detached dwelling and two ARUs) in a
total of two (2) buildings.
Additional Residential Units are a permitted use where a lot contains a single
detached dwelling subject to certain site and building regulations.
A minor variance is requested to provide the following relief from Zoning Bylaw 2010-078, as amended:
Regulation
Required
Proposed
Variance
(By-law section)
1
Maximum Number of ARUs in
an Accessory Building (5.27)
1
2
1
2
Maximum Accessory Building
Lot Coverage (5.9)
12%
15%
3%
3
Maximum Accessory Building
Height (5.9)
5m
6.5 m
1.5 m
The maximum total number of ARUs on a property being two (2) is not
proposed to change.
A fulsome review and analysis of the proposed minor variance is outlined
below.
Analysis:
As stipulated in the Planning Act [Sec. 45(1)], a minor variance may be
authorized by the Committee of Adjustment, provided that the four tests of a
variance are met. All decisions with respect to a planning matter must also
be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement.
Staff Report CS-26-010: Minor Variance Application – 843 7th Street East
Page 4 of 21
Page 160 of 614
Provincial Planning Statement
The Provincial Planning Statement (PPS, 2024) has been reviewed with
regard to the proposed application.
Within Settlement Areas, the PPS promotes a mix of land uses that efficiently
use land and resources, infrastructure and public services, while encouraging
intensification and regeneration on lands with existing servicing. Settlement
areas shall be the focus for growth and their vitality and regeneration shall
be promoted.
Planning authorities shall provide for an appropriate range and mix of
housing options and densities to meet projected needs in part by permitting
and facilitating all types of residential intensification. This is to be supported
by prioritizing planning and investment in necessary infrastructure and public
service facilities. The definition of ‘housing options’ in the PPS includes ARUs.
The proposed development of Additional Residential Units (ARUs) at an
existing, serviced, residential property is consistent with the direction
provided by the PPS.
Planning Act
The Planning Act supports additional residential units. Section 16(3)
regarding Official Plans and Section 34(19.1) regarding Zoning By-laws are
attached for ease of reference in Schedule ‘H’.
These sections provide that no Official Plan may contain a policy prohibiting
one (1) additional residential unit where the house contains no more than
two (2) residential units, and further that there is no appeal in respect of a
by-law passed to authorize/permit the use of an ancillary building or
structure for the same purpose.
Municipal planning documents may be more permissive than the
above policy but cannot be more restrictive.
The subject application proposes a total of three residential units in two
separate buildings as contemplated by the above noted policies. However,
the request to permit a second ARU in an ancillary (a.k.a. accessory) building
is a request for the City to be more permissive than the minimum standards
required by the Planning Act.
The second ARU as proposed in an ancillary (a.k.a. accessory) building is not
protected by the above noted policies from appeal rights.
Staff Report CS-26-010: Minor Variance Application – 843 7th Street East
Page 5 of 21
Page 161 of 614
The Planning Act provides a framework for the Committee of Adjustment to
authorize minor variances to provisions of the Zoning By-law provided that
four tests are met.
The requested variances will be referred to as variances 1 (ARU
number in an accessory structure), 2 (accessory coverage), and 3
(accessory height) throughout this report.
Test 1: Conformity with the Official Plan
The subject property is designated ‘Residential’ in the Owen Sound Official
Plan, which permits a variety of housing types and complementary uses.
The OP generally supports site revitalization and redevelopment. Section
3.1.4.1 of the Official Plan seeks to provide a range of housing types and
densities. The Official Plan seeks to achieve the County’s growth allocation
targets, in part through intensification which can take the form of Accessory
Residential Units (ARUs).
Variance 1 – ARU Number in an Accessory Structure
Permitted uses in the Residential Designation include (Section 3.1.1):
c. Accessory Residential Units (ARUs) in single detached dwellings,
semi-detached dwellings or row houses, subject to the policies of
Section 3.1.7.1 of this Plan.
d. ARUs in a building ancillary to a single detached dwelling,
semidetached dwelling or row house if the single detached dwelling,
semidetached dwelling or row house contains no more than two
residential units on one lot and subject to the policies of Section
3.1.7.1.
The Official Plan includes policies specific to ARUs in Section 3.1.7. ARUs are
permitted in accordance with the following criteria:
a. Not more than two ARUs are permitted in association with an existing
legal dwelling unit on a lot and a lot may not contain more than two
ARUs.
b. All requirements of the Zoning By-law, the Ontario Building Code, the
Ontario Fire Code, the Property Standards By-law and relevant
municipal and provincial regulations can be satisfied.
c. Adequate on-site parking to serve the ARU on one driveway.
Staff Report CS-26-010: Minor Variance Application – 843 7th Street East
Page 6 of 21
Page 162 of 614
d. Municipal services and community facilities are adequate to meet the
anticipated demand in the neighbourhood to the satisfaction of the
City.
e. The outward appearance of the principle dwelling is not changed and
the neighbourhood character is maintained.
Accessory Residential Units in a building ancillary to a single detached
dwelling are permitted in the Residential designation.
The Official Plan does not specify a number of ARUs that may be
permitted in an ancillary (a.k.a. accessory) building. The Official Plan
is more permissive than the Planning Act minimum requirements.
The density of development being a total of three dwelling units on 0.0734
ha (40 units/ha) would be considered Medium-Density and is already
permitted by the Zoning By-law; it is only the arrangement of those three
units that is being adjusted. The City is also committed to assisting the
County in achieving the growth allocation target of 15% of new residential
units by way of intensification which is supported by ARUs (Section 3.1.3.5).
The requested variance on the maximum number of ARUs in an accessory
building does not offend the Official Plan in principle. Where the use of a
building is intensified, more significance rests on the form of the building in
achieving the intent and purpose of the policy framework and mitigating
impacts to neighbouring properties. Whether the character of the
neighbourhood is maintained will depend on the form of the building
proposed.
Variances 2 & 3 – Accessory Coverage and Height
The Official Plan does not include specific direction for lot coverage or height
of residential uses or ARUs.
Including maximum lot coverage and maximum building height in the Zoning
By-law is a mechanism for addressing other matters that are included in the
Official Plan such as density, urban design and compatibility, urban forest,
and stormwater management.
Density:
Density is discussed above and the proposed density is permitted.
Staff Report CS-26-010: Minor Variance Application – 843 7th Street East
Page 7 of 21
Page 163 of 614
Urban Design and Compatibility:
Urban Design policies of the Official Plan establish design criteria for
evaluation of new development proposals. The criteria contemplate
large development proposals and the layout of lot fabric and do not
include specific policies for individual single detached dwelling lots. The
Urban Design policies considered with respect to the subject
application include:
o Policies respecting compatibility with Adjacent Uses (8.6.7) direct
the City to consider potential impact of abrupt changes in
building height and scale on surrounding uses, seeking
compatible built form. This is most emphasized where there is a
change of use or proposal for non-residential adjacent to
residential uses.
The overall lot coverage permitted for the whole site
including the main dwelling and the accessory dwelling is
not being varied. Consideration of coverage in this instance
is more about the scale and relationship of buildings to one
another than whether the building can fit on the lot.
The maximum permitted building height for the main
dwelling on the site is 10 metres. The existing two-storey
main dwelling on the property as reported by the applicant
is 7.0 metres. The adjacent dwelling to the east is singlestorey and to the west are single and 1.5 storey dwellings.
In this neighbourhood, the existing dwelling on the lot is
already unique in terms of height and its position with
respect to the adjacent slope makes it appear even higher
from 8th Avenue East as is visible in the attached photos
(Schedule G).
New Residential Development policies (8.6.8) indicate buildings should
be sited to provide relatively consistent streetscapes, with similar
setbacks, and defining the visual width of the streets.
o The proposed application will not change the building location in
the front yard and therefore has minimal impact on streetscape.
The additional parking proposed in the front yard is permitted
with no variance required.
Staff Report CS-26-010: Minor Variance Application – 843 7th Street East
Page 8 of 21
Page 164 of 614
Urban Forest:
Natural Features policies (8.2) promote the consideration of mature
trees in the preparation of site plans. This is further supported by the
Urban Forest policies including that where new development is
proposed, consideration shall be given to the locations of existing trees
in preparation of the site plan, and to the retention of as many existing
trees as possible, subject to other design considerations (Section
6.1.3.5). The City’s Residential Tree Preservation Policy further
implements this policy.
o The proposed site plan and grading plan both include protection
of the existing boulevard tree on the lot.
o The grading plan shows a shallow swale and landscaped berm
along the westerly lot line within the dripline of existing trees
proximate to the lot line to divert water away from neighbouring
properties. This may impact trees along this lot line.
o Conditions are recommended that the applicant demonstrate how
trees on neighbouring properties will be protected during
construction and that they confirm the number of trees to be
removed and provide cash-in-lieu of tree planting if necessary.
Stormwater Management:
Policies of the Official Plan (5.2) require that best management
practices be applied in dealing with stormwater management. The
application includes a grading and drainage plan.
o Comments from the Engineering Services Division, discussed
below, include recommendations respecting grading and
drainage. These recommendations have been incorporated into
recommended conditions.
The Official Plan is meant to be read in its entirety. The cumulative impact of
the variances warrants consideration. The Zoning By-law provides the
Council approved direction for implementing the Official Plan.
As discussed further in the Zoning section, modified variances are
recommended with conditions.
Subject to the modifications to the variances and conditions
recommended, the proposal can conform to the intent and purpose of
the Official Plan.
Staff Report CS-26-010: Minor Variance Application – 843 7th Street East
Page 9 of 21
Page 165 of 614
Test 2: Conformity with the Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-law
Purpose of the Zoning By-law
As outlined in the Introductory Statement of the By-law, the City of Owen
Sound Zoning By-law is needed to assist the City to implement the objectives
and policies of the Official Plan and provincial policy. The Zoning By-law
functions as a legal document under the Ontario Planning Act, as amended,
for managing the area of land and guiding future development in the City of
Owen Sound. The Zoning By-law is also intended to protect property owners
from the development of conflicting land uses. Any use of land or the
construction or use of any building or structure not specifically authorized by
the By-law is prohibited. The Administration section of the Zoning By-law
provides for the Committee of Adjustment to authorize minor variances in
accordance with Section 45(2) of the Planning Act.
Permitted Uses
The property is zoned ‘Medium Density Residential’ (R4) in the City’s Zoning
By-law (2010-078, as amended). The R4 zone permits a variety of
residential uses including single-detached, semi-detached, duplex, and
townhouse dwellings.
Accessory Residential Units are permitted in any zone where a Single
Detached Dwelling is permitted as of right, in accordance with certain criteria
(Section 5.27) including, among other matters (criteria in italics with
comment following):
a) A maximum of two (2) additional dwelling units is permitted per lot;
No variance required. A total of 2 ARUs are proposed.
b) One (1) additional on-site parking space shall be provided for each
additional residential unit;
No variance required. The proposal requires a total of 3 parking
spaces, and 4 parking spaces are shown on the site plan.
c) All regulations of the zone must be complied with;
A total of 3 variances are required in order for the proposal to comply.
d) A maximum of one (1) additional residential unit is permitted to be
located in an accessory building per lot, provided the additional
residential unit has direct access from the street or dedicated parking
Staff Report CS-26-010: Minor Variance Application – 843 7th Street East
Page 10 of 21
Page 166 of 614
space and the accessory building must comply with the provisions of
section 5.9;
Variance 1 is required to address the number of ARUs in an accessory
building. The site plan provided shows access from the ARUs to the
street in part over a shared access driveway with dedicated parking
spaces adjacent to the building. Section 5.9 refers to the requirements
for Accessory Buildings or Structures and is addressed further in this
section.
The existing detached dwelling on the lands is permitted with a maximum of
two ARUs. A total of three variances are requested to address where the
ARUs are located and the built form of the proposed new building.
In assessing conformity with the intent of the Zoning By-law, the variances
warrant consideration both individually and cumulatively.
Variance 1 – ARU Number in an Accessory Structure
The Zoning By-law aligns with the direction provided by the I in limiting the
number of ARUs in an accessory building to one (1). These policies are
written so that it is the main building on site that would contain two (2)
units.
Section 5.13 of the Zoning By-law provides that with the exception of
apartment and townhouse dwellings, and where otherwise specified in the
By-law (such as for ARUs), not more than one residential building shall be
erected on any lot. Therefore, even though a single detached dwelling and a
semi-detached dwelling are both permitted in the R4 zone, they are not
currently permitted to be constructed on the same lot.
Staff can support three (3) dwelling units on the lot provided that they are
located in the forms of building that are already permitted, that being a
single detached dwelling and an accessory building.
A minor variance is requested to provide relief from the maximum
number of ARUs in an accessory building.
Demonstrating that the proposed ARU building is accessory to the main
dwelling, falls to the design of the building.
The form of construction proposed to accommodate the two ARUs on
the lot is not permitted unless the new building is considered an
‘accessory building’.
Staff Report CS-26-010: Minor Variance Application – 843 7th Street East
Page 11 of 21
Page 167 of 614
The definition of accessory in the Zoning By-law is:
‘Accessory’ means a use, building or structure subordinate and
incidental to and functionally associated with the main use, building or
structure located on the same lot therewith, and when applied to buildings or
structures, also means a building or structure separate from the main
building on the same lot otherwise provided for in this By-law.
The Zoning By-law requirements for accessory buildings or structures
(Section 5.9 Accessory Buildings and Structures) as outlined in Table 5.9
provide parameters for what is considered an accessory building to a
Residential use. The parameters stipulate (in summary):
o that the maximum overall lot coverage for the applicable zone is not
exceeded;
o that accessory buildings to a residential use are not permitted in the
front yard;
o minimum interior side and rear yard setbacks are 0.9 m;
o maximum lot coverage for all accessory buildings is 12%.
When compared to the zoning standards for a main dwelling in the R4 zone,
it is clear that the intention is for accessory buildings to be:
o smaller than the main building both in height and footprint;
o less massive when compared to main buildings;
o not prominent in the streetscape.
Staff do not object to the provision of two ARUs in an accessory
structure provided that and building in the rear yard satisfies the
Committee as being accessory to the main dwelling.
Whether the proposed building is accessory to the main dwelling requires
consideration of the other two variances.
Variance 2– Accessory Coverage
In the R4 Zone, for lots containing a single detached dwelling, the maximum
permitted total lot coverage for all buildings and structures on the lot is 40%.
The proposed maximum total lot coverage for all buildings on the lot is
approximately 31%. This provision is satisfied by the proposal.
The total lot coverage is not a concern but the relationship of the two
buildings to each other warrants consideration in determining whether the
new building is accessory to the main dwelling.
Staff Report CS-26-010: Minor Variance Application – 843 7th Street East
Page 12 of 21
Page 168 of 614
The existing dwelling has a footprint of 95.9 sq. m. (1,032.29 sq. ft.)
representing 13.06% lot coverage.
For an accessory building to a residential use, the maximum permitted lot
coverage is 12% and, in this case, would permit an 88 sq. m. (948 sq. ft)
accessory building.
The 3% variance requested would permit 15% accessory lot
coverage. A coverage variance of 3% represents 22 sq. m (237 sq. ft). The
requested coverage of 15% would permit a footprint of 110 sq. m. (1,185 sq.
ft) accessory building, which would be larger than the existing building.
The actual lot coverage of the accessory building shown on the site
plan provided is 12.46% for the 91.5 sq. m (984.93 sq. ft.) footprint
structure. Though not a legal plan, the Site Plan is based on a topographical
survey by GEI consultants on November 25, 2025 with legal boundary
information obtained from Registered Plan 15R6981 dated April 2, 1998
according to the notes on the Site Plan.
The applicant is asking the Committee to consider the 4.4 sq. m. footprint
area difference between the main dwelling and the proposed new structure
as being significant enough to demonstrate the new building is “accessory” to
the existing dwelling, while at the same time asking the Committee to
consider a variance in coverage which represents 22 sq. m. of area to be
minor (4.4 sq. m. is the difference between building footprints on the plan
while 22 sq. m is the difference between the permitted and proposed
coverage that the variance provides for).
While staff sometimes recommend rounding up to provide flexibility in final
development plans, the requested 15% coverage does not appear to be
necessary based on the plans provided and would result in a new
building with a larger footprint than the existing dwelling.
A 0.5% difference in coverage between 12% (88 sq. m.) and 12.5% (91.75
sq. m.) represents 3.75 sq. m. in building footprint on this lot. The actual
area of increase resulting from a coverage variance of 0.5% would
not exceed the difference in area between the primary and ARU
structures. The new building footprint would remain smaller than the
proposed building footprint. This would bring the proposal more in line
with the intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.
Staff Report CS-26-010: Minor Variance Application – 843 7th Street East
Page 13 of 21
Page 169 of 614
It is recommended that Committee approve a modified coverage
variance of 12.50% rather than the requested variance of 15%,
reflecting the actual size and lot area.
Variance 3 – Accessory Height
In the R4 Zone, a single detached dwelling is permitted to have a maximum
building height of 10 metres. The applicant has indicated that the existing
two-storey single detached dwelling on the lot has a height of 7.0
metres.
Accessory buildings to residential uses are permitted to have a maximum
building height of 5.0 metres. A variance of 1.5 metres has been
requested to permit a maximum accessory building height of 6.5
metres.
Staff have supported proposed revisions to the comprehensive Zoning By-law
that would permit a maximum accessory building height of 6.0 metres, as
recently presented to City Council on March 23, 2026. As noted in report CS26-023 the increase is recommended to help facilitate the development of
ARUs in detached structures. Part of the thinking was that this could facilitate
loft apartments above garages. This change was supported in principle by
Council, but the by-law has not yet been passed at the time of writing this
report. On April 7, 2026, the date of the hearing of the Committee of
Adjustment, this change to the Zoning By-law will not be in force and effect.
For the subject application, based on the grading and drainage plan
provided, the topography of the area results in the grade at the proposed
building envelope being approximately 2 metres higher than the grade
around neighbouring houses fronting on 8th Avenue East. This property is
already 2 metres higher than its neighbours to the west.
While the site plan indicates a crawlspace, the elevations provided show a
full two-storey building with a 2 metre (6.7ft) basement raised to provide
windows. The east elevation indicates that the finished floor (footplate of the
door) is 0.69 metres above grade.
The requested height variance provides for a two-storey building with raised
basement with windows. Without the basement, the proposed building
could achieve a maximum 6.0 metre height.
The elevations provided attempt to mitigate the increase in building height
with a hip-to-hip roof style where the highest part of the roof does not
extend to the sides of the building. It is recommended that any accessory
Staff Report CS-26-010: Minor Variance Application – 843 7th Street East
Page 14 of 21
Page 170 of 614
building on site greater than 5.0 metres in height be constructed with this
roof type.
The impact of the requested increased height alone would not necessarily
mean the new building would dominate the existing dwelling.
When considered together with the requested coverage variance, the
resulting new building would be difficult to consider accessory, subordinate,
and incidental to the existing dwelling.
The applicant was advised in February 2026 that a submission at that time
proposing 7 metres in height in addition to the other variances makes it
challenging to see the proposed building as “accessory”. Support for 6
metres was noted. The applicant subsequently modified the variance to 6.5
metres.
In considering the relationship of height between the existing dwelling and
the proposed accessory structure, the applicant has indicated that the
existing home on the lot is a two-storey building with an 8:12 roof pitch and
height of 7 metres. The proposed building is a two-story building with a 5:12
pitch and height of 6.5 metres.
No elevations or scaled illustrations of the existing building have been
provided to assist in comparing it to the proposed building.
As shown in the site photos, the existing building requires dormers to
provide sufficient height for a second storey, while the elevations for the
proposed building show a full second storey under the roof. This suggests
that with the lower pitched roof of the new building, more of the visual mass
of its structure will be above the first floor.
The Zoning By-law strives to implement the definition of ‘accessory’ by
articulating in standards a difference in use and size between main and
accessory buildings.
The difference in height and footprint between the existing building and the
building that could be constructed with the requested variances does not
achieve the direction provided by the Zoning By-law in articulating accessory
building requirements, as both height and coverage are related to the mass
of the building.
It is recommended that Committee approve a modified height
variance of 1 metre to permit an accessory building height of 6
metres, rather than the requested variance of 1.5 metres which would
Staff Report CS-26-010: Minor Variance Application – 843 7th Street East
Page 15 of 21
Page 171 of 614
permit a height of 6.5 metres, with a condition that the roof style be in
accordance with the plans provided (hip to hip roof style).
In order to maintain the general intent and purpose of the City’s
Zoning By-law, staff recommend the modified variances, subject to
conditions, that would result in the following:
Measure
Existing
Dwelling
Permitted
Accessory
Building
Requested
Accessory
Building
Supported
Accessory
Building
# dwelling
units
1
1
2
2
Building
height
7m
5m
6.5 m
6.0 m
13.06%
12%
15%
12.5%
95.9 m2
88 m2
110 m2
91.75 m2
Lot coverage
(% = m2)
Test 3: Minor in Nature
The requested variances in isolation of each other could be considered minor.
When considered together and compared to the existing building on the site,
the three variances requested result in a new building that is difficult to
consider accessory.
The following considerations merit note:
The south (rear) lot line abuts the parking lot for a five-storey
apartment building. The proximity of the proposed additional dwelling
units from the rear lot line is not anticipated to impact the neighbour to
the south.
Locating the building close to the south (rear) lot line may move it
away from established homes fronting on 7th Street East but moves it
closer to homes fronting on 8th Avenue East.
o The unique context of the site location is helpful in supporting
additional density in the rear yard.
o The impact of the built form together with the additional density
on neighbours particularly to the west where the subject lot is
already higher than their rear yards must be considered.
Staff Report CS-26-010: Minor Variance Application – 843 7th Street East
Page 16 of 21
Page 172 of 614
Based on the elevations provided for the proposed new building and
comparing the building height indicated to the measurements from
grade to eaves, it is estimated that the overall height of the proposed
building to the peak is approximately 7.25 metres.
Staff recognize the convenience of a full basement as being a benefit
to the future tenants. A full basement could be provided to a shorter
building.
In terms of visual impact and visibility of the new proposed building:
o The visual impact from 7th Avenue East will be mitigated by the
existing single detached dwelling.
o The existing boulevard tree is proposed to remain is in front of
the existing dwelling.
o The grading and drainage plan proposes a swale and berm to be
constructed along the westerly lot line.
Based on the stake location shown on the site photos
attached, existing trees along the westerly lot line will be
impacted by the proposed swale and berm construction.
It is unlikely that the existing trees will continue to provide
the same screening after the swale is installed.
Given the topography of the lands and the proposed swale,
the new structure may be more visible from both 7th Street
East and 8th Avenue East than the previous accessory
structure.
Due to the topography of the lot, any building in the rear yard has the
potential to overlook neighbouring properties. Permitting a taller building in
this instance is anticipated to increase the impact. Limiting the variance to a
height already supported by staff for all accessory structures in principle, will
limit the impact to what will soon be permitted as of right.
A modified coverage variance can be considered minor in that it keeps the
proposed building footprint smaller than the existing building footprint and,
provided adequate grading and drainage is designed, the change from 12%
to 12.5% is not anticipated to have any impact on neighbouring properties.
The modified variances recommended, subject to conditions, can be
considered minor.
Staff Report CS-26-010: Minor Variance Application – 843 7th Street East
Page 17 of 21
Page 173 of 614
Test 4: Desirable for the Development and Use of the Lands
Minor Variances are site specific and not precedent setting. Each request is
to be considered on its own merits. A building that is desirable in one
location may not fit the site-specific context of another location.
The policy framework provides a measure of desirability. The direction of the
province and need for more rental housing support the provision of additional
residential dwellings. Neighbourhoods evolve over time and the policy
framework already provides for ARUs in detached accessory structures.
The cumulative impact of the specific requests and the topography of the
lands impact desirability. The relationship of the existing dwelling to the
proposed building have been described in detail above based on available
information.
Other municipalities known to permit more than one ARU in a
detached/accessory building were considered to see how they address the
relationship between principal and additional dwellings.
The City of Barrie, as an example, permits a maximum of two accessory
buildings or structures containing an ARU per lot, with a maximum height of
up to 5.5 metres or the height of the principal building, whichever is less, a
maximum of 10% coverage, and they are not permitted to have a basement.
The City of Kitchener permits up to two detached additional dwelling units in
association with a single detached dwelling subject to regulations including a
maximum footprint of 80 sq. m. max lot coverage for the zone, and a
maximum height of 4.5 metres unless the principal dwelling has a height
greater than 9.1 metres.
The standards of these other municipalities demonstrate options for
permitting two (2) ARUs in detached structures that remain subordinate to
the principal dwelling on site. The proposed ARU building as it is proposed
would not comply with these standards.
The recommended modifications to the variances help to make the proposal
more desirable by ensuring the form of the accessory structure is
subordinate to the main dwelling on the lands and aligns with anticipated
future zoning provisions.
Staff recommend modifications to the requested variances and a
number of conditions as outlined in the Summary of Conditions,
attached, in order to consider the variances desirable for the
development and use of the lands.
Staff Report CS-26-010: Minor Variance Application – 843 7th Street East
Page 18 of 21
Page 174 of 614
Comments Received:
In accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act (Sec. 45, O. Reg.
200/96), notice of the subject application was provided on March 20, 2026 to
the public and prescribed bodies. Comments received by the SecretaryTreasurer as of the writing of this report are described below and included in
Schedule ‘F’.
Heritage Towers
Grey Condominium Corporation No. 33 also known as Heritage Towers
provided written comment indicating concerns including drainage and
setback of the new building to the shared lot line. They also indicated
concern with the construction of the new building impacting their wooden
fence. These comments are attached in full.
With respect to drainage, an engineered grading and drainage plan has been
submitted and comments from Engineering Services and Public Works make
recommendations in regard to drainage which have been incorporated into
the summary of conditions.
With respect to the proximity of the proposed accessory structure to the
rear, shared lot line, the submitted plan shows a 1.2 metre rear yard
setback. Zoning By-law 2010-078, as amended would permit a minimum
rear yard setback for an accessory structure of 0.9 metres without variance.
Porches or decks would be permitted to not less than 0.9 metres if they are
low to the ground. No porch or deck (i.e. balcony) above 0.75 metres would
be permitted to project from the rear face of the building by the current
zoning because decks above 0.75 metres require a 1.5 metre rear yard
setback to be maintained.
It is the owner’s responsibility to ensure construction does not impact the
neighbour’s fence.
City of Owen Sound Engineering & Public Works Department
Comment has been received from the City’s Engineering & Public Works
Department recommending approval of the application subject to conditions
which have been incorporated into the summary of conditions.
The recommended conditions relate to including an infiltration drain in the
grading and drainage design.
Staff Report CS-26-010: Minor Variance Application – 843 7th Street East
Page 19 of 21
Page 175 of 614
City of Owen Sound Building Division
Comments from the Building Division indicate no concerns and offer direction
for compliance with the Ontario Building Code and permit application.
Canada Post
Responded with no Comment.
Bell Canada
None received at time of report.
Hydro One
None received at time of report.
Historic Saugeen Metis
None received at time of report.
Grey County
None received at time of report.
Grey Sauble Conservation Authority (GSCA)
None received at time of report.
Financial Implications:
None to the City.
Communication Strategy:
Notice of the minor variance application was given in accordance with
Section 45(5) of the Planning Act and Ontario Regulation 200/96.
Consultation:
The application was circulated to various City Departments and our
commenting agencies as part of the consultation process.
Attachments:
Schedule 'A': Orthophoto
Schedule 'B': Official Plan and Zoning Map
Staff Report CS-26-010: Minor Variance Application – 843 7th Street East
Page 20 of 21
Page 176 of 614
Schedule 'C':
Schedule 'D':
Schedule 'E':
Schedule 'F':
Schedule 'G':
Schedule 'H':
Property Details
Site Plan, Grading and Drainage Plan, Elevations
Conditions of Approval
Agency and Public Comments
Site Photos
Ontario Planning Act Excerpt
Recommended by:
Margaret Potter, MCIP, RPP, Senior Planner
Reviewed by:
Sabine Robart, M.SC. (PL), MCIP, RPP, Manager of Planning & Heritage
Submission approved by:
Pam Coulter, BA, RPP, Director of Community Services
For more information on this report, please contact Sabine Robart, Manager
of Planning & Heritage, at srobart@owensound.ca or 519-376-4440 ext.
1236.
Staff Report CS-26-010: Minor Variance Application – 843 7th Street East
Page 21 of 21
Page 177 of 614
±
765
883
855
845
839
775
805
778
835
Schedule 'A': Orthophoto
777
760
759
753
737
740
745
7th St A E
739
731
722
712
854
848
840
790
830
721
709
733
730
713
702
701
653
649
950
864
609
611
930
625
796
770
758
756
872
850
617
754
655
641
633
795
789
785
769
781
766
925
9th Ave E
8th Ave E
788
780
776
6th St A E
752
895
661
659
748
891
669
879
863
853
695
843
679
763
761
689
905
7th St E
601
779
773
78
2
5th St E
Subject Property
4
78
6
78
875
Information shown on these drawings/maps/charts
742
0 15 30
755
749
736
741
735
738
725
720
6th St E
60
Meters
is compiled from numerous sources and may not
90
791 be complete or accurate
595
Page 178 of 614
±
R4
855
845
839
835
775
805
778
883
Schedule 'B': Planning Policy
765
777
760
759
753
OS
739
761
733
730
M1
722
712
854
848
R4 709
840
830
721
790
C4
C4
731
R4
737
740
745
7th St A E
713
702
701
689
795
789
785
C4
891
872
850
LEGEND
Subject Property
796
617
758
756
879
C4
625
770
655
950
Zoning
864
930
781
769
863
649
633
R4
754
853
653
641
766
M1 925
9th Ave E
8th Ave E
6th St A E
752
895
661
788
780
776
843
763
669
659
748
695
R4 679
R4
905
7th St E
609
611 Provision
Special
601
Zone (R4)
6th St E
OFFICIAL PLAN
Arterial Commercial
Open Space
779
773
755
749
735
741
Residential
Employment
78
2
Institutional
738
736
R4
I
875
I
595
6
78
5th St E
742
0OS15 30
4
78
60
Meters
90
Information shown on these drawings/maps/charts
is compiled from numerous sources and may not
be complete or accurate
Page 179 of 614
SCHEDULE C
PROPERTY DETAILS – A02-2026
Property Information Detail
Civic Address
843 7TH ST E
Roll Number
425903002403400
Legal Description
PT PARK LOT 6 S/BARING RP 16R6981 PART 1 PART 2
Site Frontage
~ 13.6 m
Site Depth
~ 55 m
Site Area
~ 734 m2
Existing Structures
Single Detached Dwelling
Road Access/Frontage
7TH ST E
Surrounding Land Uses
- North: Residential (single detached), Bill Inglis Park
- East: Residential (single detached), Institutional
(Owen Sound Muslim Association), and Commercial
uses fronting 9th Avenue East
- South: Heritage Towers 5 storey apartment building
(Grey Condo 33)
- West: Residential (Single Detached)
Available Servicing
Detail
Potable Water
Existing
Wastewater
Existing
Stormwater
Existing
Page 1 of 2
180 of 614
File:Page
A02-2026
Planning Policy
Detail
County of Grey Official
Plan
Primary Settlement Area
City of Owen Sound
Official Plan
Residential
City of Owen Sound
Zoning By-law 2010078, as amended
Medium Density Residential (R4)
Page 2 of 2
181 of 614
File:Page
A02-2026
NOTES:
PARCEL: #843 7TH STREET EAST
R4 ZONING
1.
TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY PERFORMED BY GEI CONSULTANTS
CANADA ON NOVEMBER 25, 2025 AND CONTAINS INFORMATION
LICENCED UNDER THE OPEN GOVERNMENT LICENCE OF ONTARIO. GEI
CONSULTANTS CANADA ACQUIRED LiDAR (LIGHT DETECTION AND
RANGING) INFORMATION FOR THE REAR PORTION. THIS INFORMATION
MAY NOT BE COMPLETE OR FINAL. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
END USER TO VERIFY AND CONFIRM ALL DATA CONTAINED HEREIN.
2.
COORDINATES ON THIS PLAN ARE ADJUSTED GROUND COORDINATES
DERIVED FROM GRID COORDINATES OF THE UTM 17N NAD83
(CSRS-V7) COORDINATE SYSTEM AND ARE BASED ON OBSERVATIONS
FROM A NETWORK OF PERMANENT GPS/GNSS REFERENCE STATIONS.
REGULATION FOR EXISTING SINGLE DETACHED DWELLING:
REQUIRED
EXISTING
PROPOSED
COMPLIES
MIN LOT FRONTAGE
12.0 m
13.57 m
13.57 m
YES
MIN LOT AREA
400 m 2
734.02 m 2
734.02 m 2
YES
MAX LOT COVERAGE
40 %
19.3 %
19.3 %
YES
MIN FRONT YARD SETBACK
6.5 m
14.34 m
14.34 m
YES
MIN REAR YARD SETBACK
7.5 m
29.65 m
29.65 m
YES
MIN INTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK
0.9 m
1.78 m
1.78 m
YES
MIN EXTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK
3.0 m
N/A
N/A
N/A
10.0 m
<10.0 m
<10.0 m
YES
MAX BUILDING HEIGHT
ELEVATIONS ON THIS PLAN ARE REFERENCED TO CANADIAN
GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1928 (CGVD28) BY CONVERTING
ELLIPSOIDAL HEIGHTS TO ORTHOMETRIC ELEVATIONS USING THE
HTV2.0(2010) GEOID MODEL PROVIDED BY NATURAL RESOURCES
CANADA.
3.
REGULATION FOR PROPOSED ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT (2):
REQUIRED
EXISTING
PROPOSED
COMPLIES
MAX LOT COVERAGE OF ACCESSORY BUILDING
12 %
11.9 %
*12.46 %
*NO
COMBINED MAX LOT COVERAGE
40 %
31.61 %
31.22 %
YES
MIN FRONT YARD SETBACK
6.5 m
40.70 m
40.56 m
YES
MIN REAR YARD SETBACK
0.9 m
1.68 m
1.20 m
YES
MIN INTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK
0.9 m
1.24 m
3.00 m
YES
MIN EXTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK
3.0 m
N/A
N/A
YES
MAX BUILDING HEIGHT
5.0 m
5.75 m
*7.0 m
*NO
*6.5m
(*) DENOTES ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED THROUGH MINOR VARIANCE.
SITE
OWEN SOUND
KEY PLAN
NOT TO SCALE
OWNER:
THIS IS NOT A LEGAL PLAN. THE LEGAL BOUNDARY INFORMATION FOR
THE LOT WAS OBTAINED FROM REGISTERED PLAN 16R6981,
PREPARED BY HEWETT AND MILNE LIMITED, OLS, DATED APRIL 2, 1998.
THIS INFORMATION MAY NOT BE COMPLETE OR FINAL. IT IS THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE END USER TO VERIFY AND CONFIRM ALL
LEGAL BOUNDARY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN.
3.
CONTRACTOR TO EXCAVATE TESTHOLE AND CONFIRM HIGH GROUND
WATER ELEVATION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTING FOOTINGS.
4.
THE BUILDER IS RESPONSIBLE TO ADJUST THE UNDERSIDE OF
FOOTING ELEVATION IN THE FIELD TO ENSURE A FROST COVER OF
1.22m MINIMUM MEASURED DOWN FROM FINISHED GRADE.
5.
IT IS THE OWNERS/CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY THE
SUITABILITY OF THE FOUNDING SOILS.
6.
ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO RECEIVE MINIMUM 100mm TOPSOIL AND
SOD OR HYDROSEED. AREAS OF POTENTIAL EROSION ARE TO BE
PROTECTED ACCORDINGLY.
7.
DRIVEWAYS TO BE LOCATED MINIMUM OF 1.5m FROM ANY UTILITY
STANDARD.
8.
LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF EXISTING SERVICES ARE
APPROXIMATE ONLY. IT IS THE OWNERS/CONTRACTORS
RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY LOCATION AND ELEVATION.
9.
THE BUILDER IS RESPONSIBLE TO VERIFY THE LAYOUTS AND
ELEVATIONS AGAINST THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS AND TO CONFIRM
REFERENCED BENCHMARK ELEVATIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
CONTRACTOR:
BARRY'S CONSTRUCTION
BARRY'S CONSTRUCTION
THE ELEVATION AND LOCATION OF THE BUILDING TO BE ERECTED ON THE LOT
AND THE GRADING OF THE LOT ARE IN GENERAL CONFORMITY WITH THE
GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN APPROVED BY THE MUNICIPALITY.
P. ENG.
GEI CONSULTANTS CANADA LTD.
REGULATION FOR MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY COVERAGE PER 5.18.16 (a) OF ZONING BYLAW:
MAX DRIVEWAY COVERAGE
REQUIRED
EXISTING
PROPOSED
COMPLIES
50 %
18.0 %
49.4 %
YES
10. OWNER/BUILDER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING PERMITS FROM
MUNICIPALITY.
LOT CALCULATIONS
OVERALL LOT AREA
EX. HOUSE FOOTPRINT AREA
EX. FRONT PORCH AREA
EX. REAR DECK AREA
PROPOSED ACCESSORY BUILDING AREA
LOT COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGE
734.02 m 2
95.90 m 2
23.70 m 2
18.06 m 2
91.50 m 2
31.22 %
#1 BENCHMARK ELEV. - 230.396 m
TOP OF NAIL IN HYDRO POLE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 7TH
STREET EAST, 0.8m± WEST OF THE PAVED DRIVEWAY AT #830
7TH STREET EAST, AS SHOWN.
#2 BENCHMARK ELEV. - 231.177 m
TOP OF I.B. AT SOUTHERN END OF PARTS 1 & 2 (ACCESS
EASEMENTS) ON PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN PART 1 (#843 7TH
#2-BENCHMARK
PART 4
THE POSITION OF POLE LINES, CONDUITS, WATERMAINS, SEWERS AND OTHER
UNDERGROUND AND OVERGROUND UTILITIES AND STRUCTURES IS NOT NECESSARILY
SHOWN ON THE CONTRACT DRAWINGS, AND, WHERE SHOWN, THE ACCURACY OF THE
POSITION OF SUCH UTILITIES AND STRUCTURES IS NOT GUARANTEED.
PART 5
BEFORE STARTING WORK, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INFORM HIMSELF OF THE EXACT
LOCATION OF ALL SUCH UTILITIES AND STRUCTURES, AND SHALL ASSUME ALL
LIABILITY FOR ANY DAMAGE TO THEM.
#1-BENCHMARK
PART 3
PART 2
7th STREET EAST
FILE:B:\Working\BARRY'S CONSTR AND INSULATION\2405285 Various Lot Grading Plans-City Of Owen Sound\Drawings\2405285-6 LGP - 843 7th Street East\Drawings\2405285-6L2 - LGP - 843 7th Street East - Lot Layout For City Planning Purposes.dwg LAYOUT:Parts 1+2
LAST SAVED BY:Lortwi4144, 2/4/2026 12:29:51 PM PLOTTED BY:Twining, Lori 2/4/2026 12:30:13 PM
STREET EAST) AND PART 4 (#857 7TH STREET EAST), AS SHOWN.
PART 1
2
FEB. 4/26
LOT LAYOUT FOR CITY PLANNING PURPOSES
WED
1
JAN. 29/26
REVISIONS FOR PLANNING APPLICATION SUBMISSION
WED
NO.
DATE
REVISION DESCRIPTION
CH'KD
Consultants
Canada
LOT 11
PLAN 427
LOT 12
PLAN 427
GEI CONSULTANTS CANADA LTD.
1260-2ND AVENUE EAST, UNIT 1
OWEN SOUND, ONTARIO N4K 2J3
519.376.1805
LOT 13
PLAN 427
LOT 14
PLAN 427
LOT 15
PLAN 427
2405285-6
Lot Grading Plan
Parts 1 & 2, Plan 16R6981
843 7th Street East
City of Owen Sound
DRAWN BY :
APPROVED BY :
PROJECT NO. :
L.V.T.
W.E.D.
2405285-6
DESIGNED BY :
DATE :
SCALE :
L.V.T.
DEC. 2, 2025
1:150
DRAWING NO. :
1
Page 182 of 614
NOTES:
PARCEL: #843 7TH STREET EAST
R4 ZONING
1.
TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY PERFORMED BY GEI CONSULTANTS
CANADA ON NOVEMBER 25, 2025 AND CONTAINS INFORMATION
LICENCED UNDER THE OPEN GOVERNMENT LICENCE OF ONTARIO. GEI
CONSULTANTS CANADA ACQUIRED LiDAR (LIGHT DETECTION AND
RANGING) INFORMATION FOR THE REAR PORTION. THIS INFORMATION
MAY NOT BE COMPLETE OR FINAL. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
END USER TO VERIFY AND CONFIRM ALL DATA CONTAINED HEREIN.
2.
COORDINATES ON THIS PLAN ARE ADJUSTED GROUND COORDINATES
DERIVED FROM GRID COORDINATES OF THE UTM 17N NAD83
(CSRS-V7) COORDINATE SYSTEM AND ARE BASED ON OBSERVATIONS
FROM A NETWORK OF PERMANENT GPS/GNSS REFERENCE STATIONS.
REGULATION FOR EXISTING SINGLE DETACHED DWELLING:
REQUIRED
EXISTING
PROPOSED
COMPLIES
MIN LOT FRONTAGE
12.0 m
13.57 m
13.57 m
YES
MIN LOT AREA
400 m 2
734.02 m 2
734.02 m 2
YES
MAX LOT COVERAGE
40 %
19.3 %
19.3 %
YES
MIN FRONT YARD SETBACK
6.5 m
14.34 m
14.34 m
YES
MIN REAR YARD SETBACK
7.5 m
29.65 m
29.65 m
YES
MIN INTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK
0.9 m
1.78 m
1.78 m
YES
MIN EXTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK
3.0 m
N/A
N/A
N/A
10.0 m
<10.0 m
<10.0 m
YES
MAX BUILDING HEIGHT
NOTE: FINISH WITH 100mm TOPSOIL & HYDRO SEED OR SOD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
3.
TYPICAL SWALE DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
REGULATION FOR PROPOSED ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT (2):
REQUIRED
EXISTING
PROPOSED
COMPLIES
MAX LOT COVERAGE OF ACCESSORY BUILDING
12 %
11.9 %
*12.46 %
*NO
COMBINED MAX LOT COVERAGE
40 %
31.61 %
31.22 %
YES
MIN FRONT YARD SETBACK
6.5 m
40.70 m
40.56 m
YES
0.9 m
1.68 m
1.20 m
YES
MIN REAR YARD SETBACK
ELEVATIONS ON THIS PLAN ARE REFERENCED TO CANADIAN
GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1928 (CGVD28) BY CONVERTING
ELLIPSOIDAL HEIGHTS TO ORTHOMETRIC ELEVATIONS USING THE
HTV2.0(2010) GEOID MODEL PROVIDED BY NATURAL RESOURCES
CANADA.
MIN INTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK
0.9 m
1.24 m
3.00 m
YES
MIN EXTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK
3.0 m
N/A
N/A
YES
MAX BUILDING HEIGHT
10.0 m
<10.0 m
<10.0 m
SITE
OWEN SOUND
KEY PLAN
NOT TO SCALE
OWNER:
THIS IS NOT A LEGAL PLAN. THE LEGAL BOUNDARY INFORMATION FOR
THE LOT WAS OBTAINED FROM REGISTERED PLAN 16R6981,
PREPARED BY HEWETT AND MILNE LIMITED, OLS, DATED APRIL 2, 1998.
THIS INFORMATION MAY NOT BE COMPLETE OR FINAL. IT IS THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE END USER TO VERIFY AND CONFIRM ALL
LEGAL BOUNDARY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN.
3.
CONTRACTOR TO EXCAVATE TESTHOLE AND CONFIRM HIGH GROUND
WATER ELEVATION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTING FOOTINGS.
4.
THE BUILDER IS RESPONSIBLE TO ADJUST THE UNDERSIDE OF
FOOTING ELEVATION IN THE FIELD TO ENSURE A FROST COVER OF
1.22m MINIMUM MEASURED DOWN FROM FINISHED GRADE.
5.
IT IS THE OWNERS/CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY THE
SUITABILITY OF THE FOUNDING SOILS.
6.
ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO RECEIVE MINIMUM 100mm TOPSOIL AND
SOD OR HYDROSEED. AREAS OF POTENTIAL EROSION ARE TO BE
PROTECTED ACCORDINGLY.
7.
DRIVEWAYS TO BE LOCATED MINIMUM OF 1.5m FROM ANY UTILITY
STANDARD.
8.
LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF EXISTING SERVICES ARE
APPROXIMATE ONLY. IT IS THE OWNERS/CONTRACTORS
RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY LOCATION AND ELEVATION.
9.
THE BUILDER IS RESPONSIBLE TO VERIFY THE LAYOUTS AND
ELEVATIONS AGAINST THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS AND TO CONFIRM
REFERENCED BENCHMARK ELEVATIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
(*) DENOTES ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED THROUGH MINOR VARIANCE. Accessory height does not comply,
see plan dated Feb 4 2026
THE ELEVATION AND LOCATION OF THE BUILDING TO BE ERECTED ON THE LOT
AND THE GRADING OF THE LOT ARE IN GENERAL CONFORMITY WITH THE
GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN APPROVED BY THE MUNICIPALITY.
P. ENG.
GEI CONSULTANTS CANADA LTD.
LEGEND:
EXISTING CONDITIONS ELEVATION (NOV. 25/25)
PROPOSED ELEVATION
PROPOSED ELEVATION BELOW DECK
SWALE DRAINAGE
REGULATION FOR MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY COVERAGE PER 5.18.16 (a) OF ZONING BYLAW:
MAX DRIVEWAY COVERAGE
EXISTING
PROPOSED
COMPLIES
50 %
18.0 %
49.4 %
YES
BARRY'S CONSTRUCTION
BARRY'S CONSTRUCTION
AS BUILT ELEVATION
YES NO
REQUIRED
CONTRACTOR:
SURFACE DRAINAGE
PROPOSED BUILDING ACCESS
10. OWNER/BUILDER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING PERMITS FROM
MUNICIPALITY.
NOTE:
ELEVATION IN METRES.
LOT CALCULATIONS
OVERALL LOT AREA
EX. HOUSE FOOTPRINT AREA
EX. FRONT PORCH AREA
EX. REAR DECK AREA
PROPOSED ACCESSORY BUILDING AREA
LOT COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGE
734.02 m 2
95.90 m 2
23.70 m 2
18.06 m 2
91.50 m 2
31.22 %
#1 BENCHMARK ELEV. - 230.396 m
TOP OF NAIL IN HYDRO POLE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 7TH
STREET EAST, 0.8m± WEST OF THE PAVED DRIVEWAY AT #830
7TH STREET EAST, AS SHOWN.
#2 BENCHMARK ELEV. - 231.177 m
TOP OF I.B. AT SOUTHERN END OF PARTS 1 & 2 (ACCESS
EASEMENTS) ON PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN PART 1 (#843 7TH
STREET EAST) AND PART 4 (#857 7TH STREET EAST), AS SHOWN.
#2-BENCHMARK
PART 4
THE POSITION OF POLE LINES, CONDUITS, WATERMAINS, SEWERS AND OTHER
UNDERGROUND AND OVERGROUND UTILITIES AND STRUCTURES IS NOT NECESSARILY
SHOWN ON THE CONTRACT DRAWINGS, AND, WHERE SHOWN, THE ACCURACY OF THE
POSITION OF SUCH UTILITIES AND STRUCTURES IS NOT GUARANTEED.
PART 5
BEFORE STARTING WORK, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INFORM HIMSELF OF THE EXACT
LOCATION OF ALL SUCH UTILITIES AND STRUCTURES, AND SHALL ASSUME ALL
LIABILITY FOR ANY DAMAGE TO THEM.
#1-BENCHMARK
PART 3
7th STREET EAST
FILE:C:\Users\lortwi4144\OneDrive - GEI Consultants, Inc\Lori - Drawings\2405285-6L2 - LGP - 843 7th Street East.dwg LAYOUT:Parts 1+2
LAST SAVED BY:Lortwi4144, 1/29/2026 10:05:09 AM PLOTTED BY:Twining, Lori 1/29/2026 10:05:33 AM
PART 2
PART 1
1
JAN. 29/26
REVISIONS FOR PLANNING APPLICATION SUBMISSION
WED
NO.
DATE
REVISION DESCRIPTION
CH'KD
Consultants
Canada
LOT 11
PLAN 427
LOT 12
PLAN 427
GEI CONSULTANTS CANADA LTD.
1260-2ND AVENUE EAST, UNIT 1
OWEN SOUND, ONTARIO N4K 2J3
519.376.1805
LOT 13
PLAN 427
LOT 14
PLAN 427
LOT 15
PLAN 427
2405285-6
Lot Grading Plan
Parts 1 & 2, Plan 16R6981
843 7th Street East
City of Owen Sound
DRAWN BY :
APPROVED BY :
PROJECT NO. :
L.V.T.
W.E.D.
2405285-6
DESIGNED BY :
DATE :
SCALE :
L.V.T.
DEC. 2, 2025
1:150
DRAWING NO. :
1
Page 183 of 614
6"
T/O FOOTING
U/S FOOTING
Page 184 of 614
NOT TO SCALE
DESIGNER:
7'-6"
#203220 TODD KRUISSELBRINK - BCIN #24751
CLIENT:
PROJECT #2025-38 BARN REPLACEMENT
LOT:
ADDRESS:
DATE:
843 7TH STREET EAST
FEBRUARY 13, 2026
MUNICIPALITY:
DRAWN BY:
ROBERT TOLTON
OWEN SOUND, GREY
T/O DOUBLE PLATE
SCALE:
FINISHED SECOND FLOOR
FIRM BCIN:
10"
1'-0"
4
8'-1"
T/O DOUBLE PLATE
PAGE:
11 1/2"
5
AREA:
1'-4"
12
NORTH ELEVATION
5'-4"
6'-10"
1'-2"
12
1'-2"
21'-3 3/4"
BUILDING HEIGHT
5
FINISHED SUB-FLOOR
U/S OF FLOOR JOISTS
6"
T/O FOOTING
U/S FOOTING
Page 185 of 614
NOT TO SCALE
DESIGNER:
7'-6"
#203220 TODD KRUISSELBRINK - BCIN #24751
CLIENT:
PROJECT #2025-38 BARN REPLACEMENT
LOT:
ADDRESS:
DATE:
843 7TH STREET EAST
FEBRUARY 13, 2026
MUNICIPALITY:
DRAWN BY:
ROBERT TOLTON
OWEN SOUND, GREY
T/O DOUBLE PLATE
SCALE:
FINISHED SECOND FLOOR
FIRM BCIN:
10"
1'-0"
5
8'-1"
T/O DOUBLE PLATE
PAGE:
11 1/2"
5
AREA:
1'-4"
12
EAST ELEVATION
5'-4"
6'-8"
12
1'-2"
5
FINISHED SUB-FLOOR
U/S OF FLOOR JOISTS
SCHEDULE E
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Recommended Variance Modification to Purpose and Effect
To facilitate the proposal, the applicant requires the following relief:
Regulation
Required
Recommended Variance
Maximum Number of ARUs in an
accessory building (5.27)
1
2
1
Maximum Accessory Building Lot
Coverage (5.9)
12%
12.50%
0.5%
Maximum Accessory Building
Height (5.9)
5m
6.0 m
1.0 m
(By-law section)
Recommended Conditions of Approval
1. That no accessory building on the lot shall be greater than 6.0m in
height;
2. That the maximum lot coverage permitted for all accessory buildings
shall not exceed 12.50%;
3. That the total number of dwelling units on site shall not exceed three
(3) with a maximum of two (2) dwelling units in any accessory
building;
4. That any accessory building having a building height greater than 5.0
m shall be constructed with a hip-to-hip roof style;
5. That the Owner provide revised Site Plan, Grading and Drainage Plan,
and Elevations that:
a. Achieve the requirements of Zoning By-law 2010-078, as
Staff Report:CS-26-010
File: A02-2026
Page 1 of 1
Page 186 of 614
amended, and as varied by A02-2026;
b. Confirm the number of trees to be removed;
c. Demonstrate how existing trees to be retained will be protected
during construction.
6. That the Owner provide cash-in-lieu of any trees that meet the
requirements for retention under the Residential Tree Protection Policy
at a ratio of 2:1 to the satisfaction of the Manager of Planning and
Heritage;
7. That the Owner protect trees on neighbouring properties unless
written permission is obtained and shared with the City of Owen Sound
for our records;
8. That the Applicant provide a revised Grading and Drainage Plan to the
Secretary-Treasurer, to include infiltration within the design (i.e. swale
subdrain) based on the significant impervious area proposed, to the
satisfaction of the Manager of Public Works and Engineering.
9. That the applicant provide to the Secretary-Treasurer written
confirmation from the City's Public Works and Engineering Department
(Engineering Services Division) that servicing arrangements acceptable
to the City have been made for the subject lands (which may include
the payment of applicable servicing charges and execution of a
servicing agreement between the Owner and the City).
Staff Report:CS-26-010
File: A02-2026
Page 2 of 1
Page 187 of 614
SCHEDULE F
Comments – A02-2026
Comments Received prior to completing the Staff Report
Heritage Towers – dated March 28, 2026
City of Owen Sound Engineering & Public Works Department – dated
March 31, 2026
City of Owen Sound Building Division – dated March 23, 2026
Canada Post – dated March 26, 2026
Comments Received after the Staff Report was completed
Mary Ralph – dated March 30, 2026
Grey County – dated March 31, 2026
Jason and Laura Muzzell – dated March 31, 2026
Valerie Halliday – dated April 1, 2026
Grey Sauble Conservation Authority – dated April 2, 2026
Report: CS-26-010
Page 1 of 1
Page 188 of 614
File: A02-2026
Heritage Towers
Grey Condominium Corp. #33
850-6th Street East
Unit 100
Owen Sound, ON
N4K-6T7
March 28, 2026
Staci Landry
Secretary-Treasurer of Committee of Adjustment
808 2nd Avenue East
Owen Sound, ON N4K-2H4
Re: File No. A02-2026
Dear Staci
This letter is in regard to the Minor Variance application from Barry’s Construction and
Insulation Ltd. for their property located at 843 7th Street East, Owen Sound.
The Board of Directors represents the collective ownership of Grey Condominium
Corporation #33, which consists of 48 residential units, and common areas. We would
like to provide comments, as described below.
The notice provided by the city has been posted and individual owners may provide
feedback separately from the information provided by the board.
For full disclosure purposes only, the Board advises that Barry’s Construction and
Insulation own one residential unit within our condominium community.
The corporation has two concerns we would like to comment on regarding this matter:
We have concerns on the drainage of water from this property. Based on the drawings
provided, it appears that, should this property be developed as shown, there will be very
little ground or soil available for water to naturally drain and be absorbed. It seems that
the majority of the property will consist of buildings, driveway and parking space. Our
concern is that unless there is a plan in place to connect to the city’s storm water system
or another catch basin, that water may potentially cause overland flooding on to
neighbouring properties, including our own. Should this happen, it could potentially cause
Page 189 of 614
damage to our property and create hazards for us and our residents. We already have
enough drainage issues from neighbouring properties. We would expect that the city
considers the drainage issue PRIOR to approving any variance.
As we have not seen any drawings for the design of the proposed accessory building, we
have concerns on the proximity to the property line at their south end – facing our
property. By the drawings provided, it appears that the “new” building would be right to
the designated space (1.2 metres) of the property line. We would be absolutely opposed
to any build which would allow any structure, such as elevated balconies, to invade that
1.2 metre space.
We also have concerns that with the crawl space proposed for this building, that there
potentially could be an impact to the stability of the wooden fence we recently erected,
on our property, during the construction phase of that proposed building. We
acknowledge that this may not be a planning issue concern and more of an owner-toowner issue should damage occur to our fence, but would ask that the proponent and city
take this into consideration, when approving a design.
Thank you for taking the time and consideration of our concerns and comments.
Best regards,
The Board of Directors, Grey Condo Corp. #33
Lloyd Elliott, President
Jennifer Fray, Vice-President
Maxine Love, Treasurer
Barb Robb, Board Member
Page 190 of 614
Staff Report
Engineering Services Division
Public Works & Engineering Department
Date:
March 31, 2026
Application:
A02/2026
To:
Staci Landry, Secretary-Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment
Margaret Potter, Senior Planner
Sabine Robart, Manager of Planning and Heritage
Pam Coulter, Director of Community Services
Lara Widdifield, Director of Public Works & Engineering
From:
Matthew Pierog, Engineering Technologist
Subject:
Application for Minor Variance – Engineering Review
Municipal Address: 843 7th Street East
Assessment Roll: 425903002403400
Legal Description: PT PARK LOT 6 S/BARING RP 16R6981 PART 1 PART 2
Applicant: Barry’s Construction and Insulation Ltd.
Background:
Refer to description provided by the City’s Planning Division.
Recommendation:
Further to our review of the above noted application, the Public Works and
Engineering Department recommends approval of this application for minor
variance by the Committee of Adjustment, subject to the following condition:
1. That the Applicant provide a revised Grading and Drainage Plan to the
Secretary-Treasurer, to include infiltration within the design (i.e. swale
subdrain) based on the significant impervious area proposed, to the
satisfaction of the Manager of Public Works and Engineering.
Analysis:
Site Access:
Page 1 of 3
Page 191 of 614
APPLICATION for MINOR VARIANCE – ENGINEERING REVIEW
A02/2026
843 7th Street East
continued
The property fronts on 7th Street East, an improved municipal road, and
classified as a Local Road. There are no changes proposed to the existing
driveway entrance from 7th Street East. The applicant has proposed a +/3.2 m wide driveway to the rear of the property to permit access for the
proposed ARU’s in the rear yard, exceeding the City’s minimum 3.0 m for a
driveway. It is the responsibility of the applicant to confirm due diligence for
the works within the ‘access easement’.
Parking:
The four (4) proposed standard parking stalls appear to meet the City’s
minimum dimensions for parking stall length and widths.
There does not appear to be any off-street parking concerns to the ESD at
this time, as a part of the minor variance application submitted.
Site Servicing:
There are no changes proposed to the existing Servicing (water/wastewater)
to the lot line based on the minor variance application.
However, it is the Applicant’s responsibility to confirm minimum servicing
requirements via OBC and the City’s Building Division; if necessary, off-site
improvements can be arranged with the City, at the Applicant’s cost,
through a Special Services Application.
Grading, Drainage & Stormwater Management:
The proposal for the property is approaching a significant portion (~60%) of
the surface area to be impervious (buildings, driveways, parking area, etc.).
As there is no SWM outlet (i.e. catchbasin), the City will require infiltration to
be incorporated into the site (i.e. subdrain within swale, etc.).
It is the Owner’s responsibility to ensure that the overall grading, drainage
and stormwater management plans conform to Section 2.2.2 of By-law
1999-030; the City of Owen Sound Property Standards By-law, and the
approved grading plan.
A revised Grading and Drainage Plan prepared by a qualified person is
required as a condition of this Minor Variance application. A preliminary
version provided to the City appears to direct stormwater to the 7th Street
East road allowance.
Consultation:
Page 2 of 3
Page 192 of 614
APPLICATION for MINOR VARIANCE – ENGINEERING REVIEW
A02/2026
843 7th Street East
continued
This document incorporates comments from all Divisions of the Public Works
and Engineering Department. The Comments provided above were based on
the City’s most recent Engineering Standards and the records available at
the time of preparation of this report. The comments provided do not
preclude the applicant’s responsibility for meeting all applicable laws,
regulations and standards, or provide any assurances.
Prepared By:
Reviewed By:
Matthew Pierog, P.Eng.
Mason Bellamy, C.Tech.
Matthew Pierog, P.Eng.
Reviewed via email
Page 3 of 3
Page 193 of 614
Staff Report
Building Division
ROLL NO.: 4259 030 024 03400
DATE:
MARCH 23, 2026
TO:
STACI LANDRY, DEPUTY CLERK
FROM:
NIELS JENSEN, BUILDING OFFICIAL
SUBJECT:
MINOR VARIACE APPLICATION FOR 843 7TH ST EAST
PLANNING FILE: A02-2026
MUNICIPAL ADDRESS: 843 7TH ST EAST
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PT PARK LOT 6 S/BARING RP 16R6981 PART 1
PART 2
APPLICANT: BARRY’S CONSTRUCTION & INSULATION LTD.
BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing to construct a new accessory
building in the rear yard of the existing dwelling. The accessory structure is
proposed to contain two (2) Additional Residential Units (ARUs). A total of
three (3) dwelling units would then exist on the lot [one (1) single detached
dwelling and two (2) ARUs] in a total of two (2) buildings.
ARUs are a permitted use where a lot contains a single detached dwelling
subject to certain site and building regulations.
A minor variance is requested to provide the following relief from the Zoning
By-law 2010-078, as amended:
Provision
Maximum Number of ARUs in an
Accessory Building
(Sec. 5.27)
Maximum Accessory Building Lot
Coverage
(Sec. 5.9)
Maximum Accessory Building
Height
(Sec. 5.9)
Required
1
Provided
2
Variance
+1
12%
15%
+3%
5m
6.5m
+1.5m
Page 1 of 3
Page 194 of 614
A02-2026
Building Division Review
-/Continued
ANALYSIS: This document incorporates comments from the Building
Division of the Community Service Department.
The above noted site plan has been reviewed using the requirements from
the Ontario Building Code and related City and County By-laws. The following
comments reflect the results of the review:
All construction to be in accordance with either the Ontario Building
Code or successor legislation in place at the time of building permit
application.
The payment of permit fees, City, County and site specific Development
Charges will be due upon the issuance of a building permit.
DETAILED REVIEW:
application are:
Documents reviewed in conjunction with this
Ontario Building Code 2024
o C
City of Owen Sound Development Charges By-law
County of Grey Development Charges By-laws
The Building Division does not have any concerns regarding the application,
please be aware that the building must comply with the Ontario Building
Code in effect at the time of application and City By-laws, including but not
limited to, the following:
Design to meet the requirements of Barrier Free Design as per
3.8./9.5.2
Building to be designed by a Qualified Designer.
Permit drawings to include mechanical (plumbing, HVAC, radon),
structural, electrical, architectural details including fire separations
between units, floors, and exits meeting the requirements of the OBC.
Site grading and drainage plan by qualified Engineer on all lots to the
satisfaction of the Engineering Division. Final grading to be verified by
the Engineer.
Municipal services to be connected and metered through main dwelling.
Page 2 of 3
Page 195 of 614
A02-2026
Building Division Review
-/Continued
Water supply to be upgraded at the developers cost if the requirements
of 7.6.3.4 are not met.
Sanitary sewer to be protected by a back water valve.
Building/Demolition permit(s) may be revoked if construction not
started with 6 months of permit issuance or if construction is
substantially halted, suspended, or discontinued for a period of over
one year.
Fees and charges are to be paid at the rate current at time of building
permit issuance. The following estimated rates would apply if permit
applied for in 2026 (rates subject to change based on Fees and
Charges By-law):
o Building permit of $17.60 per m2 of gross floor area Commercial
construction (min $120) plus Admin Fee of $57.89 per
building/unit.
o City of Owen Sound Development Charges, if applicable
o County of Grey Development Charges, if applicable
Submitted by:
Niels Jensen
Reviewed by:
Kevin Linthorne, CBO
Page 3 of 3
Page 196 of 614
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
STEVENS, Darren
Staci Landry
Re: Notice of Public Hearing and Application for Files A02-2026, A04-2026, A03-2026, and B01-2026 & B02-2026
Thursday, March 26, 2026 12:42:33 PM
image001.png
A04-2026_Murphy_Homes_Commenting_Letter.pdf
A03-2026_2090_9TH_AVE_E_Commenting_Letter.pdf
Warning: Unusual sender <darren.stevens@canadapost.postescanada.ca>
You don't usually receive emails from this address. Make sure you trust this sender before
taking any actions.
Hi Staci
Please see Canada Post's feedback regarding the below notes files
File # A02-2026 - Canada Post does not have any comments for this file
File # A04-2026 - Please see the attached file of Canada Post Comments
File # A03-2026 - Please see the attached file of Canada Post Comments
File # B01-2026 - Canada Post does not have any comments for this file
Please let me know if you require any further information.
Kind Regards,
DARREN STEVENS | DELIVERY PLANNING | CANADA POST | 955 HIGHBURY AVE N, LONDON ON N5Y 1A3 | 519-2813428
Page 197 of 614
4*J s- f*26
Dear Sir or Madam
I am writing this letter to voice my concerns on the proposed two storey rental unit that
Barry's Construction is planning to build on the lot directly to the west of me.
My main cohcern is the proposed driveway to this building.l do not understand how this
Can legally be classified as a driveway.
It is a narrow space between my house and the house that is already on the property
And is not meant to be a driveway.
Vehicles will be going both directions, and only inches from the side of my house, and if it is a
hot dry summer I will not be able to have my windows open because of the dust.
Most families have two vehicles and with only two specified parking spots, my question is
where will they park the extra cars/trucks .
lf there is children in any of these rentals there is no space for them to play but on this
proposed driveway and I am very worried for their safety. I myself have three great
grandchildren and this causes me great concern.
With the new build being a two storey, my backyard will no longer be the private spot I have
come to enjoy, and I am also concerned that the value of my house and property will go down
Thankyou for your time and consideration of this matter.
Sincerely
Mary Ralph
-\ryU
Owen Sound Ont.
( please note that my house number and the house directly to the east of me are incorrectly
numbered on the supplied map)
Page 198 of 614
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
planning@grey.ca
Briana Bloomfield; OS Planning; Staci Landry; Tim Simmonds; Pam Coulter; Engineering; Emily Carter
County comments for A02-2026 Barry’s Construction and Insulation Ltd.
Tuesday, March 31, 2026 1:29:54 PM
External sender <planning@grey.ca>
Make sure you trust this sender before taking any actions.
County comments for A02-2026 Barry’s
Construction and Insulation Ltd.
Hello Owen Sound,
Please note that Grey County is taking steps to streamline development review by
limiting planning policy comments on some development applications. Unless
otherwise requested by municipal staff, County planning comments will be limited
for the following applications:
All minor variance and site plan applications; and
zoning by-law amendments and consents within settlement areas.
County planning staff may continue to provide comments where the above
applications are connected to a County application.
Grey County Ecology staff will continue to review all applications with regards to
natural heritage matters. Other County departments will continue to be circulated
through our ‘one-window’ approach and will provide comments as needed.
Given the above, a formal planning policy review of the subject application has not
been undertaken. Please be advised that all planning decisions shall conform with
the County's Official Plan. County planning staff can assist with specific questions
in this respect.
Grey County Planning Ecology staff have reviewed the application and have no
concerns.
Grey County Housing staff have reviewed the application and have no concerns.
Grey County Planning staff would note that the subject property is approximately
278 metres from a 'Abandoned Landfill: Previously Identified Sites'. In March
2015, Azimuth Environmental Consulting undertook a Historic Landfill Site
Review. In the review, it was determined that the landfills had insufficient risk.
Therefore, County Planning staff have no concerns in this regard.
County staff have no further comments at this time. Please let us know if you have
any questions.
Page 199 of 614
Best regards,
Derek McMurdie
County of Grey, Owen Sound, ON
Page 200 of 614
To the Committee of Adjustment,
Re: Minor Variance Application A02-2026 - 843 7th Street East, Owen Sound
We are writing to formally oppose Minor Variance Application A02-2026 for 843 7th Street East.
for 20 years, directly adjacent to the rear of the subject
Our family has lived at our home at
property. We are deeply invested in our home and in the longterm character, privacy, and livability of our
neighbourhood.
Our primary concerns are the significant loss of privacy and the impact this development will have on drainage
and water runoff.
The subject property is situated significantly higher than our yard. As can be clearly seen from the grade of the
land, any new accessory building containing two residential units and increased height to 6.5 metres would sit
well above our propefty and directly overlook our backyard and rear living spaces. Because of the slope, the
visual impact would be substantially greater than the measurements alone suggest. From our perspective, this
"minor" variance.
structure would feel far taller and far more intrusive than what is being described as a
This would result in a serious loss of privacy for our family and would directly compromise our ability to enjoy
both our outdoor space and the rear of our home. We have already invested significant personal expense in
planting evergreen trees along the left side of our yard in an effort to create a reasonable level of privacy from
the existing dwelling. The proposed elevated structure would substantially undermine those efforts and create
direct sightlines into our backyard and living space.
The grade of the property also creates serious concerns regarding drainage and water runoff. Because the
neighbouring properly sits on significantly higher ground, runoff from the surrounding yards naturally flows
downhill into our backyard. Throughout much of the spring, our yard remains saturated and swampy, and visible
channels of water can often be seen running down from the upper yards. lt is clear that the existing open ground
currently plays an important role in absorbing and slowing this runoff.
The proposed increase in lot coverage from 12o/o to 15%, together with the addition of a larger rear structure, will
reduce the amount of natural ground available to absorb water. Given the existing slope and drainage pattern,
we are very concerned that this will increase surface runoff into our yard and further worsen already wet
conditions.
Having previously experienced significant water damage to our home from a separate drainage issue, we are
especially aware of how vulnerable our property can be to water-related problems. For that reason, any
development that could reasonably intensify runoff toward our yard is of serious concern.
We respectfully submit that this proposal represents more than a minor variance when considered in the context
of its very real impact on adjacent homeowners. The combination of increased height, increased lot coverage,
reduced privacy, and heightened runoff concerns would significantly affect our ability to enjoy and protect our
property.
For these reasons, we respectfully request that the Committee deny the requested variances.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Jason and Laura Muzzell
Owen Sound
Page 201 of 614
Page 202 of 614
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
halliday2181
Public Notices
Minor variance A02-2026
Wednesday, April 1, 2026 7:54:10 PM
Warning: Unusual sender <halliday2181@rogers.com>
You don't usually receive emails from this address. Make sure you trust this sender before
taking any actions.
Ms. Landry,
Living at
, this variance is of concern to me . My concern is that by
building this ARUs , the ground being changed, will create a change in the water run off from
the lot. The water run off from the condo parking lot has already flooded my home in 2012.
The noise from 3 tenanted homes will decrease the enjoyment of the properties in close
proximity to this yard as well. The noise and considerable dust from excavation will be
considerable. I understand that affordable housing is very important to the city, but this seems
a little excessive for a residential area. Thank you for your time, Valerie Halliday
Sent from my Galaxy
Page 203 of 614
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Clinton Stredwick - Environmental Planner
Staci Landry; OS Planning
Jon Farmer; Scott Greig; Margaret Potter
Minor Variance Application A2
Thursday, April 2, 2026 2:12:22 PM
image001.png
image002.png
External sender <c.stredwick@greysauble.on.ca>
Make sure you trust this sender before taking any actions.
Dear Margaret,
The GSCA has reviewed Minor Variance Application A2-2026 and has no concerns or
objections. The subject lands do not contain Hazard lands or contain any regulated area
under O.Reg. 41-24.
Kind regards,
Clinton Stredwick, BES, MCIP, RPP
Environmental Planner
519.376.3076
c.stredwick@greysauble.on.ca
www.greysauble.on.ca
We’ve Temporarily Moved!
While our office gets renovated, find us at 901 3rd Avenue East, Suite 215, Owen
Sound (above the Post Office).
This email communication and accompanying documents are intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed
and may contain information that is confidential, privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any use of this
information by individuals or entities other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you received this communication
in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all the copies (electronic or otherwise) immediately. Thank you for
your cooperation.
For after-hours non-911 emergencies please call 226-256-8702. Please do not use this number for planning related inquiries.
For information regarding properties, visit our website at www.greysauble.on.ca.
Page 204 of 614
SCHEDULE G
Site Photos taken March 24, 2026
File: A02-2026
Staff Report:CS-26-010
Page 1 of 1
Page 205 of 614
File: A02-2026
Staff Report:CS-26-010
Page 2 of 1
Page 206 of 614
File: A02-2026
Staff Report:CS-26-010
Page 3 of 1
Page 207 of 614
File: A02-2026
Staff Report:CS-26-010
Page 4 of 1
Page 208 of 614
File: A02-2026
Staff Report:CS-26-010
Page 5 of 1
Page 209 of 614
File: A02-2026
Staff Report:CS-26-010
Page 6 of 1
Page 210 of 614
File: A02-2026
Staff Report:CS-26-010
Page 7 of 1
Page 211 of 614
File: A02-2026
Staff Report:CS-26-010
Page 8 of 1
Page 212 of 614
File: A02-2026
Staff Report:CS-26-010
Page 9 of 1
Page 213 of 614
File: A02-2026
Staff Report:CS-26-010
Page 10 of 1
Page 214 of 614
Site Photo of 669 & 679 8th Avenue East: Above taken by staff, Below sourced
from 2026 Google Image Capture Aug 2024 and edited with description
File: A02-2026
Staff Report:CS-26-010
Page 11 of 1
Page 215 of 614
SCHEDULE H
Planning Act Excerpts
Section 16, regarding Official Plans includes:
(3) No official plan may contain any policy that has the effect of prohibiting
the use of,
(a) two residential units in a detached house, semi-detached house or
rowhouse on a parcel of urban residential land, if all buildings and structures
ancillary to the detached house, semi-detached house or rowhouse
cumulatively contain no more than one residential unit;
(b) three residential units in a detached house, semi-detached house or
rowhouse on a parcel of urban residential land, if no building or structure
ancillary to the detached house, semi-detached house or rowhouse contains
any residential units; or
(c) one residential unit in a building or structure ancillary to a detached
house, semi-detached house or rowhouse on a parcel of urban residential
land, if the detached house, semi-detached house or rowhouse contains no
more than two residential units and no other building or structure ancillary
to the detached house, semi-detached house or rowhouse contains any
residential units. 2022, c. 21, Sched. 9, s. 4 (1).
Similarly, with respect to Zoning By-laws, Section 34 includes:
(19.1) Despite subsection (19), there is no appeal in respect of the parts of
a by-law that are passed to permit the use of,
(a) a second residential unit in a detached house, semi-detached house
or rowhouse on a parcel of land on which residential use, other than
ancillary residential use, is permitted, if all buildings and structures ancillary
to the detached house, semi-detached house or rowhouse cumulatively
contain no more than one residential unit;
(b) a third residential unit in a detached house, semi-detached house or
rowhouse on a parcel of land on which residential use, other than ancillary
File: A02-2026
Staff Report:CS-26-010
Page 1 of 1
Page 216 of 614
residential use, is permitted, if no building or structure ancillary to the
detached house, semi-detached house or rowhouse contains any residential
units; or
(c) one residential unit in a building or structure ancillary to a detached
house, semi-detached house or rowhouse on a parcel of land, if the
detached house, semi-detached house or rowhouse contains no more than
two residential units and no other building or structure ancillary to the
detached house, semi-detached house or rowhouse contains any residential
units. 2022, c. 21, Sched. 9, s. 8 (2); 2023, c. 10, Sched. 6, s. 6 (3).
File: A02-2026
Staff Report:CS-26-010
Page 2 of 1
Page 217 of 614
Property Standards Committee
Notice of Appeal Hearing
Order Number OSBY-2025-1092
1035 2nd Avenue West
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 1035 2nd Avenue West.
The Appellant, Kepler Real Estate Inc., is seeking review and consideration from the
Property Standards Committee regarding Order Number OSBY-2025-1092, 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 2nd 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/meetings.
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: February 20, 2026
Staci Landry
Secretary of the Property Standards Committee
808 2nd Avenue East
Owen Sound, ON N4K 2H4
Telephone: 519-376-4440 ext. 1235
Email:
clerks@owensound.ca7.c Application File No. A02-2026 for 843 7th Street East ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CHAIR - 3:00 P.M. 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. APPEALS
The Committee of Adjustment will convene at 3:00 P.M. to review Application File No. A04-2026 for 865 16th Street East. The applicant seeks a minor variance to reduce the rear yard setback from 7.5 metres to 5.5 metres to facilitate a two-storey, six-unit residential building on a vacant parcel currently containing two mature trees. This project sits within the City’s "Southern Gateway" settlement area, designated 'Arterial Commercial' in the Official Plan, where high-density housing (72 units per hectare) is permitted to support efficient land use and complete communities under the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement. Staff analysis confirms the proposal aligns with municipal goals for intensification and full municipal servicing. To manage stormwater runoff affecting approximately 68% of the surface area, approval conditions will require a Grading and Drainage Plan. Additionally, the application requests a reduced rear setback from the standard 7.5m to 5.5m, enabling a more compact footprint despite existing infrastructure easements along the western boundary. The Committee may confirm or modify the variance if the intent of the Property Standards By-law is maintained. Residents or interested parties not copied on the Order must register with the Secretary prior to leaving to ensure notice of the decision. Any party may appeal the Committee’s decision to the Superior Court of Justice within fourteen days of receiving the written notice.
Page 9 of 614 The subject lands are designated ‘Arterial Commercial’ in the City’s Official Plan (OP) and are zoned ‘Arterial Commercial’ (C4) in the City’s Zoning Bylaw (2010-078, as amended). For location context and surrounding land uses, please see the Orthophoto in Schedule ‘A’. For the planning policy context, please see the Official Plan and Zoning Map in Schedule ‘B’. A full description of the property is included in Schedule ‘C’. The Proposal The applicant is proposing to construct a two-storey, six (6) unit residential building. The building provides for three (3) units on the ground floor and three (3) units on the second floor. Each ground floor unit has a deck at the rear of the building and each second floor unit has a balcony also at the rear of the building. The drawings provided in support of the application show four entrances to the building. The proposed develoment includes an access from 16th Street East and ten (10) parking spaces including one (1) accessible space. The property is currently vacant and fenced and contains two mature trees located in the rear (southern) portion of the property. Given that the proposed develoment is ten (10) units or less, Site Plan Approval will not apply in accordance with the Planning Act. The parcel is subject to a 3.8 metre wide easement/right of way in favour of the City along its western property boundary. The infrastrucuture easement continues down the centre of the 1500 block between 8th & 9th Avenue East. No buildings, structures or other incumbrances are permitted within the easement. To facilitate the proposal, the application is requesting the following variance: Provision (C4 – Other Permitted Uses – as required by Section 6.6 R5) Required Provided Variance 6.6 Dwelling Apartment 7.5 m Building Envelope - 2.0 m 5.5 m Building – 3.8 m 3.7 m (e) Rear Yard Setback A fulsome review and analysis of the proposed minor variance is outlined below. Staff Report CS-26-027: Minor Variance A04-2026 for 865 16th Street East Page 3 of 13 Page 10 of 614 Analysis: As stipulated in the Planning Act (Sec. 45(1)), a minor variance may be authorized by the Committee of Adjustment, provided that the four tests of a variance are met. All decisions with respect to a planning matter must also be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement. Provincial Planning Statement The 2024 Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) has been reviewed with regard to the proposed application. The PPS requires that settlement areas be the focus for growth and development and land use patterns within settlement areas should be based on densities and mix of land uses which efficiently use land and resources, optimize existing and planned infrastructure and public service facilities, and support active transportation. Planning authorities are required to support general intensification and redevelopment to support the achievement of complete communities. The subject lands are within a fully serviced settlement area. The proposal for a purpose built rental residential development in a compact urban form, having access to full municipal services, public transit, parks, and amenities, supports the type of efficient, cost-effective development that is envisioned by the PPS. Municipal sewage services and municipal water services are the preferred form of servicing for settlement areas and stormwater management shall: minimize, or, where possible, prevent or reduce increases in stormwater volumes and contaminant loads; minimize erosion and changes in water balance including through the use of green infrastructure; mitigate risks to human health, safety, property and the environment; maximize the extent and function of vegetative and pervious surfaces; promote best practices, including stormwater attenuation and re-use, water conservation and efficiency, and low impact development. The development will be serviced by municipal water and sanitary sewer services located in the 16th Street East road allowance with the details for servicing to be established through the Building permit process in accordance with the Ontario Building Code (OBC). As proposed, the development is approaching a significant portion (~68%) of the surface area to be impervious (buildings, driveways, parking area, etc.). Engineering Services Division is recommending that a condition of approval Staff Report CS-26-027: Minor Variance A04-2026 for 865 16th Street East Page 4 of 13 Page 11 of 614 require the preparation of a Grading and Drainage Plan prepared by a qualified person. The plan is to incorporate a stormwater management plan/brief for the property, and should a stormwater outlet connection be required, the applicant is to enter into a Servicing Agreement with the City to cover the faithful execution of any off-site works, or changes proposed to the ‘easement’ lands. The PPS requires that sites with contaminants in land or water shall be assessed and remediated as necessary prior to any activity on the site associated with the proposed use such that there will be no adverse effects. The historic use of the property is not known, and the proposed use of the property is residential. A condition of approval requires that the applicant provide a Record of Site Condition by a Qualified Person registered with the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks and any required issues addressed prior to construction. The proposed development of an existing, serviced, property is consistent with the direction provided by the PPS. County of Grey Official Plan The City of Owen Sound is designated as a ‘Primary Settlement Area’ in the 2019 County of Grey Official Plan (County OP). The County OP promotes a full range of land uses within Primary Settlement Areas. Land use policies and development standards are to be in accordance with the local Official Plan. The County was provided notice of the application in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act and have no objections to the requested variance. Test 1: Conformity with the Official Plan The subject property is designated 'Arterial Commercial’ in the Owen Sound Official Plan (OP), which permits a variety of commercial and non-commercial uses, such as medium-density forms of housing, congregate housing, churches, and other institutional uses. Individual uses should be limited in size to minimize their influence on the immediate neighbourhood, limit their traffic generating potential, and maintain the planned function of the area. More specifically, the subject property is located within the ‘Southern Gateway to the City’ (Section 3.7.3) which includes those areas along 9th Avenue East from Superior Street to 16th Street East. The policies of the ‘southern gateway’ provide for medium to high density residential Staff Report CS-26-027: Minor Variance A04-2026 for 865 16th Street East Page 5 of 13 Page 12 of 614 intensification at appropriate locations and on sites of sufficient frontage and area. Within this area, buildings shall be oriented towards the street with parking areas provided to the side or rear as described in Section 8.6.3 (3.7.3.5). The application proposes six units on 0.08361 hectares which results in a density of approximately 72 units per hectare. The proposed density is classified as high-density residential category (61 to 125 units per net residential hectare) as per the OP. High density residential development is permitted in the Arterial Commercial designation subject to the lot having sufficient frontage and area to support the development. The application is requesting a reduced rear yard setback to facilitate the development. However, the submitted site plan provides for a parking area with ten (10) parking spaces whereas the provisions of the Zoning By-law require eight (8) parking spaces. With the removal of the two extra parking spaces, additional lot area becomes available that can be allocated to other parts of the development, including the rear yard as further discussed below. The Southern Gateway policies require that buildings shall be located at the front of the lot with parking areas to side or rear of the building. In this case, a portion of the lot is subject to the infrastructure easement which prohibits any development within the area of the easement. This limitation restricts alternate layouts of the site including the potential to provide a drive aisle around the building to locate the parking area behind the building. To provide some level of buffering between the parking and the City’s roadway and create an appropriate streetscape, conditions of approval will require the applicant to revise the site plan to provide for: Barrier curb which connects to the existing barrier curb to the east, provides for the proposed entrance and extends to a transition area (drop/mountable) curb fronting the easement to the west as per comments from the City’s Engineering Services Division. The planting of two (2) medium to large stature trees in the 1.5metre-wide planting strip required by zoning between the parking area and the City’s roadway. Show any existing trees and how they will be protected during construction. Any existing trees on the property that may need to be removed through the construction process will be required to be replaced through the Residential Tree Preservation Policy at a ratio of 2:1. If Staff Report CS-26-027: Minor Variance A04-2026 for 865 16th Street East Page 6 of 13
9.a Appeal of Property Standards Order OSBY-2025-1092 dated January 20, 2026 Re: 1035 2nd Avenue West by Kepler Real Estate Inc.
The Property Standards Committee will soon hear an appeal filed by Kepler Real Estate Inc. regarding Order OSBY-2025-1092 issued on January 20, 2026. The appellant contests the order's specific demands, arguing they are vague, excessive, and set an insufficient timeline for compliance. A central grievance involves Item 3 of the order, which the corporation claims imposes perpetual maintenance requirements for ice and snow removal, viewing this as an unfair continuous obligation rather than a one-time compliance fix. Additionally, the appeal asserts that Item 1 improperly restricts the property owner from utilizing their own salaried staff for sanitation work, effectively forcing reliance on third parties. The case highlights a tension between municipal by-laws demanding indefinite winter maintenance and a corporate owner's assertion of reasonable repair limits. The appeal, submitted with a $200 fee, requests a hearing to reconsider these grounds before the final compliance deadline of March 3, 2026. Failure to resolve these disputes could lead to the city executing repairs and placing a lien on the property.
Page 218 of 614
Schedule ‘A’
Property Standards Order
Page 219 of 614
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: 2026-01-20
KEPLER REAL ESTATE INC
43363 SPARTA LINE ST.
THOMAS ON N5P 3S8
ORDER
MUNICIPAL ADDRESS: 1035 2ND AVE W
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PLAN 221 LOT 1
CASE #OSBY-2025-1092
IT IS AN OFFENCE TO OBSTRUCT/REMOVE POSTED ORDER WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION
It has been established by inspection that the property municipally known as 1035 2ND AVE W,
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 2026-03-03.
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 2026-02-08.
Page 220 of 614
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: 2026-01-20
OWNER: KEPLER REAL ESTATE INC
PROPERTY: 1035 2ND AVE W
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PLAN 221 LOT 1
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 2.4.2 - ROOF AND ROOF STRUCTURES
2.4.2.2 A roof of a building shall be free from loose or unsecured or unsafe objects and materials.
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.
SECTION 2.5.1 - WALLS, CEILING AND FLOORS
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.
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.
SECTION 2.5.7 - EGRESS AND FIRE ESCAPES
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 3.2.9 - DRIVEWAYS, PARKING AREAS, AND WALKWAYS
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.
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:
Page 221 of 614
Item
Description of Violation
Work Required to Comply
1
Complete proper sanitation of the area
Every floor in a building shall be
where the toilet in the unfinished basement
maintained in good repair; further, floors in overflowed. Complete proper sewage
all bathrooms, toilet rooms, and kitchens
effluent remediation on the floors as
shall be maintained so that the floors can required by the Grey Bruce Public Health
be kept in a clean and sanitary condition. inspector - reference email dated
Dried fecal matter appears to be present in December 18, 2025. Once completed,
the shower, near the base of the toilet, and provide a copy of an invoice or statement
in the storage area. [By-law 1999-030,
from the company contracted to complete
Section 2.5.1.3]
the work, to the satisfaction of the Property
Standards Officer.
2
The unused toilet and shower in this
The shower and toilet must be repaired to
bathroom remain connected to the sewage allow for the proper operation of each unit,
system. The water connection has been
or closed off, disconnected, and capped to
disconnected. [By-law 1999-030, Section prevent leakage or the escape of odours
2.5.3.1]
and gasses.
3
The roof above the main means of egress
to unit #1 (the front porch) has a
dangerous accumulation of ice and snow.
On or around January 8, 2026, a large
piece of ice (approximately 5ft by 1ft) fell
from the roof onto the porch below. A
similarly sized piece fell from the roof onto
the driveway. This is a danger to any
person on the property. [By-law 1999-030,
Sections 2.4.2.2, 2.5.7.4, 3.2.9.2].
4
The repaired portion of the wooden deck
on the porch has protruded out
These boards need to be secured to the
approximately 1/2 inch, and has created a porch so that they are flush with the
tripping hazard directly in front of the front surrounding boards.
door. [By-law 1999-030,Section 2.4.4.1].
At minimum, consistent removal of snow
and ice from the portion of the roof that is
near egress, walkways, or driveways must
be removed throughout the winter months.
Steps should be taken to prevent ice dams
from forming, including improving
insulation and ventilation in the attic/roof,
installing ice guards on the roof to prevent
them from falling, or other appropriate
steps.
Compliance Date: 2026-03-03
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
Page 222atof 614
within the time specified herein, the Corporation may carry out the repairs or clearance
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 2026-01-20
Page 223 of 614
Schedule ‘B’
Notice of Appeal
Page 224 of 614
Propefty Standards Committee
Notice of APPeal
whcrc you rr,ant to livc
D
Property and Owner Information
FE B
1035 2nd Avenue West
2
Location:
Kepler Real Estate Inc.
Owner .
43363 Sparta Line, St.Thomas, ON N5P 3SE
Mailing Address (if different from location):
admin @keplerresidences. com
5L93775936
Email Address ,
Phone Number:
Order fnformation
Issue Date .
January 20,2026
Compliance Date: March
Deadline for APPeal Date: February
8,2026
03,2026 Order Number: #osBY-2025-L092
Appellant Information
Name:
Kepler Real Estate Inc.
43363 Sparta Line, St' Thomas, ON NsP 3SB
Mailing Address .
admin @keplerresidences. com
sL93775936
Email Address .
Phone Number:
Preferred Method of Service:
Email
Mail
Representative Information (if applicable)
Representative Name:
Address:
Phone Number:
Email Address:
Preferred Method of Service:
Q[.tlait
Qemall
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 order is vague, the repairs demanded are excessive relative to the requ irements
of the by-law, and the timeline for compliance is insufficient. We reserve the right to
provider further particulars and evidence prior to the hearing. Item 1 prohibits our
corporation from using its salaried staff in favor of third parties. Item 3 seems to
require work in perpetuity to comply with the order, beyond the property being found
to be in compliance. Item 3 asserts certain work is both mandatory and optional
Property Standards Committee Notice of Appeal
Page
225 L
of of
614
2
Page
Hearing
Otn Person Hearing
Qetectronic Hearing
tr 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 requi red. 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:
E Order related to the aPPeal.
tr 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 www'owensound'calbv:laws)'
tr An authorization to act as representative for notice of appeal (if applicable).
Jonathan Kepler for Kepler Real Estate Inc'
lan 28th,2026
Name
Date
sig
re
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 519-376-4440 ext. L247.
Property Standards Committee Notice of Appeal
Page
226 2
of of
6142
Page
Case Number OSBY-2025-1092
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 227 of 614
Case Number OSBY-2025-1092
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TAB
DESCRIPTION
PAGE NO.
1
2
3
Notice of Appeal, dated January 28, 2026
Order dated January 20, 2026
Case Package by Assigned Officer Riley Brugess
4
7
12
4
Pictures of the Issues
55
5
Certified Copy of By-Law No. 1999-030
73
Page 228 of 614
003
TAB1
Page 229 of 614
.....
004
Property Standards Committee
Notice of Appeal
CW:0'lnd
whl'rc you ivanl lo live
Property and Owner Information
L ocation: 1035 2nd Avenue West
Owner: Kepler Real Estate Inc.
S
Mailing Address (if different from location): 43363 Sparta Line, St.Thomas, ON NSP 3S
Phone Number: 5193775936
Email Address: admin@keplerresidences.com
Order Information
Issue Date: January 20, 2026
Compliance Date: March 03, 2026
Deadline for Appeal Date: February 8, 2026
Order Number: #OSBY-2025-1092
Appellant Information
Name: Kepler Real Estate Inc.
NS 58
Mailing Address: 43363 Sparta Line, St. Thomas, ON P 3
Phone Number: 5193775936
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:
Oau
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 order is vague, the repairs demanded are excessive relative to the requirements
of the by-law, and the timeline for compliance is insufficient. We reserve the right to
provider further particulars and evidence prior to the hearing. Item 1 prohibits our
corporation from using its salaried staff in favor of third parties. Item 3 seems to
require work in perpetuity to comply with the order, beyond the property being found
to be in compliance. Item 3 asserts certain work is both mandatory and optional
suaaestions re under "Work Reauired t C
Iv")
Page 1 of 2
Property Standards Committee Notice of Appeal
Page 230 of 614
005
Page 231 of 614
006
TAB2
Page 232 of 614
007
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
ORDER
Date Issued: 2026-01-20
KEPLER REAL ESTATE INC
43363 SPARTA LINE ST.
THOMAS ON N5P 3S8
MUNICIPAL ADDRESS: 1035 2ND AVE W
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PLAN 221 LOT 1
CASE #OSBY-2025-1092
IT IS AN OFFENCE TO OBSTRUCT/REMOVE POSTED ORDER WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION
It has been established by inspection that the property municipally known as 1035 2ND AVE W,
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 2026-03-03.
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 2026-02-08.
Page 233 of 614
008
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: 2026-01-20
OWNER: KEPLER REAL ESTATE INC
PROPERTY: 1035 2ND AVE W
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PLAN 221 LOT 1
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 2.4.2 - ROOF AND ROOF STRUCTURES
2.4.2.2 A roof of a building shall be free from loose or unsecured or unsafe objects and materials.
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.
SECTION 2.5.1 - WALLS, CEILING AND FLOORS
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.
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.
SECTION 2.5.7 - EGRESS AND FIRE ESCAPES
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 3.2.9 - DRIVEWAYS, PARKING AREAS, AND WALKWAYS
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.
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:
Page 234 of 614
Item
Description of Violation
Work Required to Comply
009
1
Complete proper sanitation of the area
where the toilet in the unfinished basement
Every floor in a building shall be
maintained in good repair; further, floors in overflowed. Complete proper sewage
effluent remediation on the floors as
all bathrooms, toilet rooms, and kitchens
shall be maintained so that the floors can required by the Grey Bruce Public Health
be kept in a clean and sanitary condition. inspector - reference email dated
Dried fecal matter appears to be present in December 18, 2025. Once completed,
the shower, near the base of the toilet, and provide a copy of an invoice or statement
from the company contracted to complete
in the storage area. [By-law 1999-030,
the
work, to the satisfaction of the Property
Section 2.5.1.3]
Standards Officer.
2
The shower and toilet must be repaired to
The unused toilet and shower in this
bathroom remain connected to the sewage allow for the proper operation of each unit,
or closed off, disconnected, and capped to
system. The water connection has been
disconnected. [By-law 1999-030, Section prevent leakage or the escape of odours
2.5.3.1]
and gasses.
3
The roof above the main means of egress
to unit #1 (the front porch) has a
dangerous accumulation of ice and snow.
On or around January 8, 2026, a large
piece of ice (approximately 5ft by 1ft) fell
from the roof onto the porch below. A
similarly sized piece fell from the roof onto
the driveway. This is a danger to any
person on the property. [By-law 1999-030,
Sections 2.4.2.2, 2.5.7.4, 3.2.9.2].
4
The repaired portion of the wooden deck
These boards need to be secured to the
on the porch has protruded out
approximately 1/2 inch, and has created a porch so that they are flush with the
tripping hazard directly in front of the front surrounding boards.
door. [By-law 1999-030,Section 2.4.4.1].
At minimum, consistent removal of snow
and ice from the portion of the roof that is
near egress, walkways, or driveways must
be removed throughout the winter months.
Steps should be taken to prevent ice dams
from forming, including improving
insulation and ventilation in the attic/roof,
installing ice guards on the roof to prevent
them from falling, or other appropriate
steps.
Compliance Date: 2026-03-03
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
Page 235 of 614
the expense of the owner. Costs of such action may be registered as a lien on the land and 010
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
+l 519-376-4440 1270
Signature
Dated at Owen Sound, on 2026-01-20
Page 236 of 614
011
TAB3
Page 237 of 614
owe11l
so 11d
City of Owen Sound
By-law Enforcement Division
808 2nd Avenue East
Owen Sound, ON, N4K 2H4
Phone: 519-376-4440ext. 1905
Email : enforcement@owensound.ca
012
where you want to live
CASE PACKAGE
CASE INFORMATION
Case Number
OSBY-2025-1092
Category
Property
Sub - Category
Property Standards
Assigned Officer
Riley Brugess, #708
Case Created Date
2025-12-18, 10:22:09a.m. EST
Package Generation Date
2026-02-25, 10:29:03a.m. EST
Case Description
Property Standards - Rental Standards - Sanitary Conditions
PLOT INFORMATION
Address
1035 2ND AVE W, Owen Sound
Property Information
4259020014038000000, PLAN 221
LOT1
Additional Location Details
PARTIES
KEPLER REAL ESTATE INC
Property owner
Page 238 of 614
013
Complaints
COMPLAINTS
Date: 2025-12-18, 10:21:38a.m. EST
Complainant name: Dee-Anna Courtney
Description from the complaint: Public Health was contacted a
ete sewage effluent remediation at 1035
2nd Avenue West by the 1st floor tenant, Dee-Anna Courtney,
. Apparently a toilet in the unfinished
basement overflowed about a week ago, the landlord, Kepler P
contacted, and plumbers dispatched to
resolve the issue. The tenant indicated that the plumbers advised her that she should not use the water and left. Other
workers with Dirt Dawgs apparently unclogged the toilet but did not clean up the effluent that had overflowed; the
tenant attempted to clean up the affected area but there is still dried fecal matter and toilet paper in that area. Public
Health advised that the tenant should contact Owen Sound By-Law. Given that this issue interferes with the tenant's
reasonable enjoyment of her residence and the possibility that a health hazard may exist, Grey Bruce Public Health
would request that Owen Sound By-Law and the landlord keep us informed of the progress and timeline for
removing the effluent remnants and cleaning and sanitizing the affected area. This task should be completed as soon
as possible. This e-mail is being copied to the landlord and the tenant. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Robert Reid
Received via: Email
ADDITIONAL COMPLAINT CAT EGORIES
[Categories: Property Standards
Page 239 of 614
Complaints, page 111
014
Filename:
Media type:
Uploaded by:
Uploaded on:
Description:
Sewage effluent complaint at 1035 2nd Avenue West, Owen Sound.pdf
application/pdf
Riley Brugess, #708
2026-02-25, 10:23:03a.m. EST
Emails - Occupant
Page 240 of 614
015
Outlook
Re: Sewage effluent complaint at 1035 2nd Avenue West, Owen Sound
----------------- -
-
From Riley Brugess < rbrugess@owensound.ca>
Date Thu 1/22/2026 11 :40 AM
To Dee Courtney
Cc Robert Reid <R.Reid@publichealthgreybruce.on.ca>
@ 1 attachment (135 KB)
OSBY-2025-1092_signed_order_copy.pdf;
Hi Dee-Anna,
I have been waiting to receive the email from you that you stated you were
working on, during my inspection. However, in that time, the attached order was
issued to the property owner.
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/
Report a ev.-law Concern
owe11l
so 11d
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.
Page 241 of 614
016
From: Dee Courtney
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2026 10:11 AM
To: Riley Brugess <rbrugess@owensound.ca>
Cc: Robert Reid <R.Reid@publichealthgreybruce.on.ca>
Subject: Re: Sewage effluent complaint at 1035 2nd Avenue West, Owen Sound
I
External sender
Make sure you trust this sender before taking any actions.
Mr. Brugess,
It has been more then a week since you, at your request completed a inspection at 1035 2nd Avenue
West regarding the cleanup of the raw sewage in the basement. As I have not been contacted by Jon
Kepler's customer service team could you please personally provide me with an update on the
situation.
Thank you
Dee-Anna
Courtney
On Fri, Jan 9, 2026, 8:34 a.m. Dee Courtney
Mr. Brugress,
wrote:
I will be available. Thank you.
Dee-Anna
Courtney
On Thu, Jan 8, 2026, 3:43 p.m. Riley Brugess <rbrugess@owensound.ca> wrote:
Hi Dee-Anna,
Are you available tomorrow morning, around 10:00 A.M.?
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/tiving-here/by-law-enforcement/
Regort a By:-law Concern
Page 242 of 614
017
owe11l
so 11d
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: Dee Courtney
Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2026 11:53 AM
To: Riley Brugess <rbrugess@owensound.ca>
Cc: Robert Reid <R.Reid@.P-ublichealthgreybruce.on.ca>
Subject: Re: Sewage effluent complaint at 1035 2nd Avenue West. Owen Sound
Warning: Unusual sender
You don't usually receive emails from this address. Make sure you trust this sender before taking any
actions.
Yes,
Mr Brugess I am available for an inspection.
Dee-Anna
Courtney
On Thu, Jan 8, 2026, 11 :45 a.m. Riley Brugess < rbrugess@owensound.ca > wrote:
Hi Dee-Anna,
In that case, when would you be available for an inspection?
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
rbrug�owensound .ca
Page 243 of 614
018
www.owensound .ca
www.owensound.ca/living-here/bv.-law-enforcement/
Report a By-law Concern
owe11l
so 11d
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: Dee Courtney
Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2026 11:44 AM
To: Riley Brugess <rbrugess@owensound.ca>
Cc: Robert Reid <R.Reid@Rublichealthgreybruce.on.ca>
Subject: Re: Sewage effluent complaint at 1035 2nd Avenue West, Owen Sound
Warning: Unusual sender
You don't usually receive emails from this address. Make sure you trust this sender before taking
any actions.
Mr. Brugess,
I have sent an email to Robert Reid, Public Health Inspector informing him that the sewage has
not been dealt with in the basement as Mr. Kepler has confirmed with the Owen Sound City
Bylaw Department.
Dee-Anna
Courtney
On Thu, Jan 8, 2026, 8:37 a.m. Riley Brugess <r!m!.gess@owensound.ca> wrote:
Good morning,
I've received confirmation from the landlord that this was completed. Please
confirm if that is correct, or if anything is outstanding from this original
email.
Thank you,
Riley Brugess, C.P.S.O.
Page 244 of 614
019
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
;_:;.!.Qgo Description automatically_generated
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@P.ublichealthgreybruce.on.ca>
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2025 10:08 AM
To: Enforcement <enforcement@owensound,ca>
Cc: Customer Service <admin@keP.lerresidences.com>:
Subject: Sewage effluent complaint at 1035 2nd Avenue West. Owen Sound
Warning: Unusual sender <r.reid@Rublichealthg.cgv.bruce.on.ca>
You don't usually receive emails from this address. Make sure you trust this sender before taking
any actions.
Public Health was contacted about incomplete sewage effluent remediation at 1035 2 nd
Apparently a toilet in
Avenue West by the 1 st floor tenant, Dee-Anna Courtney,
the unfinished basement overflowed about a week ago, the landlord, Kepler Properties, was
contacted, and plumbers dispatched to resolve the issue. The tenant indicated that the
plumbers advised her that she should not use the water and left. Other workers with Dirt
Dawgs apparently unclogged the toilet but did not clean up the effluent that had overflowed;
the tenant attempted to clean up the affected area but there is still dried fecal matter and
toilet paper in that area. Public Health advised that the tenant should contact Owen Sound
By-Law. Given that this issue interferes with the tenant's reasonable enjoyment of her
residence and the possibility that a health hazard may exist, Grey Bruce Public Health would
request that Owen Sound By-Law and the landlord keep us informed of the progress and
timeline for removing the effluent remnants and cleaning and sanitizing the affected area.
This task should be completed as soon as possible.
This e-mail is being copied to the landlord and the tenant.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Page 245 of 614
020
Robert Reid
Robert Reid�-, CIPHI
Public Health Inspector
Grey Bruce Public Health
101 17th Street East
Owen Sound, ON, N4k OAS
519-376-9420 ext.1355
r.reid@publichealthg!:§Y.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 future 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 territory 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, Inuit, 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. ff you are not the intended recipient, or have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by telephone, fax
or email and permanenHy delete the original transmission from us, without making a copy. Thank you.
Page 246 of 614
021
Filename:
Media type:
Uploaded by:
Uploaded on:
Description:
Re Sewage effluent complaint at 1035 2nd Avenue West, Owen
Sound.pdf
application/pdf
Riley Brugess, #708
2026-01-20, 3:13:35p.m. EST
Emailed order and invoice to property owner
Page 247 of 614
022
Outlook
Re: Sewage effluent complaint at 1035 2nd Avenue West, Owen Sound
- -----------From Riley Brugess <rbrugess@owensound.ca>
Date Tue 1/20/2026 3:11 PM
To Customer Service <admin@keplerresidences.com>
Cc Rob Reid <R.Reid@publichealthgreybruce.on.ca>
® 3 attachments (436 KB)
OSBY-2025-1092_signed_order.pdf; OSBY-2025-1092 Invoice 01.pdf; notice-of-appeal-fillable-form.pdf;
Good afternoon,
As I have not received any further communication from you, attached you will find
a P roperty Standards Order. The order must be complied with no later than March
3, 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 February 20, 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/RroRertv.-standards-aP-peals/. The final date for giving notice of Appeal
is February 8, 2026.
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/bv.-law-enforcement/
Report a By-law Concern
Page 248 of 614
023
owe11l
so 11d
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 <rbrugess@owensound.ca>
Sent: Friday, January 9, 2026 2:44 PM
To: Customer Service <admin@keplerresidences.com>
Cc: Rob Reid <R.Reid@publichealthgreybruce.on.ca>
Subject: Re: Sewage effluent complaint at 1035 2nd Avenue West, Owen Sound
Good afternoon,
An inspection was completed at this property. During the inspection I was informed
that no agent of yours made any attempts to clean or sanitize the floor. At the time
of the inspection, the majority of the floor was free of visible fecal matter due to
the efforts of the tenant to "hose down" the affected area. Dried fecal matter
appeared to be present in the shower, near the base of the toilet, and in the
storage area.
Please provide me with a copy of the invoice or statement from the
agent/contractor indicating that sanitation was completed. If this was in fact
completed, which it does not appear to be, a different contractor should be utilized.
Sanitation must be completed in the basement.
Additionally, the following violations were also observed and require repair:
1. Bathroom in the basement - The toilet and shower in this bathroom remain
connected to the sewage sy stem. The water connection has been
disconnected. There remains water and toilet paper/other matter in the toilet
bowl.
The shower and toilet must be repaired to allow for the proper operation of
each unit, or closed off, disconnected, and capped to prevent leakage or the
escape of odours and gasses, in accordance with section 2.5.3.1 of the
Property Standards By-law.
2. The roof above the main means of egress to unit #1 (the front porch) has a
dangerous accumulation of ice and snow. On or around January 8, 2026, a
large piece of ice (approximately 5ft by 1ft) fell from the roof onto the porch
below. A similarly sized piece fell from the roof onto the driveway. This is
Page 249 of 614
024
a danger to any person on the property. [Sections 2.4.2.2, 2.5.7.4, 3.2.9.2 of
the Property Standards By-law].
At minimum, consistent removal of snow and ice from the portion of the roof
that is near egress, walkways, or driveways must be removed throughout the
winter months. Steps should be taken to prevent ice dams from forming,
including improving insulation and ventilation in the attic/roof, installing ice
guards on the roof to prevent them from falling, or other appropriate steps.
3. The repaired portion of the wooden deck on the porch has protruded out
approximately 1/2 inch, and has created a tripping hazard directly in front of
the front door. [Section 2.4.4.1 of the Property Standards By-law]. This was
not observed during the previous inspection on October 30, 2025. These
boards need to be secured to the porch so that they are flush with the
surrounding boards.
Attached are some photos for your reference.
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/
ReRort a Bv.-law Concern
owe11l
so 11d
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: Thursday, January 8, 2026 8:00 AM
To: Riley Brugess <rbrugess@owensound.ca>
Subject: Re: Sewage effluent complaint at 1035 2nd Avenue West, Owen Sound
Page 250 of 614
025
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.
My apologies, I see that the ticket was closed on our end after we last spoke. The work is complete. If
you require anything further at this property after your inspection, please let us know.
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.KeRlerResidences.com
On Wed, Jan 7, 2026 at 7:46AM Riley Brugess <rbrugess@owensound.ca> wrote:
Good morning,
I am still waiting for a response on this.
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�owensound.ca
www.owensound.ca
www.owensound.ca/living-here/by-law-enforcement/
ReRort a By:-law Concern
owe11l
so 11d
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
Page 251 of 614
026
error, please notify the sender immediately advising of the error and delete the message without
making a copy. Thank you.
From: Customer Service <admin@keP.lerresidences.com>
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2025 8:00 AM
To: Riley Brugess <rbrugess@owensound.ca>
Subject: Re: Sewage effluent complaint at 1035 2nd Avenue West, Owen Sound
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,
I will ask our team, It is possible that it has already been completed.
CUSTOMER SERVICE TEAM
admin@ker:1lerresidences.com
Thank you for your message.
It is our goal to respond to incoming emails within 24-48 hours.
KEPLER REAL ESTATE INC.
www.KeRlerResidences.com
On Tue, Dec 23, 2025 at 9:39AM Riley Brugess <rbrugess@owensound.ca> wrote:
Good morning,
What is the status of this matter?
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�owensound .ca
www.owensound.ca
www.owensound.ca/ljving-here/bY.-law-enforcement/
ReP.ort a Bv.-law Concern
Page 252 of 614
027
owe11l
so 11d
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@J�ublichealthgreybruce.on.ca>
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2025 10:08 AM
To: Enforcement <enforcement@owensound.ca>
Cc: Customer Service <admin@keplerresidences.com>;
Subject: Sewage effluent complaint at 1035 2nd Avenue West, Owen Sound
Warning: Unusual sender <r.reid@RublichealthgreY.bruce.on.ca>
You don't usually receive emails from this address. Make sure you trust this sender before taking any
actions.
Public Health was contacted about incomplete sewage effluent remediation at 1035 2 nd Avenue
West by the 1 st floor tenant, Dee-Anna Courtney,
. Apparently a toilet in the
unfinished basement overflowed about a week ago, the landlord, Kepler Properties, was
contacted, and plumbers dispatched to resolve the issue. The tenant indicated that the plumbers
advised her that she should not use the water and left. Other workers with Dirt Dawgs apparently
unclogged the toilet but did not clean up the effluent that had overflowed; the tenant attempted
to clean up the affected area but there is still dried fecal matter and toilet paper in that area.
Public Health advised that the tenant should contact Owen Sound By-Law. Given that this issue
interferes with the tenant's reasonable enjoyment of her residence and the possibility that a health
hazard may exist, Grey Bruce Public Health would request that Owen Sound By-Law and the
landlord keep us informed of the progress and timeline for removing the effluent remnants and
cleaning and sanitizing the affected area. This task should be completed as soon as possible.
This e-mail is being copied to the landlord and the tenant.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Robert Reid
�GreyBruc:e
� PubUc Health
Robert Reid B.A.Sc., CIPHI
Public Health Inspector
Grey Bruce Public Health
Page 253 of 614
028
101 11th Street East
OwenSound,ON,N4k0AS
519-376-9420 ext.1355
r.reid@publichealthgreybruce.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 future for all.
Mission: Worf<ing 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 territory 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, Inuit, Matis, 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 254 of 614
GENERATED DOCUMENTS - INSPECTION REPORTS
029
• By-law enforcement report OSBY-2025-1092 2026-01-09.pdf
Page 255 of 614
030
Owen Sound
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
Case number: OSBY-2025-1092
Legal address: PLAN 221 LOT 1
Case description:
Municipal address: 1035 2ND AVE W
Case Status: Active
Property Standards - Rental Standards - Sanitary Conditions
Parties
No parties added to case
Violations
DISCOVERY DATE
2026-01-09
2026-01-20
2026-01-20
COMPLY BY DATE
DESCRIPTION
2026-03-03
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. [Bylaw 1999-030, Section 2.5.1.3]
2026-03-03
The unused toilet and shower in this bathroom
remain connected to the sewage system. The water
connection has been disconnected. [By-law 1999030, Section 2.5.3.1]
2026-03-03
The roof above the main means of egress to unit #1
(the front porch) has a dangerous accumulation of
ice and snow. On or around January 8, 2026, a
large piece of ice (approximately 5ft by 1ft) fell from
the roof onto the porch below. A similarly sized
piece fell from the roof onto the driveway. This is
a danger to any person on the property. [By-law
1999-030, Sections 2.4.2.2, 2.5.7.4, 3.2.9.2].
Page 256 of 614
DISCOVERY DATE
2026-01-20
031
COMPLY BY DATE
DESCRIPTION
2026-03-03
The repaired portion of the wooden deck on the
porch has protruded out approximately 1/2 inch, and
has created a tripping hazard directly in front of the
front door. [By-law 1999-030,Section 2.4.4.1].
Inspections
Page 257 of 614
032
SITE CONDITIONS
Inspector: Riley Brugess, #708
Visit date: 2026-01-09
Visit time: 9:55 a.m.
Visit result: Failed (Not substantially complete)
Failure reason: Inspection complete, violations found, Order issued
Inspection Notes:
2026/01/09, 9:55 AM
Inspection Type: Property Standards
Interior Inspection
Complaint
0 ° C, rain
Consent to Enter (dwelling) obtained at/by: 9:58 AM by Dee-Anna COURTNEY
Arrived at property for inspection. Was advised by the tenant, Dee-Anna COURTNEY, to enter from the
rear of the property directly into the basement. At the door to the basement, I obtained consent to enter
having regards for the right to refuse. I was informed that no attempts were made to clean or sanitize the
floor by the property owner. The majority of the floor was free of visible fecal matter due to the efforts of
the tenant to "hose down" the affected area. Dried fecal matter appeared to be present in the shower,
near the base of the toilet, and in the storage area.
In the bathroom in the basement, the toilet and shower remain connected to the sewage system. The
water connection has been disconnected. There remains water and toilet paper/other matter in the toilet
bowl.
COURTNEY requested that I inspect the exterior of the property. She expressed concern for falling snow
and ice from the roof. On or around January 8, 2026, a large piece of ice (approximately 5ft by 1ft) fell
from the roof onto the porch below. A similarly sized piece fell from the roof onto the driveway.
The previously repaired portion of the wooden deck on the porch has protruded out approximately 1/2
inch, and has created a tripping hazard directly in front of the front door.
Spoke to COURTNEY regarding next steps. Cleared from property at approximately 10:30 AM.
Photographs
Page 258 of 614
Upload Date:
2026-01-20
2:39p.m.
Photo Description: Basement bathroom, toilet area, showing that the toilet
remains connected to the sewer system disconnected from the water system,
and showing remnants of the sewage effluent at the base of the toilet.
033
Page 259 of 614
Upload Date:
2026-01-20
034
Photo Description:
2:39p.m.
Page 260 of 614
Upload Date:
2026-01-20
035
Photo Description:
2:39p.m.
Page 261 of 614
Upload Date:
2026-01-20
036
Photo Description:
2:39p.m.
Page 262 of 614
Upload Date:
Photo Description: Entrance of the basement shower.
037
2026-01-20
2:39p.m.
Page 263 of 614
Upload Date:
2026-01-20
2:39p.m.
038
Photo Description: Shower in the Basement of the property showing what appears to
be dried fecal matter in shower pan.
Page 264 of 614
Upload Date:
2026-01-20
2:39p.m.
Photo Description: Storage area in the basement showing clay pots with a water
mark line indicating the depth of the leak.
039
Page 265 of 614
Upload Date:
2026-01-20
2:39p.m.
040
Photo Description:
Page 266 of 614
Upload Date:
Photo Description: Basement room where water meter is located.
041
2026-01-20
2:39p.m.
Page 267 of 614
Upload Date:
Photo Description: Front porch, protruding and damaged deck boards.
042
2026-01-20
2:39p.m.
Page 268 of 614
Upload Date:
Photo Description: Front porch, protrusion of deck boards.
043
2026-01-20
2:39p.m.
Page 269 of 614
Upload Date:
Photo Description: Front porch, protrusion of deck boards.
044
2026-01-20
2:39p.m.
Page 270 of 614
Upload Date:
2026-01-20
2:39p.m.
045
Photo Description: Exterior west facing wall, showing the north side of roof where ice
had previously fallen.
Page 271 of 614
Upload Date:
046
Photo Description: Front porch where large blocks of ice had fallen from the roof.
2026-01-20
2:39p.m.
Page 272 of 614
Upload Date:
2026-01-20
047
Photo Description: Exterior west facing wall, showing the south side of roof where ice
had previously fallen.
2:39p.m.
Page 273 of 614
Upload Date:
048
Photo Description: Driveway area where large blocks of ice had fallen from the roof.
2026-01-20
2:39p.m.
Page 274 of 614
Upload Date:
Photo Description: Exterior west facing wall, showing the centre of roof.
049
2026-01-20
2:39p.m.
Page 275 of 614
050
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: 2026-01-20
KEPLER REAL ESTATE INC
43363 SPARTA LINE ST.
THOMAS ON N5P 3S8
ORDER
MUNICIPAL ADDRESS: 1035 2ND AVE W
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PLAN 221 LOT 1
CASE #OSBY-2025-1092
IT 15 AN OFFENCE TO OBSTRUCT/REMOVE POSTED ORDER WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION
It has been established by inspection that the property municipally known as 1035 2ND AVE W,
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 2026-03-03.
TAKE NO TICE 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 2026-02-08.
Page 276 of 614
051
APPENDIX "A" -WORK REQUIRED TO COMPLY
PROPERTY STANDARDS - ORDER TO OWNER
Pursuant to Section 15.2(2) of the Building Code Act, 5.0. 1992, C23, as amended
By-law No. 1999-030, as amended
DATE: 2026-01-20
OWNER: KEPLER REAL ESTATE INC
PROPERTY: 1035 2ND AVE W
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PLAN 221 LOT 1
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 2.4.2 -ROOF AND ROOF STRUCTURES
2.4.2.2 A roof of a building shall be free from loose or unsecured or unsafe objects and materials.
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.
SECTION 2.5.1 - WALLS, CEILING AND FLOORS
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.
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.
SECTION 2.5.7 - EGRESS AND FIRE ESCAPES
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 3.2.9 - DRIVEWAYS, PARKING AREAS, AND WALKWAYS
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.
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:
Page 277 of 614
Item
Description of Violation
Work Required to Comply
052
1
Complete proper sanitation of the area
where the toilet in the unfinished basement
Every floor in a building shall be
maintained in good repair; further, floors in overflowed. Complete proper sewage
all bathrooms, toilet rooms, and kitchens
effluent remediation on the floors as
shall be maintained so that the floors can required by the Grey Bruce Public Health
be kept in a clean and sanitary condition. inspector - reference email dated
Dried fecal matter appears to be present in December 18, 2025. Once completed,
the shower, near the base of the toilet, and provide a copy of an invoice or statement
from the company contracted to complete
in the storage area. [By-law 1999-030,
Section 2.5.1.3)
the work, to the satisfaction of the Property
Standards Officer.
2
The unused toilet and shower in this
The shower and toilet must be repaired to
bathroom remain connected to the sewage allow for the proper operation of each unit,
or closed off, disconnected, and capped to
system. The water connection has been
disconnected. [By-law 1999-030, Section prevent leakage or the escape of odours
2.5.3.1)
and gasses.
3
The roof above the main means of egress
to unit #1 (the front porch) has a
dangerous accumulation of ice and snow.
On or around January 8, 2026, a large
piece of ice (approximately 5ft by 1ft) fell
from the roof onto the porch below. A
similarly sized piece fell from the roof onto
the driveway. This is a danger to any
person on the property. [By-law 1999-030,
Sections 2.4.2.2, 2.5.7.4, 3.2.9.2).
4
The repaired portion of the wooden deck
These boards need to be secured to the
on the porch has protruded out
approximately 1/2 inch, and has created a porch so that they are flush with the
tripping hazard directly in front of the front surrounding boards.
door. [By-law 1999-030,Section 2.4.4.1].
At minimum, consistent removal of snow
and ice from the portion of the roof that is
near egress, walkways, or driveways must
be removed throughout the winter months.
Steps should be taken to prevent ice dams
from forming, including improving
insulation and ventilation in the attic/roof,
installing ice guards on the roof to prevent
them from falling, or other appropriate
steps.
Compliance Date: 2026-03-03
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
Page 278 of 614
the expense of the owner. Costs of such action may be registered as a lien on the land and 053
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
+1519-376-4440 1270
Signature
Dated at Owen Sound, on 2026-01-20
Page 279 of 614
054
TAB4
Page 280 of 614
055
Page 281 of 614
056
Page 282 of 614
057
Page 283 of 614
058
Page 284 of 614
059
Page 285 of 614
060
Page 286 of 614
061
Page 287 of 614
062
,.
..
.
-·
Page 288 of 614
063
Page 289 of 614
064
Page 290 of 614
065
Page 291 of 614
066
..
Page 292 of 614
067
Page 293 of 614
068
Page 294 of 614
069
Page 295 of 614
070
Page 296 of 614
071
Page 297 of 614
072
TABS
Page 298 of 614
073
owm,r,
when: \'ou Wl:lrlr I
d
live
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
April 28, 2008
2008-128
September 8, 2008
2009-023
February 9, 2009
2009-054
April 6, 2009
2011-116
July 4, 2011
2013-030
February 11, 2013
2018-044
April 9, 2018
2024-052
April 15, 2024
Consolidated Version
Revised April 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 299 of 614
Page 2
074
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, S.O. 1992, c.23;
AND WHEREAS Section 15.6(1) of the Building Code Act, S.O. 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 CilY
OF OWEN SOUND HEREBY ENACTS THE FOLLOWING:
PART 1 - INTERPRETATION AND ADMINISTRATION
SECTION 1.1 - SHORT TITLE
1.1.1 This By-law may be cited as the City of Owen Sound Property Standards By
law.
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 300 of 614
Page 3
075
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 301 of 614
Page 4
076
By-law No. 1999-030
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 - APPLICATION
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 302 of 614
077
Page 5
1.5.2
By-law No. 1999-030
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
indicating the time for complying with the terms and conditions of
(c)
the order and giving notice that, if the repairs or clearance is not
carried out within the time specified the municipality may carry out
the repair of clearance at the owner's expense.
(d)
indicating the final date for giving notice of appeal form the order.
Amended by By-laws 2013-030 and 2018-044
Every person wishing to appeal an Order made under section 15.2 (2)
1.5.3
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-law, 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
RESIDENTIAL AND VACANT PROPERTY
1. 9.1
AND
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 303 of 614
n.>
Page 6
078
By-law No. 1999-030
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 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, 5.0. 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
Supervision of the clearing of yards when the work required under an
1.15.1
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 304 of 614
Page 7
079
By-law No. 1999-030
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 left 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 305 of 614
Page 8
080
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.
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 PROVISIONS 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
All elevators and elevating devices, hoists, lifts, and moving walkways
2.3.1.2
and stairs shall be maintained in good repair. iA accordaAce witA
applicable Acts of tAe ProviAce of OAtario.
Page 306 of 614
Page 9
081
By-law No. 1999-030
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-law 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-law.
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
iv.
any other material approved by a Property Standards Officer.
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 307 of 614
Page 10
082
By-law No. 1999-030
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 fac;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 application 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 appearance 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 308 of 614
Page 11
083
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.
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 walls, 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..S.1.5
Every floor, wall, ceiling 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 309 of 614
Page 12
2.5.1.8
084
By-law No. 1999-030
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 APPLIANCES/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
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.
and
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 310 of 614
Page 13
2.5.4.3
085
By-law No. 1999-030
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 311 of 614
Page 14
086
By-law No. 1999-030
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.
Where three or more dwelling units share one or more common walls
3.2.1.2
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.
Where a multiple dwelling contains a central heating system, the same
3.2.2.2
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 312 of 614
Page 15
3.2.3.1
087
By-law No. 1999-030
Every dwelling shall be serviced with a safe and adequate supply of
electricity.
Amended by By-law 2008-050
Every habitable room in a dwelling shall have a sufficient number of
3.2.3.2
electrical outlets.
3.2.3.3
Every laundry area in a dwelling shall have a mrn,mum 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 ventilation 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
appliances shall be in good repair.
Page 313 of 614
Page 16
088
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.
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 fo r 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
On every residential property all parking lots, driveways, sidewalks,
3.2. 9.1
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 314 of 614
Page 17
089
By-law No. 1999-030
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 315 of 614
Page 18
090
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.
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 �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 316 of 614
Page 19
PART 4 -
091
By-law No. 1999-030
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 317 of 614
092
Page 20
By-law No. 1999-030
PART 5 - 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 pt day of March, 1999.
I
fCERtl�EDT() BEA TRUE COPY OF-�
BY-LAW NO.
1111- o3o
City Council on
Signature on File
l1
passedby
Ma_ rel J I 1 C/ 1
1
Pofoft 00y-Clerk,
Cl� of Owen Sound.
----------'
Signature on File
Mayor
Clerk
·
·
Page 318 of 614
SCHEDULE A
Amended by By-laws 2009-054 and 2018-044
093
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 319 of 614
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-2025-1092
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 No. OSBY-2025-1092 issued on January
20, 2026, by Property Standards Officer under the authority of section 15.2(2) of the
Building Code Act, 1992 and the City of Owen Sound Property Standards By-law No.
1999-030.
2. The Order was issued following an inspection of the property located at 1035 2nd Avenue
West, Owen Sound, a residential rental property owned by Kepler Real Estate Inc. The
inspection was conducted after the city received a complaint from Grey Bruce Public
Health concerning possible sewage contamination in the basement of the property.
3. The purpose of the Order was to address several deficiencies observed during the
inspection which posed risks to sanitation, occupant safety, and public health. These
deficiencies included untreated sewage effluent contamination in the basement,
improperly connected plumbing fixtures, dangerous accumulations of snow and ice above
the building’s primary means of egress, and a protruding section of wooden porch
Page 320 of 614
decking that created a tripping hazard directly in front of the main entrance. The Order
required the owner to remediate the sewage contamination, repair or disconnect the
basement plumbing fixtures, remove dangerous snow and ice accumulations near the
entrance and driveway, and repair the porch decking so that it no longer created a safety
hazard.
4. The Appellant appeals the Order on the grounds that it is vague, excessive in scope, and
imposes unreasonable timelines for compliance. The city submits that these arguments
are without merit.
5. The Order clearly identifies the contraventions observed, cites the applicable provisions
of the City’s Property Standards By-law, and sets out the work required to bring the
property into compliance with minimum municipal standards. The Order is proportionate
to the conditions observed and is consistent with the City’s statutory responsibility to
ensure that residential properties are maintained in a safe and sanitary condition.
6. The City therefore asks that the Property Standards Committee confirm the Order. Kepler
Real Estate Inc., through its agent, had sufficient opportunity between December 18,
2025, and the subsequent correspondence dated January 9 and January 20, 2026, to
advise the City if factors outside of their control required an extension to the compliance
timelines, including providing the reasons for such request and any supporting evidence
as outlined in the correspondence. An agent acts on behalf of the company, being
company hired maintenance staff, and could have submitted a written statement or
documentation indicating that sanitation had been completed or explaining any need for
additional time. Kepler Real Estate Inc. did not provide such written notice, explanation,
or evidence, nor did it advise the city of any need for an extension within the time
provided.
PART II – FACTS
The Property
7. The subject property is located at 1035 2nd Avenue West, Owen Sound, Ontario, and is
owned by the Appellant, Kepler Real Estate Inc. The property is used as a residential
rental dwelling and is therefore subject to the City’s Property Standards By-law and
applicable provisions of the Building Code Act, 1992.
Page 321 of 614
8. A by-law enforcement case concerning the property was opened on December 18, 2025,
after the City received correspondence from Grey Bruce Public Health regarding a
complaint from a tenant about sewage contamination in the basement of the property.
Public Health Complaint
9. Grey Bruce Public Health advised the City that a toilet located in the unfinished basement
of the property had overflowed approximately one week earlier. Although plumbers had
attended to address the blockage, the sewage effluent that had overflowed onto the
basement floor had not been properly cleaned or remediated. The tenant reported that
workers had unclogged the toilet but had not removed the contaminated material from the
basement floor. According to the complaint, dried fecal matter and toilet paper remained
present in the basement, and the tenant had attempted to clean the area herself by hosing
it down.
10. Public Health expressed concern that the incomplete cleanup of the sewage effluent could
present a health hazard and requested that the city ensure that the landlord take
appropriate steps to remove the remaining contamination and sanitize the affected areas.
OSBY-2025-1092 Appeal Brief of the Respondent – City of Owen Sound,
page 19
Inspection by the Property Standards Officer
11. Following receipt of the complaint, Property Standards Officer attended the property on
January 9, 2026, to conduct an inspection. Consent to enter the dwelling was obtained
from the tenant, and the officer inspected the basement and exterior portions of the
property.
12. During the inspection, the officer observed that the basement floor had not been properly
cleaned or sanitized following the sewage overflow. Dried fecal matter remained visible
in several locations, including near the shower, at the base of the toilet, and within the
storage area. Although portions of the floor appeared to have been rinsed, the officer
determined that the sanitation work had been incomplete and that the basement remained
in an unsanitary condition.
Page 322 of 614
13. The officer further observed that the toilet and shower fixtures in the basement remained
connected to the sewage system even though the water connection had been
disconnected. Water and waste material remained present in the toilet bowl. This
condition posed a risk of leakage and the escape of odours or gases from the sewage
system.
14. The inspection also identified hazards relating to the exterior of the property. The tenant
reported that large pieces of ice had fallen from the roof above the main entrance to the
building. The officer confirmed that the roof above the front porch contained a dangerous
accumulation of snow and ice, and the tenant advised that a piece of ice approximately
five feet long had recently fallen from the roof onto the porch below. Another similarly
sized piece had reportedly fallen onto the driveway. The officer concluded that the
accumulation of snow and ice presented a risk to occupants entering or leaving the
property.
15. Finally, the officer observed that a previously repaired section of the wooden deck at the
front porch had shifted upward and protruded approximately one-half inch above the
surrounding boards. This condition created a tripping hazard immediately in front of the
main entrance to the building.
OSBY-2025-1092 Appeal Brief of the Respondent – City of Owen Sound,
Page 23, 30-32
16. Photographs taken during the inspection confirm the presence of sewage residue in the
basement, the snow and ice, and the protruding deck boards at the entrance to the
property.
OSBY-2025-1092 Appeal Brief of the Respondent – City of Owen Sound,
Page 33-49
Issuance of the Property Standards Order
17. Following the inspection, the City issued Property Standards Order No. OSBY-20251092 on January 20, 2026. The Order required the property owner to remediate the
sewage contamination, repair or disconnect the plumbing fixtures, remove dangerous
snow and ice accumulations, and repair the porch decking so that it no longer created a
tripping hazard.
Page 323 of 614
18. The Order cited several provisions of Property Standards By-law No. 1999-030,
including sections requiring floors to be maintained in a sanitary condition, sewage
facilities to be maintained in good repair, roofs to be free of unsafe materials, exterior
structures to be maintained in good repair, and exterior areas to be kept clear of
dangerous accumulations of snow and ice.
OSBY-2025-1092 Appeal Brief of the Respondent – City of Owen Sound,
Page 50-53
19. The Order required the work to be completed by March 3, 2026; 43 days. This was more
than sufficient time to complete the remedial work or ask for an extension of time.
Notice of Appeal
20. The Appellant subsequently filed a Notice of Appeal alleging that the Order was vague,
excessive, and imposed unreasonable timelines for compliance. The Appellant also raised
concerns that the Order required the use of third-party contractors rather than allowing
work to be completed by the owner’s employees.
21. However, in a letter to Kepler Real Estate Inc., dated January 9, 2026, and prior to the
Order, it stated that,
“An inspection was completed at this property. During the inspection I was informed
that no agent of yours made any attempts to clean or sanitize the floor. At the time
of the inspection, the majority of the floor was free of visible fecal matter due to
the efforts of the tenant to "hose down" the affected area. Dried fecal matter
appeared to be present in the shower, near the base of the toilet, and in the
storage area.
Please provide me with a copy of the invoice or statement from the
agent/contractor indicating that sanitation was completed. If this was in fact
completed, which it does not appear to be, a different contractor should be utilized.
Sanitation must be completed in the basement.”
22. An agent is a person or persons that are hired by the company, company maintenance
staff included, could have given a written statement, indicating that the sanitary issue had
been completed; however, Kepler Real Estate Inc. failed to do so.
Page 324 of 614
23. The Order does not specifically request that the company hire a third-party contractor. It
states that “Once completed, provide a copy of an invoice or statement from the company
contracted to complete the work…” If Kepler Real Estate Inc. hired its own maintenance
staff, the maintenance staff could proceed with a written statement.
24. Further, on the cover email with the Order attached, it clearly outlines that if there were
factors outside of the company’s control and required a reasonable extension, all the
company had to do was advise prior to the due date of compliance. However, Kepler Real
Estate Inc. failed to do so. The letter on January 20, 2026, states:
“As I have not received any further communication from you, attached you will
find a Property Standards Order. The order must be complied with no later than
March 3, 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.”
OSBY-2025-1092 Appeal Brief of the Respondent – City of Owen Sound,
Page 22
25. Instead of working with the city and coming to realistic conclusions and extensions
required, Kepler Real Estate Inc. decided to exercise the right to Appeal on the very last
day of allowance.
PART III – ISSUES
26. The issues before the Property Standards Committee are:
a) Whether the Property Standards Officer had authority under the Building Code
Act, 1992 to issue the Property Standards Order.
b) Whether the Order is sufficiently clear and specific to permit compliance by the
property owner.
c) Whether the remedial measures required by the Order are reasonable and
proportionate to the deficiencies identified during the inspection.
Page 325 of 614
d) Whether the Order should be confirmed, modified, or rescinded pursuant to
section 15.3 of the Building Code Act, 1992.
PART IV – LAW AND ANALYSIS
Agent/Contractor
27. The Appellant appealed the requirement for third-party contractors, submitting that the
sanitation requirement should focus on the outcome of the remediation rather than the
identity of the contractor performing the work. The City’s letter dated January 9, 2026,
issued prior to the Order, states: “Please provide me with a copy of the invoice or
statement from the agent/contractor indicating that sanitation was completed..”
28. If a municipal order specifically uses the term "contractor," the interpretation would
likely turn on whether that term is being used in a technical sense to require an
independent third party, or more broadly to refer to anyone performing the work. The
Municipal Act section 445 and 446 provides that property owners have initial opportunity
to perform required work themselves, with municipal intervention only upon default. The
legislation does not require use of independent third-party contractors.
29. However, in the context of regulatory compliance orders, courts have recognized that
owners may perform work through various means including their own workforce,
provided the work meets the required standards. Municipal enforcement focuses on
ensuring compliance with property standards and building codes rather than prescribing
the employment relationship of those performing the work. Unless the order explicitly
requires an independent contractor or the applicable by-law contains such a restriction, an
owner corporation would generally be entitled to use its own qualified maintenance
employees to perform the ordered remedial work, provided the work is completed to the
required standard within the specified timeframe.
Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, s.445-446
Property Standard Officer Authority
30. Section 15.2(2) of the Building Code Act, 1992 authorizes a property standards officer to
issue an order requiring repairs when property does not conform with the standards
prescribed in a municipal property standards by-law. Once such an order is issued,
Page 326 of 614
section 15.3 provides that the property owner may appeal the order to the Property
Standards Committee. On appeal, the Committee has the power to confirm, modify, or
rescind the order and may extend the time for compliance where appropriate.
31. The Order issued in this case falls squarely within the authority granted to the City under
the Act. The inspection conducted by the Property Standards Officer identified several
conditions that clearly contravened the City’s Property Standards By-law. The presence
of sewage contamination in the basement constituted a violation of the requirement that
floors and sanitary facilities be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition. The
continued connection of the unused toilet and shower to the sewage system without
proper repair or disconnection contravened the by-law provisions governing sewage
facilities. The accumulation of snow and ice above the main entrance created a danger to
occupants and therefore violated the requirement that roofs and exterior areas be free
from unsafe conditions. Finally, the protruding porch boards created a tripping hazard in
violation of the by-law requirement that exterior structures be maintained in good repair.
Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 23, s.15.2
Appellant Argues Issues with the Order
32. The Appellant’s assertion that the Order is vague cannot be sustained when the wording
of the Order is considered alongside the inspection findings. The Order identifies the
specific deficiencies observed during the inspection and states the corrective work
required to address each deficiency. It cites the relevant by-law provisions and provides a
deadline for compliance. These elements satisfy the requirements set out in the Building
Code Act for a valid property standards order.
Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 23, s.15.2
33. Similarly, the Appellant’s argument that the Order is excessive is not supported by the
evidence. The Order does not require discretionary upgrades or aesthetic improvements
to the property. Instead, it requires remediation of sewage contamination, repair or
disconnection of plumbing fixtures, removal of dangerous snow and ice accumulations,
and repair of a tripping hazard at the main entrance. Each of these measures is directly
connected to a health or safety risk identified during the inspection.
Page 327 of 614
34. An argument that a property standards order is excessive will not succeed where the order
requires remediation of genuine health and safety hazards rather than discretionary
aesthetic improvements. Orders requiring sewage contamination remediation, plumbing
fixture repairs, removal of dangerous snow and ice, and repair of tripping hazards are
squarely within the remedial scope of property standards legislation when directly
connected to identified health and safety risks.
35. An order requiring cleanup of sewage contamination and fecal matter is directly
connected to eliminating an identified health and safety risk and is not an aesthetic
improvement or discretionary upgrade. Such orders are remedial in nature and address
the core health and safety objectives of the Building Code, which include limiting the
probability that persons will be exposed to an unacceptable risk of illness due to
hazardous substances and inadequate indoor air quality.
36. In light of these factors, there is no basis for rescinding the Order.
PART V – RELIEF SOUGHT
37. The Respondent, the City of Owen Sound, respectfully requests that the Property
Standards Committee:
a) Confirm Property Standards Order No. OSBY-2025-1092; 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 328 of 614
Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25
Work order
445 (1) If a municipality is satisfied that a contravention of a by-law of the municipality
passed under this Act has occurred, the municipality may make an order requiring
the person who contravened the by-law or who caused or permitted the
contravention or the owner or occupier of the land on which the contravention
occurred to do work to correct the contravention. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 184; 2009,
c. 33, Sched. 21, s. 6 (38).
Same
(2) An order under subsection (1) shall set out,
(a) reasonable particulars of the contravention adequate to identify the
contravention and the location of the land on which the contravention occurred;
and
(b) the work to be done and the date by which the work must be done. 2006,
c. 32, Sched. A, s. 184.
Same
(3) An order under subsection (1) may require work to be done even though the facts
which constitute the contravention of the by-law were present before the by-law
making them a contravention came into force. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 184.
Offence
(4) A by-law under section 425 may provide that any person who contravenes an
order under subsection (1) is guilty of an offence. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 184.
Section Amendments with date in force (d/m/y)
Remedial action
446 (1) If a municipality has the authority under this or any other Act or under a bylaw under this or any other Act to direct or require a person to do a matter or thing,
the municipality may also provide that, in default of it being done by the person
directed or required to do it, the matter or thing shall be done at the person’s
expense. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 184.
Page 329 of 614
Entry upon land
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the municipality may enter upon land at any
reasonable time. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 184.
Recovery of costs
(3) The municipality may recover the costs of doing a matter or thing under
subsection (1) from the person directed or required to do it by action or by adding
the costs to the tax roll and collecting them in the same manner as property
taxes. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 184.
Costs added to tax roll
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), a local municipality shall, upon the request of
its upper-tier municipality, add the costs of the upper-tier municipality to the tax
roll. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 184.
Interest
(5) The costs include interest calculated at a rate of 15 per cent or such lesser rate as
may be determined by the municipality, calculated for the period commencing on
the day the municipality incurs the costs and ending on the day the costs, including
the interest, are paid in full. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 184.
Lien for costs
(6) The amount of the costs, including interest, constitutes a lien on the land upon
the registration in the proper land registry office of a notice of lien. 2006, c. 32,
Sched. A, s. 184.
Same
(7) The lien is in respect of all costs that are payable at the time the notice is registered
plus interest accrued at the rate established under subsection (5) to the date the
payment is made. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 184.
Effect of payment
(8) Upon receiving payment of all costs payable plus interest accrued to the date of
payment, the municipality shall register a discharge of the lien in the proper land
registry office. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 184.
Page 330 of 614
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.
Page 331 of 614
Case Number OSBY-2025-1092
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 332 of 614
Case Number OSBY-2025-1092
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
1035 2nd Avenue West
Owen Sound, Ontario N4K 4M9
DEE COURTNEY
Page 333 of 614
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Dee Courtney
Clerks
Sub Standard Conditions at 1035 2nd Avenue West
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 3:18:20 PM
Warning: Unusual sender
You don't usually receive emails from this address. Make sure you trust this sender before
taking any actions.
Ms, Landry,
I have spoken with Brianna Bloomfield and she has explained that I sent the email to the
wrong address. My apologies. I will try again.
These are photo's of the basement on December 12-16 th 2025.
Thank you,
Dee-Anna
Courtney
Page 334 of 614
Page 335 of 614
Page 336 of 614
Page 337 of 614
Page 338 of 614
Page 339 of 614
Page 340 of 614
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Dee Courtney
Clerks
Condition of front porch
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 3:35:49 PM
Warning: Unusual sender
You don't usually receive emails from this address. Make sure you trust this sender before
taking any actions.
Ms. Landry,
These photo's show the ice build up, the dangerous icicles hanging directly above the entrance,
the large ice chunks that came off the roof this spring and the damage done. Included is a
photo of the repairs done to the porch following the removal of the veranda roof. The boards
are raised and a tripping hazard.
Page 341 of 614
Page 342 of 614
Page 343 of 614
Page 344 of 614
Page 345 of 614
Page 346 of 614
Page 347 of 614
Page 348 of 614
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Dee Courtney
Staci Landry
Re: Sub Standard Conditions at 1035 2nd Avenue West
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 4:10:53 PM
image001.png
Warning: Unusual sender
You don't usually receive emails from this address. Make sure you trust this sender before
taking any actions.
Attached below are the emails between myself and Customer Service Team at Kepler
Investments. Dates and times are shown.
Thank you again,
Dee-Anna
Courtney
Page 349 of 614
Page 350 of 614
Page 351 of 614
Page 352 of 614
Page 353 of 614
Page 354 of 614
Page 355 of 614
Page 356 of 614
Page 357 of 614
Page 358 of 614
Page 359 of 614
Page 360 of 614
Page 361 of 614
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Dee Courtney
Staci Landry
Clerks
Condition at 1035 2nd Avenue West
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 4:19:20 PM
Warning: Unusual sender
You don't usually receive emails from this address. Make sure you trust this sender before
taking any actions.
Ms. Landry,
This email contains communication between myself and Robert Reid from the Grey Bruce
Health Unit.
Thank you,
Dee-Anna Courtney
Page 362 of 614
Page 363 of 614
Page 364 of 614
Page 365 of 614
APPEAL OF PROPERTY STANDARDS
ORDER #OSBY-2025-1092
Property: 1035 2nd Ave W, Owen Sound
Appellant: Kepler Real Estate Inc.
Page 366 of 614
TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR DISCLOSURE
TAB A: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE APPELLANT’S POSITION
TAB A1: NOTABLE COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING ON
MARCH 3, 2026
TAB A2: THE COMMITTEE'S POWERS TO RESCIND ORDERS
TAB A3: APPEAL ANALYSIS (SNOW AND ICE ACCUMULATION)
TAB B: EVIDENCE ANALYSIS (SEWAGE SYSTEM)
●
●
●
●
Exhibit B-1: GREY BRUCE PLUMBING INVOICE
Exhibit B-2: GREY BRUCE PLUMBING SERVICE NOTES 1
Exhibit B-3 GREY BRUCE PLUMBING SERVICE NOTES 2
Exhibit B-4: ADDENDUM: INACCURATE INSPECTION AND FACTUAL ERRORS
TAB C: APPEAL ANALYSIS (PORCH DECK BOARDS)
TAB D:ANALYSIS OF OFFICER COMMUNICATIONS (EMAIL DATED JAN 9, 2026)
● Exhibit D-1: EMAIL FROM OFFICER BRUGESS JAN 9, 2026
TAB E: ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC HEALTH COMMUNICATION
● Exhibit E-1: EMAIL FROM PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICER ROBERT REID DEC 18, 2026
TAB F: ANALYSIS OF BYLAW MISAPPLICATION
TAB G: LEGAL PRECEDENT- OOSTHOEK V. THUNDER BAY (CITY)
APPENDIX 1: CASE LAW: OOSTHOEK V. THUNDER BAY (CITY)
APPENDIX 2; EMAIL CONFIRMING CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY FOR THE BACKUP
APPENDIX 3: PROPERTY STANDARDS MINUTES
Page 367 of 614
TAB A
Page 368 of 614
TAB A: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: APPEAL OF PROPERTY STANDARDS
ORDER
Kepler Real Estate Inc. requests the complete rescission of Order #OSBY-2025-1092. This
appeal is based on demonstrable factual errors by the Property Standards Officer, the improper
shifting of municipal infrastructure liability onto a private owner, and a fundamental
misapplication of By-law 1999-030.
1. SEWAGE & SANITATION (Items 1 & 2) – Municipal Infrastructure Failure
● Professional plumbing reports prove the sewage backup was caused by a blockage
104-105 feet away from the property, located in the middle of the road inline with City
manholes.
● Legal Precedent (Oosthoek v. Thunder Bay): A municipality is liable for nuisances
caused by its sewer system. The City cannot cite an owner for a "violation" caused by a
failure of the City's own infrastructure.
2. SNOW ON ROOF (Item 3) – Transient Conditions vs. Illegal Upgrades
● Snow and ice are transient weather events, not permanent structural defects. By the
time of the hearing, the "violation" will have naturally abated.
● The Officer is using a maintenance standard to demand capital structural upgrades (attic
insulation/ventilation and ice guards). A Property Standards Order cannot mandate
retrofitting a building to modern standards if it was compliant when built.
● Citing "loose objects and materials" (Sec 2.4.2.2) to regulate snow is a distortion of the
by-law’s intent.
3. PORCH DECK (Item 4) – The "De Minimis" (Trifle) Argument
● The cited tripping hazard is a 1/2 inch protrusion caused by natural seasonal expansion
of wooden materials.
● Upholding a formal legal Order and a $220 processing fee for a 1/2 inch board is a
disproportionate and punitive use of municipal power. This is a minor maintenance item,
not a hazard.
Administrative and Procedural Issues
● The enforcement action was triggered by hearsay from a tenant and a Public Health
email rather than an objective, independent discovery of a structural deficiency.
● Ordering "other appropriate steps" for the roof offers no clear standard for compliance,
setting the owner up for inevitable failure based on the subjective satisfaction of the
Officer.
Page 369 of 614
TAB A1
Page 370 of 614
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 371 of 614
TAB A2
Page 372 of 614
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 373 of 614
TAB A3
Page 374 of 614
TAB A3: APPEAL ANALYSIS (SNOW & ICE ACCUMULATION)
MUNICIPAL JURISDICTION AND SEASONALITY
The Appellant contests the inclusion of Item 3 in a Property Standards Order issued under
By-law 1999-030 and the Building Code Act.
Nature of the Violation
● Snow and ice accumulation is a seasonal, transient weather event. It is not a permanent
structural defect or a failure of building materials.
● By the time a Property Standards Committee hearing is convened, the specific ice
accumulation cited (January 2026) will have naturally abated. An order to remove
something that no longer exists is legally moot and unenforceable.
● Matters of maintenance regarding snow and ice are typically governed by separate
municipal maintenance by-laws (e.g., Snow Removal By-laws) rather than Property
Standards. Property Standards are intended to ensure the long-term physical integrity
and safety of the built environment, not to regulate day-to-day weather-related
maintenance.
Committee Precedent
Here is a quote from committee member Brain Green: “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.”
Including it in a formal Order creates an unnecessary administrative burden for a temporary
condition.
EXCEEDING SCOPE OF AUTHORITY (UPGRADES VS. REPAIR)
The "Work Required to Comply" section of the Order directs the owner as follows:
Steps should be taken to prevent ice dams from forming, including improving
insulation and ventilation in the attic/roof, installing ice guards on the roof to prevent
them from falling, or other appropriate steps
Distinction Between Maintenance and Capital Improvement
Page 375 of 614
● A Property Standards Order may require a property to be maintained in good repair to a
specific standard. However, it does not grant an officer the authority to mandate capital
improvements or structural upgrades to a building that was constructed in compliance
with the Building Code at the time of its erection.
● Improving insulation or altering attic ventilation systems are structural retrofits. Unless
the existing insulation is physically damaged or failing, the City cannot use a
maintenance by-law to force a property owner to meet modern energy or ventilation
standards that were not required when the building was built.
● The installation of ice guards is a specific structural addition. Requiring the installation of
new equipment/hardware constitutes an upgrade rather than maintenance of existing
appurtenances.
Lack of Standardized Specifics
● The Order provides suggestions for "steps [that] should be taken" but does not define
the standard to which these improvements must be made. This leaves the owner in a
position of uncertainty regarding what constitutes "satisfaction of the Property Standards
Officer," which is a violation of the principles of administrative fairness.
PROCEDURAL INVALIDITY
Lack of Finality
● A Property Standards Order must have a defined completion date where compliance is
achieved and the matter is closed. By ordering "consistent removal... throughout the
winter months," the Officer is attempting to use the Building Code Act to create an
ongoing monitoring regime rather than a one-time remedial action.
● Ongoing maintenance behavior is an enforcement issue for general by-laws, not the
Property Standards Committee, which is tasked with adjudicating the physical state of a
property at a specific point in time.
The "Mootness" and "Seasonal" Nature
Regarding the snow itself, the Building Code Act aims to balance society's interests with a
property owner's rights.
● Since the hearing is in April, there is no dangerous accumulation left to remediate. Any
order requiring "consistent removal" throughout the winter months is an interim
operational order, not a permanent property standards repair.
● While one may have a Duty of Care under the Occupiers' Liability Act to keep
pedestrians safe from falling ice, that is a civil liability issue, not necessarily a Property
Standards violation if the roof itself is in "good repair".
Page 376 of 614
TAB B
Page 377 of 614
TAB B: EVIDENCE ANALYSIS - (SEWAGE SYSTEM)
PRIMARY ARGUMENT: MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE FAILURE
The Appellant contests the validity of Items 1 and 2 of the Order. The sewage backup cited by
the City was caused by a blockage located within the City of Owen Sound’s infrastructure, not
the private property’s plumbing system.
Expert Findings (Grey-Bruce Plumbing Ltd.)
As per the attached Invoice (see Exhibit B-1) and Work Orders (see Exhibit B-2 and B-3),
professional plumbers investigated the backup on December 11th and 12th, 2025. Their findings
conclude:
● The blockage was located 104 to 105 feet out from the clean-out.
● The blockage was found 2.8 meters deep at a point "just before it ties into the city
sewer". The "middle of the road" is indisputably municipal property.
● While wet wipes were pulled back, the visual inspection found a "build up of grease" just
before the city tie-in. This indicates a restriction in the main municipal line or at the
junction, which is the City's responsibility to maintain.
● The City has not provided evidence to support any assertion that the items causing the
backup originated at the subject address. Debris may have originated from another
property on the street.
Jurisdictional Responsibility
● Standard municipal practice dictates that the property owner is responsible for the lateral
line up to the property boundary. A blockage located 104 feet away, in the middle of a
public road and inline with municipal manholes, is clearly within the City’s area of
responsibility.
● The fecal matter and effluent cited in the Property Standards Order (Item 1) were the
direct result of this municipal-side blockage forcing sewage back into the building.
REBUTTAL OF NON-CONFORMITY (ITEMS 1 & 2)
Sanitation Remediation (Item 1)
● The Order requires "proper sewage effluent remediation" based on an overflow.
● Since the overflow was caused by the City's failure to maintain the sewer main (as
evidenced by the 105ft distance to the blockage), the City should be responsible for the
costs of remediation, or at the very least, cannot cite the owner for a violation caused by
external municipal factors.
Requirement to "Cap" Facilities (Item 2)
Page 378 of 614
● The Order suggests the unused toilet and shower must be repaired or closed off,
disconnected, and capped per By-law Section 2.5.3.1.
● Section 2.5.3.1 of By-law 1999-030 applies "where sewage facilities cease to be
required." These facilities are in a basement bathroom; they have not ceased to be
required, they simply were not in active use at the moment of the backup.
● Furthermore, the presence of a backup 105 feet away proves that the sewage system
itself was at fault, not the internal fixtures. Capping a fixture does not prevent a municipal
main from backing up into a basement if the blockage is in the street
Page 379 of 614
Exhibit B-1
GREY BRUCE PLUMBING INVOICE
Page 380 of 614
GREY-BRUCE PLUMBING LTD.
1855 17th St E
Owen Sound ON N4K 0G6
(519) 376-7473
service@greybruceplumbing.ca
GST/HST Registration No.: 779468289 RT0001
INVOICE
BILL TO
SHIP TO
INVOICE
189087
Kepler Real Estate Inc.
Kepler Real Estate Inc.
SHIP DATE
2025-12-11
DATE
2025-12-16
Alicia Gillespie
43363 Sparta Line
1035 2nd Ave W
Owen Sound ON N4K 4N1
TERMS
DUE DATE
Net 10
2025-12-26
St. Thomas ON N5P 3S8
JOB#
244189
ITEM / DESCRIPTION
QTY
RATE
AMOUNT
Residential Service Call Charge - (1/2 hr on-site)
1
190.00
190.00
Residential Plumbing - Standard Labour Rate
2.25
165.00
371.25
LARGE DRAIN AUGER, EQUIPMENT CHARGE
1
90.00
90.00
DRAIN CAMERA, EQUIPMENT CHARGE
1
150.00
150.00
MATERIALS USED
1
82.95
82.95
Service call for a sewer back up. Entrance to the basement was blocked by a box
spring. Cut clean-out into 3" pipe stack to inspect with the camera. Located the
blockage 104ft out, located in the middle of the road inline with the manholes. 2.8m
deep. Unable to proceed without locates and access to basement with the
equipment.
Returned December 12th - Augered main drain from the clean-out in the basement,
cleared the blockage at 105 feet. Pulled back some wet wipes, visually inspected
the main and found a build up of grease just before it ties into the city sewer. Was
able to remove more of the grease and pushed the chunks to the sewer. Tested
drain and it is flowing good.
Thank you for your business.
Payment by E-transfer to finance@greybruceplumbing.ca is
preferred.
SUBTOTAL
884.20
HST (ON) @ 13%
114.94
TOTAL
999.14
BALANCE DUE
Page 1 of 1
$999.14
Page 381 of 614
Exhibit B-2:
GREY BRUCE PLUMBING SERVICE NOTES 1
Page 382 of 614
Page 383 of 614
Exhibit B-3:
GREY BRUCE PLUMBING SERVICE NOTES 2
Page 384 of 614
Page 385 of 614
EXHIBIT B-4: ADDENDUM - INACCURATE INSPECTION & FACTUAL
ERRORS
FACTUAL ERROR REGARDING SHOWER FUNCTIONALITY
The Appellant contests the Officer’s findings in Item 2 of the Order, which states:
"The unused toilet and shower in this bathroom remain connected to the sewage
system. The water connection has been disconnected."
Lack of Testing
● The Property Standards Officer failed to perform a basic functional test of the shower
during the inspection.
● The shower is, and was at the time of inspection, fully connected to the water supply and
is in working order. The water has not been disconnected to the shower.
● It is the responsibility of the Officer to verify a deficiency before ordering its removal or
capping. Issuing an Order based on a visual assumption rather than a functional test
constitutes a failure of due diligence.
PROCEDURAL UNFAIRNESS
Improper Application of Section 2.5.3.1
● The Order cites Section 2.5.3.1, which requires capping "where sewage facilities cease
to be required."
● Because the shower is fully functional and connected to water, it has clearly not "ceased
to be required." The Officer’s incorrect assumption that the water was disconnected led
to the improper application of this by-law section.
● This factual error, combined with the failure to recognize that the backup was caused by
City infrastructure (as proven in Exhibit 2), suggests an incomplete inspection process.
The Demand for Private Invoices
The Officer demanded an "invoice from the contractor" for the cleaning.
● Under the Building Code Act, an officer has the right to inspect a physical condition.
They do not have the statutory authority to audit an owner’s private financial records or
demand invoices for cleaning services as a condition of compliance.
● Demanding an invoice is not a regulatory requirement. The property is either clean or it
is not. The cost or the identity of the contractor is irrelevant to the Property Standards
By-law.
Page 386 of 614
● As mentioned in our appeal documentation, requiring a third-party invoice interferes with
our lawful rights and interests, as this act bars and prohibits us from using our own
salaried staff to achieve compliance.
Page 387 of 614
TAB C
Page 388 of 614
TAB C: APPEAL ANALYSIS - (PORCH DECK BOARDS)
THE "DE MINIMIS" ARGUMENT (TRIFLES)
The Appellant contests Item 4, which cites a 1/2 inch protrusion in a wooden deck board as a
tripping hazard under Section 2.4.4.1, which states:
All exterior stairs, balconies, verandas, porches and every other similar outside
appurtenance of a building shall be maintained in good repair
Material Characteristics
● Wooden exterior appurtenances are subject to environmental factors, including moisture
and temperature fluctuations. A 1/2 inch variance is a common occurrence in aged
wooden structures and does not represent a failure of good repair.
● A 1/2 inch protrusion does not meet the reasonable threshold of a dangerous condition
or a hazard in an outdoor porch setting. Most standard door thresholds and sidewalk
transitions exceed this height without being classified as municipal violations.
REASONABLENESS AND PROPORTIONALITY
The issuance of a formal Property Standards Order is a significant legal action that triggers
administrative fees, potential re-inspection fees, and the threat of massive fines (up to $500,000
for corporations).
Disproportionate Enforcement
●
As demonstrated in Tab A and Tab B, the primary justifications for this Order (Snow/Ice
and Sewage) are either legally moot, the City’s own responsibility, or factually incorrect.
● If the major items are removed—as they should be based on the evidence—Item 4
remains as the sole violation. Validating a full Property Standards Order and its
associated fees over a single 1/2 inch board protrusion is a disproportionate use of
municipal power.
● It is an inefficient use of the Committee’s and the City’s resources to uphold a legal
Order for a minor maintenance item that could have been handled through a simple
conversation or a courtesy letter rather than a quasi-judicial notice.
Page 389 of 614
TAB D
Page 390 of 614
TAB D: ANALYSIS OF OFFICER COMMUNICATIONS (EMAIL DATED
JAN 9, 2026)
ADMISSION OF CLEANLINESS
In the email dated January 9, 2026 (see Exhibit D-1) Officer Riley Brugess admits:
"...at the time of the inspection, the majority of the floor was free of visible fecal
matter due to the efforts of the tenant to 'hose down' the affected area."
Contradiction of the Order
● Item 1 of the Order claims "Dried fecal matter appears to be present."
● The Officer's email acknowledges the tenant had already cleaned the area. The use of
the word “majority” in his quote was a pleonasm or stylistic tic. His sentence intends to
convey that the floor was “free of visible fecal matter” because the tenant thoroughly
cleaned it to their already high standard and satisfaction.
● If the floor was "free of visible fecal matter," the property was in compliance with the
requirement for a "clean and sanitary condition" at the time of inspection. The Officer is
basing the Order on historical conditions (the backup itself) rather than the state of the
property during the inspection.
RELIANCE ON HEARSAY VS. INSPECTION
The Officer states:
"During the inspection I was informed that no agent of yours made any attempts to
clean or sanitize the floor."
Improper Basis for a Legal Order
● The Officer is basing an up-to-$500,000 potential penalty on what he was informed by an
unnamed party (presumably the tenant), not on his own objective findings.
● Property Standards Officers are tasked with inspecting the physical state of a building.
They do not have the authority to adjudicate who performed the cleaning (owner vs.
tenant) as long as the standard is met. If the tenant cleaned it, the standard was met.
PROCEDURAL PREJUDICE: THE "1/2 INCH" DECK BOARD
The Officer notes in the email:
"This [the protruding board] was not observed during the previous inspection on
October 30, 2025."
Page 391 of 614
This admission confirms that the deck was in compliance just weeks prior. The 1/2 inch shift is
clearly a result of the onset of winter weather and moisture (seasonal material changes),
reinforcing the Appellant’s argument here in Exhibit 3 that this is a "trifle" caused by natural
material expansion and not a lack of maintenance.
Page 392 of 614
Exhibit D-1:
EMAIL FROM OFFICER BRUGESS JAN 9, 2026
Page 393 of 614
Page 394 of 614
TAB E
Page 395 of 614
TAB E: ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC HEALTH COMMUNICATION
RELIANCE ON MULTI-LEVEL HEARSAY
The email from Robert Reid (Grey Bruce Public Health) dated December 18, 2025, (see Exhibit
E-1) serves as the catalyst for this Order. A review of the text reveals it is entirely based on
hearsay:
● The Inspector writes: "Apparently a toilet... overflowed... the tenant indicated that the
plumbers advised her..."
● There is no evidence in the email that the Public Health Inspector actually visited the site
to verify the existence of a hazard before requesting By-law intervention.
● The City is acting on a report from Public Health, which is acting on a report from a
tenant, who is paraphrasing a plumber.
MISCHARACTERIZATION OF THE PLUMBER'S FINDINGS
● The email suggests the landlord "did not clean up the effluent."
● As proven by the plumbing invoice, the blockage was located 104 feet away in the City
street. Any "incomplete remediation" was a result of an ongoing City-side infrastructure
failure that the landlord was actively paying a professional to solve.
IMPROPRIETY OF THE ORDER
● The Public Health email "requests that Owen Sound By-Law... keep us informed." This
suggests the Property Standards Order was used as a tool for one agency to satisfy
another's administrative file, rather than to address a verified, permanent structural
deficiency.
● Public Health cites the tenant's "reasonable enjoyment." This is a Landlord and Tenant
Board (LTB) matter, not a Property Standards matter. Property Standards is concerned
with building integrity and safety, not civil disputes between tenants and landlords
regarding the "enjoyment" of a unit.
Page 396 of 614
Exhibit E-1:
EMAIL FROM PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICER ROBERT
REID DEC 18, 2026
Page 397 of 614
Page 398 of 614
TAB F
Page 399 of 614
TAB F: ANALYSIS OF BY-LAW MISAPPLICATION
MISAPPLICATION RE: SEWAGE (SECTION 2.5.3.1)
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”
● This section is intended for abandoned buildings or rooms where plumbing is being
permanently removed from service. It is not intended to force the decommissioning of
active bathroom facilities.
● While the toilet is currently disconnected, the shower in the basement bathroom is fully
functional and connected to the water supply.
MISAPPLICATION RE: SNOW AS "OBJECTS/MATERIALS" (SECTION 2.4.2.2)
2.4.2.2
A roof of a building shall be free from loose or unsecured or unsafe objects and materials.
● Snow and ice are transient weather elements.
● In the context of property standards, "objects and materials" refers to physical debris,
abandoned equipment, or structural components (like loose shingles).
● If the City intended for roof snow removal to be a Property Standard, it would be
explicitly listed. Citing a section meant for "loose objects" to demand the shoveling of a
roof is a stretch of the definition that exceeds the legislative intent.
MISAPPLICATION RE: STRUCTURAL UPGRADES (SECTIONS 2.5.7.4 & 3.2.9.2)
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.
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
Page 400 of 614
of ice and snow.
● These sections are maintenance standards (shoveling/salting). The Officer is using them
to demand structural retrofits (attic insulation/ventilation).
● A Property Standards Order must address a deficiency. It is not intended to force
expensive upgrades that were not required when the building was constructed.
Page 401 of 614
TAB G
Page 402 of 614
TAB G: LEGAL PRECEDENT - OOSTHOEK V. THUNDER BAY (CITY)
CASE SUMMARY: OOSTHOEK V. THUNDER BAY (CITY)
Oosthoek v. Thunder Bay (City) [1996], 30 O.R. (3d) 323 (C.A.) is a landmark Ontario Court of
Appeal decision regarding municipal liability for sewer backups.
The Ruling
The Court of Appeal held that a municipality can be held liable in nuisance for damages
resulting from a sewage backup caused by a blockage or failure in the municipal sewer system.
The court established that the "collection and transmission of sewage" is a potential nuisance if
it escapes and causes damage to private property.
Relevant Findings
● The court found that the backup of sewage into a private residence constitutes a
"substantial and unreasonable interference" with the use and enjoyment of land.
● Municipalities have a duty to maintain their infrastructure in a state that prevents the
escape of sewage into private dwellings.
APPLICABILITY TO THE CURRENT APPEAL
The Appellant submits that the principles in Oosthoek are directly applicable to the incident at
1035 2nd Ave W.
Direct Causality
● As established in Exhibit 2, the blockage was located 104-105 feet from the property,
directly under the municipal roadway and inline with City manholes.
● Under the Oosthoek precedent, the "nuisance" (the sewage backup) originated from the
City's infrastructure. Consequently, the legal and financial responsibility for the resulting
damage—including the sanitation of the basement—rests with the City of Owen Sound.
Improper Use of Property Standards
● By issuing a Property Standards Order for "remediation" and "sanitation" (Item 1), the
City is attempting to use administrative law to force the property owner to bear the costs
of a nuisance created by the City.
● If the City is liable for the damage under Oosthoek, it is legally incoherent for the City to
then cite the property owner for a "violation" caused by that same damage. You cannot
be "in violation" of a standard because of an external force for which the City is legally
responsible.
Page 403 of 614
CONCLUSION
Based on Oosthoek v. Thunder Bay, the City of Owen Sound is the party responsible for the
escape of sewage into the Appellant's building. The Appellant requests that the Committee
recognize this legal reality and:
1. Rescind Items 1 and 2, as the "violation" was a municipal nuisance.
2. Acknowledge that the landlord's efforts to clear the line (despite the blockage being 104
feet away) and the tenant's efforts to clean the area went above and beyond their legal
obligations under the Building Code Act.
Legal Reference: Oosthoek v. Thunder Bay (City), 1996 CanLII 1234 (ON CA).
Page 404 of 614
APPENDIX 1
Page 405 of 614
Oosthoek v. Thunder Bay (City), 1996 CanLII 1530 (ON CA)
Source:
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Date:
1996-09-27
File number:
c24477; C24478; C20340; C24479
Other citations:
30 OR (3d) 323 — 139 DLR (4th) 611 — 93 OAC 131 —
21 CELR (NS) (2d) 77 — [1996] CarswellOnt 3513 —
[1996] OJ No 3318 (QL) — 29 CLR (2d) 157 —
34 MPLR (2d) 81
Citation:
Oosthoek v. Thunder Bay (City), 1996 CanLII 1530 (ON CA),
<https://canlii.ca/t/6j2f>, retrieved on 2026-03-23
Oosthoek et al. v. Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay
Nadeau v. Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay
Bennett et al. v. Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay
Edwards et al. v. Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay
[Indexed as: Oosthoek v. Thunder Bay (City)]
30 O.R. (3d) 323
[1996] O.J. No. 3318
Nos. C24478, C24477, C20340 and C24479
Court of Appeal for Ontario,
Catzman, Carthy and Laskin JJ.A.
September 27, 1996
* Application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed with costs September
26, 1997 (La Forest, Gonthier and Major JJ.).
Torts -- Negligence -- Public authorities -- Municipal liability -- Combined sanitary and storm sewer
backing up and causing basement flooding -- Municipality aware that connection of rainwater
leaders from houses to sewers contributing to cause of flooding -- Municipality failing to enforce bylaw requiring disconnection of rainwater leaders -- No explanation for failure to enforce by-law -Municipality liable for negligence.
Page 406 of 614
Torts -- Nuisance -- Private nuisance -- Defences -- Statutory authority -- Inevitable consequences -Municipality constructing combined sanitary and storm sewers -- Basements flooding during heavy
storm -- Defence of statutory authority not available if damages not inevitable consequences of
construction.
Torts -- Nuisance -- Private nuisance -- Defences -- Statutory authority -- Inevitable consequences -Onus of proof -- Water mains breaking and causing basement flooding -- Municipality failing to
disprove that mains installed without negligence -- Municipality failing to establish inevitable
consequences to base defence of statutory authority.
Four claimants sued the City of Thunder Bay in test cases. The claims of O and N related to flood
damage during a heavy rainstorm in June 1991 from a backup in combined sanitary and storm
sewers constructed by the former City of Fort William in 1907 and 1925. The problem of basement
flooding had been identified in a 1965 engineering report prepared for the City of Fort William. The
report noted that the City's paving program and new development eliminated absorptive soils and
increased the water movement to the sewers. It also noted that rainwater leaders on homes were a
contributing factor. The report recommended, among other things, the construction of storm relief
sewers and the disconnection of rainwater leaders. The recommendations were repeated in a 1970
study. A 1987 study noted some progress in reducing flooding by a sewer separation program but
also that a considerable area still needed remedial measures estimated to cost $7.75 million.
The trial judge found that the City had not completed the sewer separation program for lack of funds.
He found the City acted on the recommendation about rainwater leaders in 1985 when it passed a
by-law directing disconnection and prohibiting further connection. The City, however made no effort
to enforce the by-law and its inactivity was unexplained. The trial judge found that the ongoing
connection of the rainwater leaders was an effective cause of the overloading that caused the June
1991 flooding and that the City was liable in negligence for its failure to enforce the by-law. The trial
judge also found the City liable in nuisance and found against the defence of statutory authority
because the flooding was not the inevitable consequence of the construction of the two sewers based
on the state of knowledge at the time of construction.
The claims of E and B related to waterpipe failures from corroding iron pipes. The water main that
burst to flood the Es' basement was installed in 1909 with a latent defect that should have been
discovered at the factory. The trial judge found the City liable in nuisance.
The water main that burst to flood B's basement had been installed in 1956 with provincial approval
of the location and manner of installation. The main likely burst because of the action of ground frost
on the brittle cast iron pipe. The trial judge found the City liable in nuisance to B and refused to find
inevitable consequences because the City did not meet the onus of showing that the incident did not
arise from improper installation. The City appealed.
Held, the appeals should be dismissed.
For the O and N claims, the defence of statutory authority is immaterial if the flooding was not the
inevitable consequence of the original construction of the two sewers. Here, the extensive paving of
streets, the increased density of development, the use of rainwater leaders and weeping tiles
contributed to the flooding. These fresh circumstances did not relate back to the original construction.
There was no basis in this case for a finding of inevitable consequences from the original
construction, and the trial judge was correct in finding the City liable for damages for nuisance. As to
the claim in negligence, the potential for flooding was known and yet the municipality failed to
Page 407 of 614
follow through with enforcement of the by-law. There was no evidence that a considered policy
decision not to enforce the by-law was made by the City; there was no evidence that any
consideration was given, and there was thus the basis for a successful claim in negligence.
In the E case, the cause of the burst was a flawed pipe for which the City was not responsible.
Nonetheless, it is not the expected consequence of any municipal water system that its components
will be flawed and cause damage, and the City was liable in nuisance.
In the B case, it was appropriate to place the burden of disproving that the flooding did not arise from
improper installation on the City. It must be remembered that this was a common law nuisance and
that protection from liability for its consequences must be strictly limited. Otherwise, there is no
monetary incentive for conduct which minimizes risk of damage to others.
Appeals from a judgment of Kurisko J. (1995), 24 M.P.L.R. (2d) 25 (Gen. Div.), for the plaintiffs in
actions for damages for negligence or nuisance.
Cases referred to Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, [1977] 2 All E.R. 492, [1978] A.C.
728, 141 J.P. 526, [1977] 2 W.L.R. 1024, 121 Sol. Jo. 377, 75 L.G.R. 335 (H.L.); Kamloops (City)
v. Nielsen, 1984 CanLII 21 (SCC), [1984] 2 S.C.R. 2, 10 D.L.R. (4th) 641, 29 C.C.L.T. 97, 26
M.P.L.R. 81, [1984] 5 W.W.R. 1, 66 B.C.L.R. 273, 54 N.R. 1; Manchester Corp. v. Farnworth,
[1930] A.C. 171, [1929] All E.R. Rep. 90, 99 L.J.K.B. 83, 94 J.P. 62, 46 T.L.R. 85, 73 Sol. Jo. 818,
27 L.G.R. 709, 142 L.T. 145 (H.L.); Tock v. St. John's Metropolitan Area Board, 1989 CanLII 15
(SCC), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1181, 64 D.L.R. (4th) 620, 104 N.R. 241, 1 C.C.L.T. (2d) 113, 47 M.P.L.R.
113, 82 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 81, 257 A.P.R. 181; Toronto (City) v. Polai, 1969 CanLII 339 (ON CA),
[1970] 1 O.R. 483, 8 D.L.R. (3d) 689 (C.A.), affd 1972 CanLII 22 (SCC), [1973] S.C.R. 38, 28
D.L.R. (3d) 638 Statutes referred to Ontario Water Resources Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.40, s. 59
Michael Royce, for appellant.
Brian T. Daly and Laird Scrimshaw, for respondents.
The judgment of the court was delivered by
CARTHY J.A.: -- This is an appeal from a decision concerning the liability of the City of Thunder
Bay (the "City"), in nuisance and in negligence, for damages caused by flooding to the basements of
local residents. Four representative claimants brought the action as a test case and it is the apparent
intention of the parties that the outcome of this case will determine the allocation of responsibility as
between the municipality and the other home-owners involved.
For the purposes of this decision it is necessary to make the following distinction between the
claimants:
The Sewer Cases
The Oosthoek and Nadeau claims relate to damage caused by flooding which occurred during a
heavy rainstorm on June 26, 1991. On that day, approximately 200 basements were flooded, largely
as a result of a backup in the City's sanitary and storm sewers which were constructed by the former
City of Fort William early in this century.
The Water Cases
Page 408 of 614
The claims of the Bennetts and the Edwards relate to various waterpipe failures experienced by the
City in recent years arising out of bursting, leaking or corroding cast iron pipes which were installed
prior to 1970. Many of these problems have resulted in water damage to private property.
After a trial of these four cases, largely based on an agreed statement of facts and documents,
Kurisko J. found the City liable in the sewer cases both in nuisance and negligence and liable in the
water cases in nuisance.
The factual background and issues are comprehensively canvassed in the reasons of the trial judge
reported as Oosthoek v. Thunder Bay (City) (1995), 24 M.P.L.R. (2d) 25. This enables me to repeat
only those facts that are necessary to an understanding of these reasons and to touch upon the issues
only as is necessary to identify a difference of viewpoint or emphasis.
The Sewer Cases
The sewers that caused the problems are combined sewers, that is, they receive both waste water
from homes and storm runoff. The combined sewers that caused the Oosthoek and Nadeau floods
were constructed in 1907 and 1925 respectively. The only notable difference between the two
sewers is that the City was able to document provincial approval for the plans of the Nadeau sewer
pursuant to the then applicable statute, but it could not find similar documentation for the Oosthoek
sewer. This distinction led the trial judge to find statutory authority for the construction of one but not
for the other. As will be indicated later, I do not consider that the issue of statutory authority needs to
be dealt with on the appeal in light of my conclusions with respect to the doctrine of inevitable
consequences. Therefore, I do not elaborate further on the facts or statutory basis for these findings.
It appears that the problem of sewage water flooding into basements was first officially identified in a
1965 engineering report undertaken for the City of Fort William. The report pointed out that flooding
is generally caused by a large volume of water reaching the sewers within a short period of time. The
report also noted that the City's continued paving program and the expansion of the City's drainage
area for new development eliminated absorptive soils and, consequently, increased the quantity of
water and accelerated its movement toward the sewers.
Another contributing factor was that houses had typically been built with rain water leaders, pipes
down the side of a house which direct water from the eavestrough into the house connection and
ultimately to the combined sewer. If those leaders were to be disconnected from the sewer line,
dispersing the water in the yards adjacent to the houses, the surge during a storm would be lessened.
On this basis, the report recommended the construction of storm relief sewers, the disconnection of
rainwater leaders and the consideration of storm drainage requirements prior to the commencement
of a paving program. Those recommendations were repeated in a 1970 study by the same
engineering company.
In a 1987 study conducted by another engineering company for the City it was noted that the sewer
separation program which had been commenced in the 1960s had succeeded in reducing the number
of basement flooding problems but that a considerable area of the City still required remedial
measures. The engineering company estimated the cost of such measures at up to $7.75 million.
The trial judge found that the only reason the City had not completed the sewer separation program
was lack of funds. However, despite the 1965 recommendations concerning the disconnection of the
rainwater leaders, it was not until 1985 that the City passed a by-law directing that rainwater leaders
then installed be disconnected and prohibiting any future connection. The by-law further directed
Page 409 of 614
that weeping tiles be disconnected from the house connection and that no further weeping tiles be
connected to the storm sewer, again to ensure the maximum usage of unpaved areas for absorption of
water during peak flows. The by-law contemplates that disconnections are to be at the cost of the
home-owner and the evidence was that no attempts were made to enforce the by-law despite the fact
that by-law officials recognized, from the outward appearance of homes, that disconnections had not
been made.
With respect to the Oosthoek and Nadeau floods, the trial judge found as follows at p. 42 of his
reasons:
The reason the sewer surcharged and flooded on June 26, 1991 was that the combined sanitary
storm sewer system did not have the capacity to handle the additional water from the rainstorm of
that date. There is no evidence there was any obstruction in any sewer pipe which caused the
backups.
Although the City believes the triggering event that overloaded the combined sewers was the
intensity of the rainfall on June 26, 1991, it does not say the rainfall was a storm of unforeseeable
intensity.
And he further found at pp. 59-60:
The enactment of the rainwater roof leader by-law was a policy decision to regulate the
connection of rainwater leaders to the combined sewers as part of the operation and maintenance
of the sewerage system. In coming to this conclusion, I apply the following words of Wilson J. in
Kamloops:
. . . it is fair to say the City of Kamloops had a statutory power to regulate construction by
by-law. It was in its discretion whether to do so or not. It was, in other words, a "policy
decision."
It is apparent from the Agreed Statement of Facts the rainwater leaders continue to be a cause of
the overloading of the combined sewers [the trial judge then quoted from the agreement as
follows]:
The City acknowledges that the connection of roof leaders allows rainfall immediate and
direct access to the sewer via the house connections and enhances the risk of basement
flooding during high intensity rainfall. It is the view of the City Engineering Department
that a high intensity rainfall can surcharge the sanitary system (with resultant flooding of
basements) by reason of the direct access rainfall has to the sanitary sewer through illegal
roof leaders flowing into the house connections.
There is a further admission that enforcement of the by-law is the responsibility of the City, and
that in the years after 1985 employees of the Thunder Bay engineering department have observed
roof leaders connected to house connections." There is no evidence to support a finding the City
gave any consideration to enforcement of the by-law, and decided against doing so on policy
grounds (i.e., "policy considerations at the secondary level," per Wilson J. in Kamloops.)
I find the ongoing connection of rainwater leaders to the combined sewers was an effective cause
of overloading the combined sewers during heavy rainfalls. I also find the City failed to take any
Page 410 of 614
action to enforce its policy decision to prohibit connection of rainwater leaders to the combined
sewers.
The lack of evidence of any reason for this inaction permits me to conclude there was no reason
for the inaction. Inaction for no reason cannot be a policy decision taken in the bona fide exercise
of discretion. The City did not act with reasonable care, and the conditions for liability of the City
to the Plaintiffs have been met.
The City was negligent in the operational enforcement of the rainwater roof leader by-law, as a
result of which the rain from the rainwater leaders continued to be an effective cause of
overloading the combined sewers during the heavy rainfall on June 26, 1991. Such negligence is
not immune to tortious liability.
(Kurisko J.'s emphasis; footnotes omitted)
No appeal is taken from the trial judge's finding that the City's decision, to proceed with the
separation of the sewers as funds become available, protects it as a policy decision against liability
for negligence according to the principle expressed in Kamloops. However, the finding of negligence
on the ground that the building by-law inspectors failed to enforce the by-law is under appeal. I will
deal with negligence after speaking to the claim for nuisance.
Nuisance
In dealing with the claim for nuisance the trial judge found that the Nadeau sewer was constructed
pursuant to statutory authority but that the City had failed to meet its onus of establishing, by
appropriate documentation, that the Oosthoek sewer was so constructed. In the course of his
reasoning, he considered the effect of s. 59 of the Ontario Water Resources Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.
O.40, which provides for circumstances in which sewage works may be deemed to have been
constructed in accordance with statutory authority.
For my part, I see more certainty in the application of the inevitable consequences doctrine to the
facts of this case than in the significance of statutory authority as it may apply to a 1907 or 1925
event. If the flooding was not the inevitable consequence of the original construction of these two
sewers then statutory authority is immaterial. Further, this approach eases the task of analyzing and
applying the Supreme Court of Canada's reasons in Tock v. St. John's Metropolitan Area Board,
1989 CanLII 15 (SCC), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1181, 64 D.L.R. (4th) 620. There is no true majority view
expressed in that case on the significance of statutory authority but there is consistency, on the
subject of inevitable consequences, between the reasons of Wilson J., speaking for three members of
the court and the reasons of Sopinka J., speaking for himself, which together make up a majority.
After referring to certain correspondence between a consultant engineer and the mayor of Fort
William in 1912 and 1915, suggesting that the sewers at the time were adequate to meet future
requirements, and emphasizing the importance of planning for future development, the trial judge
found as follows at pp. 64-65:
Indeed, the information gap extends from 1915 until the 1965 Wardrop Report, when, with the
benefit of hindsight, it was established that developments subsequent to the installation of the
combined sewers rendered them inadequate. The Agreed Statement of Facts sets out several
factors that contributed to the overloading of the combined sewers: the number of new homes
added to the system, water from rainwater leaders and weeping tiles connected to the combined
Page 411 of 614
sewers, paving of roads with curbs and drains that direct surface water during storms into the
sewers, paving of private property (such as parking lots and laneways), all of which prevent
absorption of rainwater into the ground and add to the flow of water into the streets, and hence
into the catch basins. The foregoing is confirmed by the 1970 Wardrop Study and the 1987 Theil
Study.
In short, there is no evidence of the state of "scientific" knowledge concerning sewer design or the
likelihood of flooding in the future at the time of installation of the Oosthoek and Nadeau sewers.
Thus, there is no evidence that the flooding on June 26, 1991 was the inevitable result of the
authorized location and manner of installation of these sewers at the time they were installed.
In Tock both Wilson J. and Sopinka J. relied upon the doctrine articulated by Viscount Dunedin in
Manchester Corp. v. Farnworth, [1930] A.C. 171 at p. 183, [1929] All E.R. Rep. 90 (H.L.), (p. 1213
in Tock):
When Parliament has authorized a certain thing to be made or done in a certain place, there can
be no action for nuisance caused by the making or doing of that thing if the nuisance is the
inevitable result of the making or doing so authorized. The onus of proving that the result is
inevitable is on those who wish to escape liability for nuisance, but the criterion of inevitability
is not what is theoretically possible but what is possible according to the state of scientific
knowledge at the time, having also in view a certain common sense appreciation, which cannot
be rigidly defined, of practical feasibility in view of situation and of expense.
The appellant urges upon this court that we need not look for the precise thinking and knowledge of
the municipal authorities at the time of construction of the sewers and can rather draw reasonable
inferences as to what the municipal authorities probably knew at the time and the probability that
they expected occasional sewer backups in the future. It is said that all of the evidence at trial
indicated that occasional sewer backups and flooding have always been inherent in undivided sewer
systems. That might be arguable if floodings were occasional and there were no change in the facility
or the environment to markedly alter the utility and functioning of the sewers.
A dam built across a river valley will inevitably flood a portion of the valley and that would be a
clear case of statutory authority protecting against damage claims. However, if subsequent
unanticipated events cause a surcharge of water overflowing the dam the increased flooding is not
the inevitable consequence of the original construction.
Similarly here, the extensive paving of streets and other surfaces, the increased density of
development, and the use of weeping tiles and rainwater leaders connected to the sewers have all to
the knowledge of the City contributed to the surcharge during extensive storms and have brought
about flooding. These are all fresh circumstances arising from the development of the infrastructure
of a municipality over many years and they do not relate back to the original sewers and their
construction designs, nor could they have been foreseen by any possibility in the proportions
reflected in the 1965, 1970 and 1987 reports. In my opinion, there is not even the beginning of a
basis for establishing inevitable consequence on the facts of this case, let alone one in accordance
with the strict onus upon the municipality referred to in the reasons of Sopinka J. in Tock.
I am therefore in agreement with the trial judge that the municipality is liable to the plaintiffs
Oosthoek and Nadeau for damages for nuisance.
Negligence
Page 412 of 614
Given this finding on nuisance, it is not necessary to deal with the trial judge's findings of negligence
in order to deal with the claims arising from the sewer backups. However, I will express a few words
on this subject in deference to the fact that these are presented as test cases and because, according to
counsel's statement, the municipality, its taxpayers, and their respective insurers, are seeking a
rational and fair approach to the allocation of responsibility for this type of incident.
The potential for this nuisance was not hidden from view. Since at least 1960 it was known that drain
connections were an aggravating factor which would likely be a contributing cause to future
floodings. The municipality recognized this fact and passed a by-law in 1987 with a specific purpose
of avoiding the danger. However, it was only if a large number of drainpipes were disconnected that
the danger could be allayed and, thus, only the municipality could respond effectively. The duty was
recognized, the ambit of risk and the persons who could suffer foreseeable harm was clear. Yet the
municipality failed to follow through with enforcement of the by-law.
In Kamloops (City) v. Nielsen, 1984 CanLII 21 (SCC), [1984] 2 S.C.R. 2, 10 D.L.R. (4th) 641,
Wilson J., speaking for the majority, applied the judgment of the House of Lords in Anns v. Merton
London Borough Council, [1977] 2 All E.R. 492, [1978] A.C. 728, in finding a municipality liable
for a failure of its building inspectors to enforce the building by-law. It was held that the building
inspectors' duty to enforce the by-law was an "operational" duty as opposed to a policy decision that
would stand in the way of a claim of negligence against a municipality.
The appellant in this court argues that in Kamloops the by- law imposed a mandatory duty on the
inspector to enforce the by-law, whereas the Thunder Bay by-law simply gives the inspector a power
to act. That distinction cannot have been intended to affect the general principle because in the Anns
case itself the inspector had only a power to act. In dealing with the judgment of Lord Wilberforce,
Wilson J. said at p. 10 of Kamloops:
He then dealt with the argument that where the local authority is under no duty to inspect but
merely has a power to inspect, it can avoid liability for negligent inspection by simply deciding
not to inspect at all. He pointed out that this overlooks the fact that local authorities are public
bodies operating under statute with a clear responsibility for public health in their area. They
must, therefore, make their discretionary decisions responsibly and for reasons that accord with
the statutory purpose. They must at the very least give due consideration to the question
whether they should inspect or not and, having decided to inspect, they must then be under a
duty to exercise reasonable care in conducting that inspection.
The appellant also makes reference to Toronto (City) v. Polai, 1969 CanLII 339 (ON CA), [1970] 1
O.R. 483, 8 D.L.R. (3d) 689 (C.A.), affirmed 1972 CanLII 22 (SCC), [1973] S.C.R. 38, 28 D.L.R.
(3d) 638, where this court held that a municipality has no obligation to enforce its by-laws. The case
concerned Toronto's maintenance of a list of zoning by-law offenders against whom no prosecution
should be brought. In my opinion that judgment is not inconsistent with the judgment in Kamloops,
supra. Neither the present case nor Kamloops tests the general obligation to enforce by-laws. It can
be said that the City has the right not to enforce its by- laws and, yet, unless that decision is made at
the policy level, its failure to do so may give rise to a claim for damages by someone to whom a duty
is owed and who is within the ambit of risk of harm by reason of that failure. The Toronto (City) v.
Polai decision was not concerned with damages for negligence.
The City's inspectors knew the purpose of the by-law and they knew of the offences. There is no
evidence that any consideration was given to the question of enforcement or nonenforcement, and, as
Page 413 of 614
expected, the offending drains contributed to the flooding. I agree with the trial judge that this founds
a claim in negligence.
The Water Cases
In November 1990 a water main burst flooding the Edwards' basement. The main had been installed
in 1909 pursuant to legislation authorizing a municipality to install water systems and prior to the
enactment of legislation requiring the municipality to obtain provincial approval of plans for the
installation. The trial judge found that the cause of the break was a latent flaw that should have been
discovered at the factory but that was not detectable by visual inspection at the time of the
installation.
The Bennett appeal concerns a water main which burst in February of 1993, flooding the Bennetts'
basement. That main had been installed in 1956 pursuant to legislation which did require provincial
approval of the plans. Relying upon the agreed statement of facts the trial judge found at p. 69 of his
reasons that:
. . . it is most probable that the action of frost in the ground exerted forces on the unfrozen soil
surrounding the buried pipe. The buried pipe likely became subject to a force which snapped
the brittle cast iron pipe.
However, as pointed out by the trial judge at p. 75 of his reasons:
This does not preclude the pipe bursting as a result of the frost acting on improper installation,
soil conditions, or settlement of the ground.
In respect of both of these water main cases the trial judge canvassed all of the issues raised in the
sewer cases including: the City's failure to upgrade its system in accordance with Ministry guidelines
in 1979; the budget restraints preventing it from doing so; the defence of statutory authority; and the
history of frequent and regular water main bursts both in Thunder Bay and in municipalities
throughout Canada. He concluded that the City was liable in both cases and summarized his
conclusion at p. 75 of his reasons as follows:
The defence of policy decision protects the City against negligence, if any, for failure to upgrade
the water system in accordance with the higher standards that have been developed since the water
mains were originally installed. The defence of statutory authority fails in the water cases because
the City has failed to establish that the broken water mains were the inevitable consequences of the
installation of these water mains. In addition, in Edwards, the City has failed to prove the location
and manner of installing the water main was carried out in accordance with specific statutory
requirements.
To uphold the finding of liability it is only necessary for this court to conclude that the trial judge was
right in his conclusion that inevitable consequence had not been established. If so, liability flows in
nuisance no matter what test for statutory authority is applied and the claim in negligence is
unnecessary.
In the Edwards case the conclusion is in my opinion obvious. The cause of the burst was a flawed
pipe for which the City bears no fault. Nonetheless, it is not the expected consequence of any
municipal water system that its components will be flawed and cause damage. This is a classic case
of nuisance for which the City must bear responsibility.
Page 414 of 614
The Bennett case presents more difficulty because there was provincial approval of the location and
manner of installation of the system (assuming, without deciding, that legislation contemplating an
approval process can be equated to legislation conferring an authority which is itself specific as to the
manner and location of doing the authorized act) and the trial judge found that the bursting of pipes is
inevitable in a waterworks system. Notwithstanding that finding, the trial judge refused to find
inevitable consequence because the City failed in its burden of proof of demonstrating that this
incident did not arise from improper installation.
As observed earlier, there are sharp divisions between the three sets of reasons of the Supreme Court
of Canada in Tock v. St. John's Metropolitan Area Board, supra. However, only Sopinka J. speaks
specifically of the burden of proof, at p. 1226:
The burden of proof with respect to the defence of statutory authority is on the party advancing the
defence. It is not an easy one. The courts strain against a conclusion that private rights are intended
to be sacrificed for the common good. The defendant must negative that there are alternate
methods of carrying out the work. The mere fact that one is considerably less expensive will not
avail. If only one method is practically feasible, it must be established that it was practically
impossible to avoid the nuisance. It is insufficient for the defendant to negative negligence. The
standard is a higher one. While the defence gives rise to some factual difficulties, in view of the
allocation of the burden of proof they will be resolved against the defendant.
In my view this strict burden is appropriate, even where, as here, the municipality is deprived of any
ability to defend itself because time has deprived it of whatever evidence might have been available
to establish inevitability. It must be remembered that this is a common law nuisance and that
protection from liability for its consequences must be strictly limited. Otherwise, there is no monetary
incentive for conduct which minimizes risk of damage to others. I made earlier reference by way of
example to the dam which floods the valley. The burden of proof may well restrict protection against
liability to comparably clear examples of inevitability.
For these reasons I would dismiss the appeals with costs.
Appeals dismissed.
Page 415 of 614
APPENDIX 2
Page 416 of 614
Page 417 of 614
APPENDIX 3
Page 418 of 614
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 419 of 614
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 420 of 614
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 421 of 614
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 422 of 614
Property Standards Committee
Notice of Appeal Hearing
Order Number OSBY-2026-0076
235 8th 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 2nd 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/meetings.
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 5, 2026
Staci Landry
Secretary of the Property Standards Committee
808 2nd Avenue East
Owen Sound, ON N4K 2H4
Telephone: 519-376-4440 ext. 1235
Email:
clerks@owensound.ca
Page 423 of 614
Schedule ‘A’
Property Standards Order
Page 424 of 614
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 425 of 614
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/treatmentPage
report,
426 of 614
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 427 of 614
Schedule ‘B’
Notice of Appeal
Page 428 of 614
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 429 of 614
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 430 of 614
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 431 of 614
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 432 of 614
003
TAB1
Page 433 of 614
::
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 434 of 614
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 435 of 614
006
TAB2
Page 436 of 614
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 437 of 614
Schedule 'A'
008
Property Standards Order
Page 438 of 614
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 439 of 614
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/treatmentPage
report,
440 of 614
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 441 of 614
Schedule 'B'
012
Notice of Appeal
Page 442 of 614
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 443 of 614
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 444 of 614
015
TAB3
Page 445 of 614
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 446 of 614
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 bePage
provided
to
447 of 614
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 448 of 614
019
TAB4
Page 449 of 614
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 450 of 614
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 451 of 614
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 452 of 614
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 453 of 614
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 454 of 614
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 455 of 614
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 456 of 614
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 457 of 614
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 458 of 614
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 459 of 614
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 460 of 614
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 461 of 614
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 462 of 614
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 463 of 614
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 464 of 614
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 465 of 614
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 466 of 614
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 467 of 614
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 468 of 614
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 469 of 614
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 470 of 614
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 471 of 614
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 472 of 614
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 473 of 614
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 474 of 614
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 475 of 614
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 476 of 614
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 477 of 614
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 478 of 614
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 479 of 614
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 480 of 614
051
TABS
Page 481 of 614
052
Page 482 of 614
053
Page 483 of 614
054
TAB6
Page 484 of 614
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 485 of 614
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 486 of 614
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 487 of 614
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 488 of 614
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 489 of 614
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 490 of 614
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 491 of 614
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 492 of 614
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 493 of 614
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 494 of 614
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 495 of 614
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 496 of 614
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 497 of 614
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 498 of 614
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 499 of 614
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 500 of 614
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 501 of 614
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 502 of 614
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 503 of 614
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 504 of 614
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 505 of 614
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 506 of 614
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 507 of 614
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 508 of 614
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 509 of 614
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 510 of 614
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 511 of 614
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 512 of 614
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 513 of 614
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 514 of 614
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 515 of 614
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 516 of 614
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 517 of 614
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 518 of 614
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 519 of 614
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 520 of 614
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 521 of 614
(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 522 of 614
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 523 of 614
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 524 of 614
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 525 of 614
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 526 of 614
APPEAL OF PROPERTY STANDARDS
ORDER #OSBY-2025-0076
Property: 235 8th Street E, Owen Sound
Appellant: Kepler Real Estate Inc.
Page 527 of 614
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 528 of 614
TAB A
Page 529 of 614
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 530 of 614
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 531 of 614
TAB A1
Page 532 of 614
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 533 of 614
TAB A2
Page 534 of 614
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 535 of 614
TAB A3
Page 536 of 614
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 537 of 614
TAB B
Page 538 of 614
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 539 of 614
Page 540 of 614
Page 541 of 614
Page 542 of 614
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 543 of 614
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 544 of 614
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 545 of 614
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 546 of 614
KEPLER REAL ESTATE INC. EXHIBIT B-5: Comprehensive Chronology of Email History
Page 547 of 614
Page 548 of 614
Page 549 of 614
Page 550 of 614
Page 551 of 614
Page 552 of 614
Page 553 of 614
TAB C
Page 554 of 614
TAB C: TECHNICAL & EXPERT EVIDENCE (BEDBUGS)
KEPLER REAL ESTATE INC. Exhibit C-1: ORKIN CANADA REPORT (JAN 9)- FINDING OF
‘ZERO LIVE ACTIVITY’
Page 555 of 614
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 556 of 614
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 557 of 614
KEPLER REAL ESTATE INC. Exhibit C-2: ORKIN CANADA OBSERVATION – FINDING OF
FIRE HAZARD AND SANITATION ISSUE
Page 558 of 614
Page 559 of 614
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 560 of 614
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 561 of 614
TAB D
Page 562 of 614
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 563 of 614
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 564 of 614
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 565 of 614
TAB E
Page 566 of 614
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 567 of 614
KEPLER REAL ESTATE INC. EXHIBIT E-2: PROOF OF EVICTION PROCEEDINGS AND
NON-VIABILITY OF TENANCY
Page 568 of 614
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
569 1ofof 614
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
570 2ofof 614
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 571 of 614
APPENDIX 1
Page 572 of 614
Report
September 2011
NO WAY TO COMPLY
An Investigation into the Enforcement Practices of
Municipal Licensing and Standards
Fiona Crean
Ombudsman
Page 573 of 614
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 574 of 614
10.0
Ombudsman Conclusions ............................................................................................. 25
11.0
Ombudsman Recommendations ................................................................................... 26
12.0
The City‟s Response ..................................................................................................... 28
Appendix A – Relevant Legislation........................................................................................... 29
ii
Page 575 of 614
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 576 of 614
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 577 of 614
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 578 of 614
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 579 of 614
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 580 of 614
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 581 of 614
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 582 of 614
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 583 of 614
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 584 of 614
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 585 of 614
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 586 of 614
(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 587 of 614
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 588 of 614
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 589 of 614
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 590 of 614
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 591 of 614
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 592 of 614
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 593 of 614
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 594 of 614
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 595 of 614
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 596 of 614
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 597 of 614
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 598 of 614
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 599 of 614
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 600 of 614
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 601 of 614
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 602 of 614
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 603 of 614
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 604 of 614
(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 605 of 614
(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 606 of 614
(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 607 of 614
[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 608 of 614
(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 609 of 614
APPENDIX 2
Page 610 of 614
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 611 of 614
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 612 of 614
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 613 of 614
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 614 of 6149.b Appeal of Property Standards Order OSBY-2026-0076 dated February 12, 2026 Re: 235 8th Street East by Kepler Real Estate Inc. CORRESPONDENCE PROVIDED FOR INFORMATION There are no correspondence items being presented for information. DISCUSSION OF ADDITIONAL BUSINESS NEXT MEETING ADJOURNMENT
Page 13 of 614 sufficient area is not available on the lot, the City will accept a cashin-lieu of trees contribution. The Urban Design policies of the City’s OP state that the City may define, within any development area, building heights and setbacks, or in some cases ‘build to’ lines that are consistent with the intended form of development and relevant guidelines.
Page 13 of 614
sufficient area is not available on the lot, the City will accept a cashin-lieu of trees contribution.
The Urban Design policies of the City’s OP state that the City may define,
within any development area, building heights and setbacks, or in some
cases ‘build to’ lines that are consistent with the intended form of
development and relevant guidelines.
The setback provisions of the City’s Zoning By-law are intended to ensure
that developments provide for a consistent streetscape, appropriate amenity
area and landscaped open space, and buffering between properties. The
recommended conditions of approval provide for additional area in the rear
yard of the proposed apartment building to ensure an adequate buffering
between adjacent properties and pervious area for stormwater infiltration.
The proposal conforms with the City’s Official Plan.
Test 2: Conformity with the Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-law
The property is zoned ‘Arterial Commercial’ (C4) in the City’s Zoning By-law
(2010-078, as amended).
Permitted Uses
Permitted uses in the C4 zone include Dwelling, Apartment. A Dwelling,
Apartment is defined as a residential building other than a townhouse
dwelling containing three or more dwelling units. Townhouse buildings are
required to have three or more dwelling units which are divided by a
common wall which prevent internal access. Each townhouse dwelling unit
has independent entrance directly from the outside or through a vestibule.
The building as shown on the site plan meets the definition of a ‘stacked’
townhouse rather than an apartment. A condition of approval will require the
applicant to revise the site plan to provide for a ‘Dwelling, Apartment’ which
will require one common entrance per three (3) dwelling units or one
common entrance shared by the six (6) dwelling units.
Rear Yard Setback
The provision of the C4 zone refer to Section 6.6 General Residential (R5) for
the site and building regulations for apartments.
The provisions of the General Residential (R5) Zone require apartment
buildings to have a rear yard setback of 7.5 metres. The intent of this
provision is to ensure that developments provide for a consistent
Staff Report CS-26-027: Minor Variance A04-2026 for 865 16th Street East
Page 7 of 13
Page 14 of 614
streetscape, appropriate amenity area and landscaped open space, and
buffering between properties.
At submission of the application, the applicant proposed a 2.0 metre rear
yard for the ‘building envelope’. As shown on the attached site plan, the
building envelope includes the apartment building plus 1.8 metre wide decks
at the rear of the building. The rear setback for the decks is 2.0 metres and
the rear yard setback for the building is 3.8 metres.
Figure 1: Extract of submitted site plan with rear yard setback
measurements
Provision (C4 – Other
Permitted Uses – as
required by Section 6.6
R5)
Required Provided
Variance
6.6 Dwelling Apartment
7.5 m
Building Envelope – 2.0 m
5.5 m
Building – 3.8 m
3.7 m
(e) Rear Yard Setback
The 3.8 metre rear yard setback as shown on the site plan requires a 3.7
metre variance to the required 7.5 metre rear yard setback.
As noted above:
The proposed site plan shows a significant portion (~68%) of the
surface area to be impervious/hard surfaced (buildings, driveways,
parking area, etc.).
Staff Report CS-26-027: Minor Variance A04-2026 for 865 16th Street East
Page 8 of 13
Page 15 of 614
The submitted site plan provides for a parking area with ten (10)
parking spaces whereas the provisions of the Zoning By-law require
eight (8) parking spaces for a six (6) unit building.
Given the above, Planning staff recommend the removal of the two (2)
additional parking spaces so that the site provides the eight (8) parking
spaces as required by the Zoning By-law. Eight parking spaces provide for
one space per unit plus two visitor parking spaces. The lot is located in an
area that is well serviced by the City’s transit system and within walking
distance to commercial and institutional services.
The removal of one parking space on either side of the internal drive aisle
results in an additional 2.7 metres becoming available. Planning staff
recommend that:
1.0 metre be allocated to ensure that the required planting strip
between the parking area and the 16th Street East road allowance
meets the required minimum width of 1.5 metres.
1.2 metres be allocated to the rear yard. The rear yard setback for the
building would increase from 3.8 metres to 5.0 metres. The required
variance would be 2.5 metres.
A 5.0 metre rear yard setback would:
Provide for adequate separation between property lines in order to
buffer the existing residential development to the south;
Provide additional pervious area to faciliate the infiltration of
stormwater;
Provide additional amenity/green space for the residents; and
Bring the proposed building closer to the established built streetscape
along 16th Street East.
The remaining 0.5 metres can be considered a margin of error and allocated
as required by the applicant.
Section 5.8 Permitted Yard Encroachments allow a porch/deck to encroach
3.0 metres into the required rear yard setback provided that the porch/deck
is setback a minium of 1.5 metres from the lot line. In this case, the
‘required’ rear setback would be 5.0 metres. The porch/decks as proposed
would conform to Section 5.8 because the structures only encroach 1.83
metres into the rear yard setback and are setback 2.0 metres from the rear
lot line.
Staff Report CS-26-027: Minor Variance A04-2026 for 865 16th Street East
Page 9 of 13
Page 16 of 614
The above noted modifications to the Site Plan have been included as
recommended conditions of approval outlined in Schedule ‘E’.
The proposal as modified maintains the general intent and purpose of the
City’s Zoning By-law.
Test 3: Minor in Nature
The request for relief from the Zoning By-law to facilitate a six (6) unit
apartment building can be considered minor in nature for the following
reasons:
The use is permitted in the Arterial Commercial designation, and the
proposed development maintains all other required site and building
requirements.
o Maximum building height is not exceeded.
Sufficient off-street parking is provided even with the proposed
modification.
The proposed number of units (10 units or less) does not trigger Site
Plan Approval and no study requirements as per the City’s Site
Engineering Standards for traffic and transportation are required.
No adverse impact on adjoining properties is anticipated because of
the proposed development.
o The residential character of the 8th and 9th Avenue East
streetscape is not expected to change significantly as the
development fronts onto 16th Street East.
o The recommended tree plantings will enhance the 16th Street
East streetscape.
Recommended conditions of approval will ensure that the final
stormwater management plan is designed to ensure that drainage is
managed appropriately across the site.
The proposal is deemed to be minor in nature.
Test 4: Desirable for the Development and Use of the Lands
The subject property is situated within an established developed
neighbourhood that includes a mix of commercial and residential properties
in a variety of type and tenure. The proposed development supports the
property's residential function and will contribute to increasing the City's
housing supply. The proposed development represents infill on an existing
underutilized site, which is desirable in the City’s settlement area and
consistent with the policy direction provided by the PPS and the City’s OP.
Staff Report CS-26-027: Minor Variance A04-2026 for 865 16th Street East
Page 10 of 13
Page 17 of 614
The proposal is deemed to be desirable for the development and use of the
lands.
Comments Received:
In accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act (Sec. 45, O. Reg.
200/96), notice of the subject application was provided on March 20, 2026 to
the public and prescribed bodies. Comments received by the SecretaryTreasurer as of the writing of this report are described below and included in
Schedule ‘F’.
City of Owen Sound Engineering & Public Works Department
Comment has been received from the City’s Engineering & Public Works
Department recommending approval of the application subject to the
following, which have been incorporated into the recommended conditions of
approval:
1. The Owner revises the proposed site plan and submits drawings to the
Secretary-Treasurer, to reflect the City’s Site Development Engineering
Standards, including the detailed comments below regarding site access
and parking, to the satisfaction of the Manager of Public Works and
Engineering.
a. It is noted that off-site works/easement works are required to be
approved by the Manager of Public Works and Engineering and
will require the Owner entering into a future agreement with the
City, at the time of the Building Permit, to cover the faithful
execution of off-site works.
2. That the Owner prepares and submits a Grading and Drainage Plan and
a Stormwater Management Report, to the satisfaction of the City's
Public Works and Engineering Department (Engineering Services
Division) and the Community Services Department (Planning and
Heritage Division).
City of Owen Sound Building Division
Comment has been received from the City’s Building Division with no
objection to the application subject to the following, which have been
incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval:
A Record of Site Condition by a Qualified Person be registered with the
Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks and any required
issues addressed prior to construction.
Staff Report CS-26-027: Minor Variance A04-2026 for 865 16th Street East
Page 11 of 13
Page 18 of 614
Site grading and drainage plan by a qualified Engineer on all lots to the
satisfaction of the Engineering Services Division. Final grading to be
verified by the Engineer.
Canada Post
Comment has been received from Canada Post with no objection to the
proposed minor variance. Canada Post has reviewed the proposal for the
above noted Development Application and has determined that the project
adheres to the multi-unit policy and will be serviced by developer/owner
installed Lock Box Assembly. Multi-unit buildings and complexes (residential
and commercial) with a common lobby, common indoor or sheltered space,
require a centralized lock box assembly which is to be provided by, installed
by, and maintained by the developer/owner at the owner’s expense.
Grey County
Comment has been received from Grey County with no objection to the
proposed minor variance. County staff would note that Appendix A of the
County Official Plan indicates that the subject lands are approximately 370
metres from an 'Abandoned Landfill: Previously Identified Site'. In March
2015, Azimuth Environmental Consulting undertook a Historic Landfill Site
Review. In the review, it was determined that the landfill had insufficient
risk. Therefore, County Planning staff have no concerns in this regard.
Grey Sauble Conservation Authority
Comment has been received from the Grey Sauble Conservation Authority
with no objection to the proposed minor variance.
Public Comments
One public comment in opposition to the application was received which
noted concerns regarding the 9th Avenue East and 16th Street East
intersection, parking on site, and the easement through the 1500 block. As
noted through the report above:
The proposed development does not trigger transportation/traffic
studies due to the small size. Developments consisting of ten (10)
units or less are not subject to Site Plan Approval as per the Planning
Act.
The site plan provides for sufficient parking as per zoning provisions.
Issues related to open-air fires, noise, and nuisance should be
reported to the City’s By-law Enforcement Division.
Staff Report CS-26-027: Minor Variance A04-2026 for 865 16th Street East
Page 12 of 13
Page 19 of 614
Financial Implications:
None at this time. Any work completed in the City’s road allowance will be
subject to 100 per cent securities.
Communication Strategy:
Notice of the minor variance application was given in accordance with
Section 45(5) of the Planning Act and Ontario Regulation 200/96.
Consultation:
The application was circulated to various City Departments and our
commenting agencies as part of the consultation process.
Attachments:
Schedule 'A':
Schedule 'B':
Schedule 'C':
Schedule 'D':
Schedule 'E':
Schedule 'F':
Orthophoto
Official Plan and Zoning Map
Property Details
Site Plan
Conditions of Approval
Agency and Public Comments
Recommended by:
Sabine Robart, M.SC. (PL), MCIP, RPP, Manager of Planning & Heritage
Submission approved by:
Pam Coulter, BA, RPP, Director of Community Services
For more information on this report, please contact Sabine Robart, Manager
of Planning & Heritage at srobart@owensound.ca or 519-376-4440 ext.
1236.
Staff Report CS-26-027: Minor Variance A04-2026 for 865 16th Street East
Page 13 of 13
Page 20 of 614
±
Schedule 'A': Orthophoto
166
3
9
6
79
164
164
1
854
163
1602
1613
845
5
15
96
3
159
155
7
0
158
6
155
3
158
2
925
157
8
955
158
3
157
4
995
157
0
940
950
0
E
991
1541
3
923
933
927
9th
Ave
997
952
2
98
4
98
7
97
Information1shown
on these drawings/maps/charts
539
is compiled
from
numerous
sources and may not
153
94
7 or accurate 1172
be complete
11
E
6
8360 4
84
15th St B E
99
e
Av
0 15 30
Meters
1520
90
Subject Property
th
10
4
83
934
E
5
2
855
9
155
0
101
8
99
155
99
1536
5
6
8
81
8
82
9
156
15t
hS
tA
1550
1517
15
6
81
15
09
15
156
99
24
15
152
1
19
3
870
825
15
157
156
2
153
1
15
28
1577
156
6
1084
1086
5
99
Page12th
21 ofSt614
E
1080
1090
154
1040
1050
1060
1070
154
9
1031
1035
1049
1055
1063
1069
1075
E
158
156
153
5
1150
7
159
9
6
1655
804
tE
157
1556
1667
4
0
hS
156
0
164
162
8th
0
5
1
163
Av
e
755
789
92
169
860
788
784
750
735
15
tE
163
1
799
hS
166
8
708
3
1680
705
725
17t
1030
Av
eE
1610
167
7
163
16t
158
15
61
3
168
1620
157
5
1697
169
165
6
165
0
1625
7th
0
6
164
7
15
79
1678
910
167
1020
165
7
1659
1012
1022
1024
1034
1036
1066
1068
1078
1648
±
Schedule 'B': Planning Policy
163
163
6
79
tE
1602
1613
1596
159
0
158
155
6
2
925
157
158
157
R5
5
83
934
855
160
520
950
E
997
952
R4 991
933
2
98
Information
shownR4
on these drawings/maps/charts
R5
is compiled from numerous sources and may not
153complete
be
or accurate
7
eE
Av
th
1583430 6
Meters
90
15th St B E
Institutional
0
10
0
1536
8
82
C21541
East City Commercial
99
923
927
81
6
15
8
81
9th
Ave
15
R5
8
AE
155
5
Open Space
2
St
Residential
6
9
99
155
R4
1517
R4
99
15t
h
1550
Arterial Commercial
99
152
1
9
156
C4 870
825
OFFICIAL PLAN
156
0
101
1528
153
1
Zone (C4)
3
156
2
940
153
Special Provision
1577
156
6
995
4
99
Page 22 of 614
12th St E
1080
1090
9
19
Zoning
157
0
153
15
C2
3
4
1084
157
1070
R5
5
LEGEND
955
Subject
Property
8
1060
154
1050
9
1040
154
1031
1035
1049
1055
1063
1069
1075
158
1030
3
3
61
15
C4
155
7
5
C2
C4
9
158
5
1150
7
C4
3
1556
163
159
6
R4
I
164
1
854
hS
1667
1655
C3 804
156
156
0
164
0
8th
158
0
R5
4
9
Av
eE
755
789
92
164
162
845
735
15
R4
157
R5
3
1020
788
784
750
708
157
5
5
R4 1661
1
799
169
1680
705
15
79
910
0
8
16t
tE
7
163
R5
hS
3
167
6
1620
C3
17t
168
1012
1022
1024
1034
1036
1066
1068
1078
1625
725
6
165
165
1697
169
3
0
97
R4
7th
Av
e
166
164
7
167
860
E
R4
1659
7
98
7
165
SCHEDULE C
PROPERTY DETAILS – A04-2026
Property Information
Detail
Civic Address
865 16th Street East
Roll Number
425901000711301
Legal Description
PLAN 371 PT LOT 1 PT LOT 2 RP 16R1665 PARTS
1&2 WITH LANE
Site Frontage
27.2 m
Site Depth
30.8 m
Site Area
836.1 sq m
Existing Structures
vacant
Road Access/Frontage
16th Street East
Surrounding Land Uses
North:
Commercial, and institutional
East:
Commercial
South:
Residential
West:
Residential and commercial
Available Servicing
Detail
Water
150 Ø cast iron watermain – 16th St E
Sanitary
225 mm Ø cured in place pipe – 16th St E
Stormwater
TBD
Planning Policy
Detail
County of Grey Official Plan
Primary Settlement Area
Report:CS-26-027
Page 1 of 2
Page 23 of 614
File: A04-2026
City of Owen Sound Official
Plan
Arterial Commercial
City of Owen Sound Zoning
By-law 2010-078, as
amended
Arterial Commercial (C4)
Report:CS-26-027
Page 2 of 2
Page 24 of 614
File: A04-2026
LOCATION
LEGEND
EXISTING CENTRELINE
SITE PROPERTY LINE
EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
PROPOSED EDGE OF PAVEMENT
16TH STREET EAST
PROPOSED BUILDING
ZONING SET BACK LIMITS
.9
6
EX. C/L OF ROAD
34
4
EXISTING ELEVATION
IRON BAR/STANDARD IRON BAR
MH
5.3
150mmØ TEE
EXISTING WATER MAIN
H
TC 2
MA 45.3
3
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS TO MATCH
EXISTING
EX. EDGE OF PAVEMENT
1.8%
EX. BACK OF CURB
PROPOSED GRADIENT
CB
1.8%
HP
150mm x 100mmØ
REDUCER
2
34
PROPOSED ELEVATION
PROPOSED SWALE AND GRADIENT
SWALE
EXISTING HYDRO POLE
HP
200mm
100mm
EXISTING HYDRO POLE LIGHT STANDARD
N72°59'50"W
GATE
EX. FENCE
RIB
GATE
CSV
3.810m
SIB
23.372m
FH
VB
HPLS
27.182
EXISTING LIGHT STANDARD
LS
BELL PEDESTAL
BPED
GUY WIRE
CONIFEROUS TREE
100mm
2
2.7m
DECIDUOUS TREE
2.7m
100mm
SIGN
6.5m ZONING OFFSET
PROPOSED MAN DOOR
6.0m
PAINTED PARKING LINES
3
PROPOSED OVERHEAD DOOR
9
RESIDENTIAL ZONE (R5)
N17°09'10"E
1.1m
30.809
PART 2
PLAN 16R-1665
PARKING REQUIREMENTS
ACCESS AISLE
TYPE 'A' PARKING SPACE
1
8
PROPOSED ACCESSIBLE PARKING
SIGN AS PER CITY OF OWEN SOUND
STANDARDS E1b AND E1a (TYP)
3.4m
LOT
7
1.2m ZONING OFFSET
4
PAINTED BARRIER
FREE SYMBOL (TYP)
3m ZONING OFFSET
6
16.3m
PROPOSED 100mm WATER SERVICE 1.8m DEEP
6.0m
30.809
N16°59'10"E
EDGE OF PAVEMENT WITH
CONCRETE CURB (OPSD 600.110)
21
6.
SUBJECT TO RIGHT-OF-WAY
PART 1
EX. HEDG
E
BM
BENCHMARK
5
5
PLAN 16R-1665
216
216.5
13
6.5
LOT
1
21
.5
HC 4M
MH
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
CO
BUILDING AREA
BARRIER FREE PARKING
RESIDENTIAL PARKING (1.25 STALLS
PER UNIT)(6 UNITS) (INCLUDING 1
REQUIRED BARRIER FREE SPACE)
REQUIRED
PROPOSED
1
8
214.8 m2
1
10
PROPERTY LINES ARE APPROXIMATE, IN THE EVENT THAT THERE IS A DISPUTE OR
DISCREPANCY IN THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY LINES, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT
THE OWNER RETAIN AN ONTARIO LAND SURVEYOR (OLS) TO PROVIDE CONFIRMATION.
20.7m
300mm
PROPOSED 6-PLEX
PROPOSED 3.3m -150mm SANITARY SERVICE @ 2% - 8%
300mm
14
N
LA
P
ED
R
E
T
IS
EG
R
UNIT 2
13.7m
300mm
21
PROPOSED 20.7 x 13.7
BUILDING ENVELOPE
UNIT 1
EXISTING 300mm SANITARY SERVICE
LOT
1
37
10.7m
.
No
12.5m
7
HC 4M
300mm
UNIT 3 LOT
2
REGULATION (R5)
MIN. LOT FRONTAGE
MIN.LOT AREA
MAX. LOT COVERAGE
MIN. FRONT YARD
MIN. REAR YARD
MIN. INTERIOR SIDE YARD
MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT
REQUIRED
25m or 5.5m/UNIT
900m² or 200m²/UNIT
40%
6.5m
7.0m
1.2m
10m
PROPOSED
27.2m
836.1m²
25.9%
16.3m
2.0m
1.2m
8.43m
6.5m ZONING OFFSET
300mm
400mm
400mm
300mm
PROPOSED
DECK
PROPOSED
DECK
PROPOSED
DECK
ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEW
01/27/26
ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEW
03/03/26
ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEW
03/03/26
ISSUED FOR 3RD PARTY ENGINEERING REVIEW
03/17/26
ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEW
400mm
2.0m
C:\Users\Mike Noble\OneDrive - Clearwater Shores Inc\Project Files\26001 16th St E\02_ReferenceDwg\26001 PROPBASE.dwg Mar 17, 2026 - 4:27pm
1.2m
3.810m
23.287m
N72°59'50"W
EX. FENCE
27.097
21
6
.5
LEGAL INFORMATION SHOWN IS TAKEN
FROM SURVEY PLAN 16R-1665 OF PART OF
SCALE
0
1:100
15
01/15/26
5.2m
EX. SHED
LOT
CAUTION :
THE POSITION OF POLE LINES, CONDUITS, WATERMAINS, SEWERS
AND OTHER UNDERGROUND AND OVERGROUND UTILITIES AND
STRUCTURES IS NOT NECESSARILY SHOWN ON THE CONTRACT
DRAWINGS, AND, WHERE SHOWN, THE ACCURACY OF THE
POSITION OF SUCH UTILITIES AND STRUCTURES IS NOT
GUARANTEED. BEFORE STARTING WORK, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL
INFORM HIMSELF OF THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL SUCH
UTILITIES AND STRUCTURES, AND SHALL ASSUME ALL LIABILITY
FOR DAMAGE TO THEM.
LOT
3
2.0
4.0
6.0m
LOTS 1 & 2
WEST OF STAVELY STREET
REGISTERED PLAN No. 371
CITY OF OWEN SOUND
COUNTY OF GREY
PREPARED BY
HEWETT AND MILNE LIMITED, O.L.S.
OWEN SOUND,
ONTARIO
CLEARWATER
SHORES
ALLENFORD, ONTARIO
EMAIL: KWELSH@CLEARWATERSHORES.CA
PHONE: 1-519-270-2837
16TH STREET EAST
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
MURPHY CONSTRUCTION
C100
26001.000
Page 25 of 614
SCHEDULE E
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Recommended Variance Modification to Purpose and Effect
To facilitate the proposal, the applicant requires the following relief:
Regulation
Required
Recommended
7.5 m
5.0 m
Variance
(By-law section)
C4 – Other Permitted Uses – as
required by Section 6.6 R5
6.6 Dwelling Apartment - (e) Rear
Yard Setback
2.5 m
Recommended Conditions of Approval
1. That the Owner provide:
a. A revised Site Plan to the satisfaction of the Manager of Public
Works and Engineering and the Manager of Planning and
Heritage that:
i. Achieves the requirements of Zoning By-law 2010-078, as
amended, and as varied by A04-2026;
1. Permitted residential uses in the C4 are limited to
‘Dwelling Apartment’. Site Plan shall provide for a
‘Dwelling, Apartment’.
ii. Confirms the number of trees to be removed.
iii. Demonstrates how existing trees to be retained will be
protected during construction.
iv. Provides for the planting of two (2) medium to large
stature trees in the planting strip required by zoning
Staff Report:CS-26-027
File: A04-2026
Page 1 of 1
Page 26 of 614
between the parking area and the City’s roadway.
v. Reflects the City’s Site Development Engineering
Standards including the detailed comments provided in the
Engineering Services Division Staff Report dated March 31,
2026 regarding site access and parking.
vi. Details the barrier curb to be provided along the 16th St E
frontage of the property which connects to the existing
barrier curb to the east, provides for the proposed
entrance and extends to a transition area
(drop/mountable) curb fronting the easement to the west.
b. That construction occur substantially in accordance with the
revised site plan to the satisfaction of the City's Chief Building
Official and the Manager of Public Works and Engineering.
2. That the Owner prepares and submits a Grading and Drainage Plan
and a Stormwater Management Report, to the satisfaction of the City's
Public Works and Engineering Department (Engineering Services
Division) and the Community Services Department (Planning and
Heritage Division).
3. That the Owner provides a Record of Site Condition by a Qualified
Person registered with the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation
and Parks and any required issues addressed prior to construction.
4. That the Owner provides cash-in-lieu of any trees that meet the
requirements for retention under the Residential Tree Protection Policy
at a ratio of 2:1 to the satisfaction of the Manager of Planning and
Heritage.
5. That the applicant provides to the Secretary-Treasurer written
confirmation from the City's Public Works and Engineering Department
(Engineering Services Division) that servicing arrangements acceptable
to the City have been made for the subject lands (which may include
the payment of applicable servicing charges and execution of a
servicing agreement between the Owner and the City).
Staff Report:CS-26-027
File: A04-2026
Page 1 of 1
Page 27 of 614
SCHEDULE F
Comments – A04-2026
Agency
City of Owen Sound Engineering & Public Works Department – dated
March 31, 2026
Canada Post – dated March 26, 2026
County of Grey – dated March 24, 2026
City of Owen Sound Building Division – dated March 23, 2026
Grey Sauble Conservation Authority – dated April 2, 2026
Public
Colleen Bravener – dated March 28, 2026
Report: CS-26-027
Page 1 of 1
Page 28 of 614
File: A04-2026
Staff Report
Engineering Services Division
Public Works & Engineering Department
Date:
March 31, 2026
Application:
A04/2026
To:
Staci Landry, Secretary-Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment
Sabine Robart, Manager of Planning and Heritage
Pam Coulter, Director of Community Services
Lara Widdifield, Director of Public Works & Engineering
From:
Matthew Pierog, Engineering Technologist
Subject:
Application for Minor Variance – Engineering Review
Municipal Address: TBD
Assessment Roll: 425901000711301
Legal Description: PLAN 371 PT LOT 1 PT LOT 2 RP 16R1665 PARTS 1&2
WITH LANE
Applicant: Murphy Homes and Design Inc.
Background:
Refer to description provided by the City’s Planning Division.
Recommendation:
Further to our review of the above noted application, the Public Works and
Engineering Department recommends approval of this application for minor
variance by the Committee of Adjustment, subject to the following
conditions.
1. The Owner revise the proposed site plan and submit drawings to the
Secretary-Treasurer, to reflect the City’s Site Development
Engineering Standards, including the detailed comments below
regarding site access and parking, to the satisfaction of the Manager of
Public Works and Engineering.
Page 1 of 3
Page 29 of 614
APPLICATION for MINOR VARIANCE – ENGINEERING REVIEW
A04/2026
TBD – 16th Steet East (Murphy Homes)
continued
a. It is noted that off-site works/easement works are required to be
approved by the Manager of Public Works and Engineering, and
will require the Owner entering into a future agreement with the
City, at the time of the Building Permit, to cover the faithful
execution of off-site works.
2. That the Owner prepares and submits a Grading and Drainage Plan
and a Stormwater Management Report, to the satisfaction of the City's
Public Works and Engineering Department (Engineering Services
Division) and the Community Services Department (Planning and
Heritage Division).
Analysis:
Site Access:
The property fronts on 16th Street East, which is classified as a Minor Arterial
Road.
The existing frontage has mountable curb for a significant portion, which is
to be revised to accommodate the proposed entrance; the revised curbing is
to tie into existing barrier curb to the east, and extend the barrier curb to a
transition area (drop/mountable) fronting the ‘easement’ to the west (radius’
to be 6.0m).
There does not appear to be any impact to site access required as a part of
the minor variance requested for the proposed development.
Parking:
The proposed parking stalls (standard, Type ‘A’) meet or exceed the City’s
minimum dimensions for parking stall length and widths.
The barrier free parking stall appears to conflict with the proposed sidewalk.
The standard parking stalls appear to conflict with the sight triangle.
There does not appear to be any impact to the parking required as a part of
the minor variance requested for the proposed development.
Site Servicing:
There is a 150 mm Ø cast iron watermain fronting the property along 16th
Street East, and to the west, within an assumed City easement over the
adjacent property.
Page 2 of 3
Page 30 of 614
APPLICATION for MINOR VARIANCE – ENGINEERING REVIEW
A04/2026
TBD – 16th Steet East (Murphy Homes)
continued
There is a 225 mm Ø cured-in-place pipe located in 16th Street East and to
the west, within a City easement over the subject property.
The minimum service laterals are to be determined at the time of the
building permit, which are to be in accordance with the OBC. Off-site
servicing (water/wastewater) will require a Special Services Application, to
the satisfaction of the Manager of Water and Wastewater/Manager of Public
Works and Engineering.
Servicing for the proposed building will occur as a part of the typical Building
Permit process and does not appear to be affected based on the minor
variance requested for the proposed development.
Grading, Drainage & Stormwater Management:
The development proposed at the property is approaching a significant
portion (~68%) of the surface area to be impervious (buildings, driveways,
parking area, etc.). A Grading and Drainage Plan is required to be prepared
by a qualified person. The plan is to incorporate a SWM plan/brief for the
property, and should a stormwater outlet connection be required, the
applicant is to enter into a Servicing Agreement with the City to cover the
faithful execution of any off-site works, or changes proposed to the
‘easement’ lands.
It is the Owner’s responsibility to ensure that the overall grading, drainage
and stormwater management plans conform to Section 2.2.2 of By-law
1999-030; the City of Owen Sound Property Standards By-law, and the
approved grading plan.
Consultation:
This document incorporates comments from all Divisions of the Public Works
and Engineering Department. The Comments provided above were based on
the City’s most recent Engineering Standards and the records available at
the time of preparation of this report. The comments provided do not
preclude the applicant’s responsibility for meeting all applicable laws,
regulations and standards, or provide any assurances.
Prepared By:
Reviewed By:
Matthew Pierog, P.Eng.
Mason Bellamy, C.Tech.
Matthew Pierog, P.Eng.
Reviewed via email
Page 3 of 3
Page 31 of 614
CANADA POST
955 HIGHBURY AVE N
LONDON ON N5Y 1A3
POSTES CANADA
955 HIGHBURY AVE N
LONDON ON N5Y 1A3
CANADAPOST.CA
POSTESCANADA.CA
March 26, 2026
Staci Landry
Deputy Clerk | Corporate Services Department | City of Owen Sound
808 2nd Avenue East, Owen Sound, ON N4K 2H4
519-376-4440 ext 1235 | slandry@owensound.ca
Notice of Public Hearing and Application for File A04-2026
Canada Post has reviewed the proposal for the above noted Development Application and has
determined that the project adheres to the multi-unit policy and will be serviced by
developer/owner installed Lock Box Assembly.
Multi-unit buildings and complexes (residential and commercial) with a common lobby,
common indoor or sheltered space, require a centralized lock box assembly which is to be
provided by, installed by, and maintained by the developer/owner at the owner’s expense.
Buildings with 100 units or more MUST have a rear loading Lock Box Assembly with
dedicated secure mail room.
Should the description of the project change, please provide an updated plan in order for us to
assess the impact of the change on mail service.
Canada Post appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above noted application and
looks forward to working with you in the future.
The complete guide to Canada Post’s Delivery Standards can be found at:
https://www.canadapost.ca/cpo/mc/assets/pdf/business/standardsmanual_en.pdf
If you require any further information or have any questions or concerns, please contact the
undersigned.
Regards,
DarrenStevens
Darren Stevens
Delivery Services Officer
955 Highbury Ave
London ON N5Y 1A3
519-281-3428
darren.stevens@canadapost.ca
Page 32 of 614
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
planning@grey.ca
Briana Bloomfield; OS Planning; Staci Landry; Tim Simmonds; Pam Coulter; Engineering; Emily Carter
County comments for A04-2026 Murphy Homes and Design Inc.
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 9:28:36 AM
External sender <planning@grey.ca>
Make sure you trust this sender before taking any actions.
County comments for A04-2026 Murphy Homes
and Design Inc.
Hello Owen Sound,
Please note that Grey County is taking steps to streamline development review by
limiting planning policy comments on some development applications. Unless
otherwise requested by municipal staff, County planning comments will be limited
for the following applications:
All minor variance and site plan applications; and
zoning by-law amendments and consents within settlement areas.
County planning staff may continue to provide comments where the above
applications are connected to a County application.
Grey County Ecology staff will continue to review all applications with regards to
natural heritage matters. Other County departments will continue to be circulated
through our ‘one-window’ approach and will provide comments as needed.
Given the above, a formal planning policy review of the subject application has not
been undertaken. Please be advised that all planning decisions shall conform with
the County's Official Plan. County planning staff can assist with specific questions
in this respect.
County staff would note that Appendix A of the County Official Plan indicates that
the subject lands are approximately 370 metres from a 'Abandoned Landfill:
Previously Identified Site'. In March 2015, Azimuth Environmental Consulting
undertook a Historic Landfill Site Review. In the review, it was determined that the
landfill had insufficient risk. Therefore, County Planning staff have no concerns in
this regard.
Grey County Planning Ecology staff have reviewed the application and have no
concerns.
Grey County Housing staff have reviewed the application and have no concerns.
County staff have no further comments at this time. Please let us know if you have
any questions.
Page 33 of 614
Best regards,
Derek McMurdie
County of Grey, Owen Sound, ON
Page 34 of 614
Staff Report
Building Division
ROLL NO.: 4259 010 007 11301
DATE:
MARCH 23, 2026
TO:
STACI LANDRY, DEPUTY CLERK
FROM:
NIELS JENSEN, BUILDING OFFICIAL
SUBJECT:
MINOR VARIACE APPLICATION FOR UNADDRESSED LOT
PLANNING FILE: A04-2026
MUNICIPAL ADDRESS: UNADDRESSED LOT ON 16 TH St EAST
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PLAN 371 PT LOT 1 PT LOT 2;RP 16R1665
PARTS 1&2 WITH; LANE
APPLICANT: MURPHY’S CONSTRUCTION
BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing to construct a new two-storey,
six (6) unit residential building.
To facilitate the proposal, the application is requesting the following variance:
Provision
C4 – Other Permitted Uses
Minimum Rear Yard Setback for
a Dwelling Apartment
[Sec. 6.6(e)]
Required
7.5 m
Provided
2.0 m
Variance
5.5 m
ANALYSIS: This document incorporates comments from the Building
Division of the Community Service Department.
The above noted site plan has been reviewed using the requirements from
the Ontario Building Code and related City and County By-laws. The following
comments reflect the results of the review:
All construction to be in accordance with either the Ontario Building
Code or successor legislation in place at the time of building permit
application.
Page 1 of 3
Page 35 of 614
A04-2026
Building Division Review
-/Continued
The payment of permit fees, City, County and site specific Development
Charges will be due upon the issuance of a building permit.
DETAILED REVIEW:
application are:
Documents reviewed in conjunction with this
Ontario Building Code 2024
o C
City of Owen Sound Development Charges By-law
County of Grey Development Charges By-laws
The Building Division does not have any concerns regarding the application,
please be aware that the building must comply with the Ontario Building
Code in effect at the time of application and City By-laws, including but not
limited to, the following:
A Record of Site Condition by a Qualified Person be registered with
MoECP and any required issues addressed prior to construction.
Design to meet the requirements of Barrier Free Design as per 3.8.
including, but not limited to, one (1) Barrier-Free Unit(s) as per
3.8.2.1(5) and Barrier-Free paths of travel (1.1m unobstructed width)
to a public thoroughfare as per 3.8.2.2.(c).
Building to be designed by a Qualified Designer.
Permit drawings to include mechanical (plumbing, HVAC, radon),
structural, electrical, architectural details including fire separations
between units, floors, exits and occupancies meeting the requirements
of the OBC. Ensure suites with common entrances have a second
means of egress per 9.9.9.2, that landings as per 9.8.6 are provided
and that HVAC components are not located in a shared space as per
6.3.2.7.
Site grading and drainage plan by qualified Engineer on all lots to the
satisfaction of the Engineering Division. Final grading to be verified by
the Engineer.
Sanitary sewer to be protected by a back water valve.
Page 2 of 3
Page 36 of 614
A04-2026
Building Division Review
-/Continued
Water service to be protected with a back flow device.
Provisions for Firefighting including, but not limited to, location of
hydrants, location and design of access routes as per OBC 3.2.5 to be
installed by the developer if required.
Building/Demolition permit(s) may be revoked if construction not
started with 6 months of permit issuance or if construction is
substantially halted, suspended, or discontinued for a period of over
one year.
Fees and charges are to be paid at the rate current at time of building
permit issuance. The following estimated rates would apply if permit
applied for in 2026 (rates subject to change based on Fees and
Charges By-law):
o Building permit of $16.34 per m2 of gross floor area Residential
Apartment construction (min $120) plus Admin Fee of $57.89 per
unit.
o City of Owen Sound Development Charges, if applicable
o County of Grey Development Charges, if applicable
Submitted by:
Niels Jensen
Reviewed by:
Kevin Linthorne, CBO
Page 3 of 3
Page 37 of 614
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Clinton Stredwick - Environmental Planner
OS Planning; Staci Landry
Margaret Potter; Jon Farmer; Scott Greig
Minor Variance Application A04-2026
Thursday, April 2, 2026 2:14:40 PM
image001.png
image002.png
External sender <c.stredwick@greysauble.on.ca>
Make sure you trust this sender before taking any actions.
Dear Margaret,
The GSCA has reviewed Minor Variance Application A04-2026 and has no concerns or
objections. The subject lands do not contain Hazard lands or contain any regulated area
under O.Reg. 41-24.
Kind regards,
Clinton Stredwick, BES, MCIP, RPP
Environmental Planner
519.376.3076
c.stredwick@greysauble.on.ca
www.greysauble.on.ca
We’ve Temporarily Moved!
While our office gets renovated, find us at 901 3rd Avenue East, Suite 215, Owen
Sound (above the Post Office).
This email communication and accompanying documents are intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed
and may contain information that is confidential, privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any use of this
information by individuals or entities other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you received this communication
in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all the copies (electronic or otherwise) immediately. Thank you for
your cooperation.
For after-hours non-911 emergencies please call 226-256-8702. Please do not use this number for planning related inquiries.
For information regarding properties, visit our website at www.greysauble.on.ca.
Page 38 of 614
/'/
(
/o'.
m/"ac-A A€,aoAl.
L
a{
frzc a
t tft'F
Co^
F*orn
E.
BBa,tentR
€^)
-
"!
9a? 6t,rrJ 2u.E
s /rrt<n/
0 uf,l*?, o
/
J
Ao
lt el
t4)
Rch
lh)
h tnt
f* oq:-&oa
t
NE
2-,
d
Pr Lar/
Prra^t 3
7 r'a)
R
€z'o/
rh
q
74 Sr.f
7h 7T.r
/+7
/.,
v-
VE
f
e
4) n/u
.LJ
4t,u/s
{+
rLe-
t/<A'eL
LuA.s..e
e-
ft
l/L
I
74.
c
L,s,
{L
€tVau
w
I\rw€ L0 t'Th d A
nabrt
Page 39 of 614
Staff Report
Report To:
Committee of Adjustment
Report From:
Jacklyn Iezzi, Senior Planner
Meeting Date:
April 7, 2026
Report Code:
CS-26-029
Subject:
Minor Variance A03-2026 for 2090 9th Avenue East
Recommendations:
THAT in consideration of Staff Report CS-26-029 respecting Minor Variance
A03-2026 by Grey Bruce Property Rentals Inc., for the property known as
2090 9th Avenue East, the Committee of Adjustment approves the modified
minor variance as the Committee concludes that the modified variance
maintains the general intent and purpose of the City’s Official Plan and
Zoning By-law, is minor in nature, and desirable for the appropriate
development and use of the lands, subject to the conditions outlined in
Schedule ‘E’.
Highlights:
A minor variance application has been submitted by Grey Bruce
Property Rentals Inc. for property known as 2090 9th Avenue East.
The lands are also subject to Consent Application B01-2026 and
B02-2026, which have the effect of severing the subject property to
facilitate the construction of a new, four-storey, 35-unit apartment
building and establishing an easement for shared means of
stormwater infrastructure, site access, and parking arrangements
between the severed and retained parcels.
The application is requesting relief from the minimum rear yard
setback and maximum building height provisions for an Apartment
within the General Residential (R5) Zone, minimum rear yard
setback for a porch/deck, off-street parking, and planting strip
Staff Report CS-26-029: Minor Variance A03-2026 for 2090 9th Avenue East
Page 1 of 24