Owen Sound Committee of Adjustment Meeting Transcript — April 20, 2026

00:00:09 SPEAKER_019: Good morning. It's ten a.m.

00:00:10 SPEAKER_019: I will call the meeting to order.

00:00:12 SPEAKER_019: I'd like to welcome everyone to this hearing today.

00:00:15 SPEAKER_019: The Committee of Adjustment is appointed by bylaw as a Property Standards Committee under the Building Code Act to hear appeals to a Property Standards Order.

00:00:25 SPEAKER_019: Do any committee members have an interest arising from the minutes of the last meeting?

00:00:29 SPEAKER_019: or listed on the agenda.

00:00:31 SPEAKER_019: If so, please state the general nature thereof.

00:00:36 SPEAKER_019: Seeing none, the Committee of Adjustment is now sitting as the Property Standards Committee.

00:00:41 SPEAKER_019: 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,

00:00:53 SPEAKER_019: or extend the time for complying with the order.

00:00:57 SPEAKER_019: If in. the committee's opinion, the general intent and purpose of the property standards bylaw is maintained, please be advised that anyone other than the owner, occupant, or their representatives, or or interested parties,

00:01:11 SPEAKER_019: as copied in 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 persons, person or persons,

00:01:23 SPEAKER_019: must leave their name and address in writing with the secretary. of the committee prior to leaving the hearing by filling out the signing sheet located on the table outside council chambers.

00:01:35 SPEAKER_019: In addition, the city or owner or occupant or persons affected by the committee's decision may appeal to the superior court of justice by notifying the clerk in writing,

00:01:45 SPEAKER_019: and by applying to the court within 14 days after a copy of the decision is sent.

00:02:02 SPEAKER_019: The Property Standards Committee today will consider an appeal of the Property Standards Order.

00:02:07 SPEAKER_019: This is an electronic hearing.

00:02:09 SPEAKER_019: The city and the applicant may provide an opening statement.

00:02:12 SPEAKER_019: The city, the city, will present its case and will call their first witness, if any.

00:02:18 SPEAKER_019: Each witness is sworn or affirmed by the secretary, and the conclusion of the testimony by. each city witness, the appellant, and then the committee may ask their own questions of the witness.

00:02:31 SPEAKER_019: After the city has called their witness, the appellant will call their witness, if any.

00:02:35 SPEAKER_019: And in conclusion of the testimony of each of the appellant witnesses, the city may then, the committee may ask their questions of the witness.

00:02:45 SPEAKER_019: The city and the appellant may make their closing statements.

00:02:49 SPEAKER_019: Closing statements should include what each party. is requesting of the committee, by, by, excuse me, with respect to confirming, modifying, or rescinding the order and extending the time for applying with the order,

00:03:03 SPEAKER_019: the committee may then retire to debate, in the absence of the public, and the city and the appellant, the secretary will retire with the committee and record its decision.

00:03:14 SPEAKER_019: The committee will render its decision, in the presence of the public, the city, and the. appellant and appellant's representatives.

00:03:26 SPEAKER_019: This is a public hearing for an appeal of property standards order at two three five Eighth Street East by Kepler Real Estate Inc. Excuse me.

00:03:38 SPEAKER_019: The appeal hearing was adjourned from the original date of April seventh, twenty twenty six.

00:03:47 SPEAKER_019: The city may now provide. opening statements.

00:03:57 SPEAKER_015: Before we begin the hearing, Mr. Chair, before this hearing proceeds, the city raises a preliminary objection and formally renews its request that you recuse yourself from presiding over this matter.

00:04:12 SPEAKER_015: The request is not made lightly; it is grounded in a well-established legal principle that decision makers. must not only be impartial, but must also be seen to be impartial.

00:04:23 SPEAKER_015: The applicable test is whether a reasonable and informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically, would conclude that there is a reasonable apprehension of bias.

00:04:35 SPEAKER_015: The city understands that there was a prior conflict and personal issue between yourself and the bylaw enforcement officer, who stands here today, whose order is. also under appeal.

00:04:48 SPEAKER_015: Even if no actual bias exists, the prior relationship creates a situation where a reasonable observer could question whether the matter will be decided impartially.

00:05:00 SPEAKER_015: Additionally, during the previous hearing, it was observed that you were engaged with a mobile device during the portions of the bylaw officer's testimony.

00:05:09 SPEAKER_015: This raises concern that the evidence may not have been fully considered, which further contributes. to the perception of unfairness.

00:05:18 SPEAKER_015: The Supreme Court has consistently held that justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done.

00:05:25 SPEAKER_015: In this case, the combination of a prior conflict and a conduct suggesting inattention to evidence creates, at a minimum, a reasonable apprehension of bias.

00:05:36 SPEAKER_015: Accordingly, the city respectfully submits that the appropriate remedy is for you to recuse yourself and for the matter to be heard by. a different chair or panel member,

00:05:46 SPEAKER_015: this is necessary to preserve the integrity of the process and maintain public confidence in the committee. Thank for that statement.

00:05:55 SPEAKER_015: I will answer your questions.

00:06:02 SPEAKER_014: As far as being impartial, each case that comes before this committee is treated on its own merits, and you're bringing up some.

00:06:12 SPEAKER_014: And you bringing up something from the past, which was I was told not to be brought up again. It was a past. It was done.

00:06:19 SPEAKER_014: It was finished, and that was the end of it.

00:06:22 SPEAKER_014: So any prior details prior to this are not relevant.

00:06:29 SPEAKER_014: I did not use a phone.

00:06:30 SPEAKER_014: I do not use a phone in the hearings.

00:06:34 SPEAKER_014: There's no information on my phone that would assist me.

00:06:37 SPEAKER_014: All my information comes from the paperwork in front of me. and we have no prior conflict with the officer or anyone representing him, so we're going to proceed with the hearing.

00:06:52 SPEAKER_014: And as we stated earlier, if you're not happy with the results of the hearing, you may appeal to the superior court.

00:07:03 SPEAKER_015: For the record, the city objects to you continuing to preside and reserves all rights to challenge the.

00:07:08 SPEAKER_015: Serves all rights to challenge the validity of the proceedings on this basis.

00:07:10 SPEAKER_015: Proceeding in these circumstances risks rendering a decision vulnerable to be set aside and viewed due to procedural unfairness. Your objection is noted.

00:07:23 SPEAKER_015: Please proceed, Master Chair and members of the committee.

00:07:34 SPEAKER_015: This appeal is about whether a landlord of a multi.

00:07:51 SPEAKER_015: Whether a landlord of a multi-unit residential building may refuse to take reasonable eradication steps after bed bugs were confirmed, after the tenant continued to report bed bugs and bed bug activity,

00:08:01 SPEAKER_015: and after the city investigated and issued a measured remedial order, on this record the answer must be no. The evidence begins with Grayburg's public health on January 26, 2026.

00:08:03 SPEAKER_015: Public health notified both the landlord and the city that insect samples brought in by the resident of 235 8th Street East had been positively identified as bedbugs.

00:08:09 SPEAKER_015: Public health also advised that the resident had previously informed the landlord of suspected bedbug activity and had found additional evidence.

00:08:19 SPEAKER_015: Public health asked the landlord provide a plan to eradicate the pests from the apartment building in a timely manner. This is not rumor. This is not speculation.

00:08:32 SPEAKER_015: This is the first objective confirmation in the record.

00:08:39 SPEAKER_015: The city then acted appropriately.

00:08:41 SPEAKER_015: On January 27, the property standards officer wrote to Kepler Real Estate Inc. asking for the eradication plan, including the scheduled date and time for work, the name of the contractor,

00:08:53 SPEAKER_015: the product type and application methods, the scope of work in the unit and common areas, and any follow-up treatments.

00:09:02 SPEAKER_015: The city did not. leap to an order first. It first sought compliance.

00:09:08 SPEAKER_015: The appellant's answer was to send an Orkin report dated January ninth, twenty twenty-six.

00:09:14 SPEAKER_015: That report is important, but not for the reasons the appellant says.

00:09:19 SPEAKER_015: The city accurately notes that the report did not observe active live bedbug activity at the moment, but also recorded that the tenant had shown the technician several bedbugs, and.

00:09:28 SPEAKER_015: Bed bugs, and that a crack and crevice pesticide treatment was still applied as a precaution.

00:09:37 SPEAKER_015: So even even the appellant referred to documents does not amount to a clean bill of health.

00:09:44 SPEAKER_015: At best, it shows that on one day, in one inspection, live activity was not present, while bed bug evidence still exists and treatment was still considered appropriate.

00:09:55 SPEAKER_015: The city did not ignore that report.

00:09:57 SPEAKER_015: The city reviewed it and advised the tenant on.

00:10:00 SPEAKER_015: Viewed it and advised the tenant on February 4 to continue monitoring and notify the city if further activity was observed.

00:10:03 SPEAKER_015: The February 4 inspection record in the case package matches that narrative.

00:10:12 SPEAKER_015: It notes that the contractor reports of work completed had been submitted and records that no deficiency were noted at the time.

00:10:20 SPEAKER_015: That is not evidence of misconduct by the city.

00:10:22 SPEAKER_015: It is evidence that the city considered the contractor's information, held off an enforcement, and.

00:10:28 SPEAKER_015: Held off in enforcement and monitored the situation.

00:10:31 SPEAKER_015: What change was further evidence?

00:10:33 SPEAKER_015: On February 11th, the tenant again contacted the property standards officer, reporting that bedbugs were still being found within the unit, and that the tenant continued to experience bites.

00:10:47 SPEAKER_015: The tenant provided photographs showing insect samples and bite reactions.

00:10:52 SPEAKER_015: The case package gives exact timing.

00:10:55 SPEAKER_015: The officer's February 12th note states.

00:10:56 SPEAKER_015: February twelve notes state that the follow up email included photos dated February the eleventh, two thousand and twenty six at seven twenty nine p.m.

00:11:02 SPEAKER_015: The photos photo descriptions then identify one image as depicting what clearly appears to be bed bugs in the palm of a hand,

00:11:13 SPEAKER_015: and the other as depicting what appears to be bite marks from bed bugs.

00:11:18 SPEAKER_015: The officer then investigated on February twelve at approximately nine twenty six a.m.

00:11:23 SPEAKER_015: That timing is in the inspection report. based on the compliant history, public health confirmation, the fresh tenant photographs, and the officer's investigation,

00:11:33 SPEAKER_015: the city concluded that the building was not being kept free of injurious insects.

00:11:38 SPEAKER_015: The result resulting order states exactly what was deficient.

00:11:43 SPEAKER_015: States property is not kept free from injurious insects, namely bed bugs.

00:11:48 SPEAKER_015: Live samples were found in unit five on February eleven, two thousand and twenty-six. 26.

00:11:53 SPEAKER_015: It then required conventional pest control steps, inspect unit five plus adjacent and diagonal units and hallways, exterminate where evidence is found, carry out follow-up treatments recommended by the certified company,

00:12:07 SPEAKER_015: and provide provide signed reports to the officer.

00:12:11 SPEAKER_015: Compliance was set for April 21, 2026.

00:12:15 SPEAKER_015: Against all that, the appellant says the city has no basis to act.

00:12:19 SPEAKER_015: Bed bugs are not injurious insects. No inspect. Insects. No inspection occurred.

00:12:23 SPEAKER_015: The Orkent report cleared the building, and that the broader inspection scope is punitive.

00:12:29 SPEAKER_015: Those arguments do not withstand comparison with the record.

00:12:35 SPEAKER_015: First, the order was plainly authorized under section 15.2 sub 2 of the Building Code Act.

00:12:40 SPEAKER_015: The committee's task is not to ask whether it would have drafted the order differently, but whether the officer acted within statutory authority, and whether the order is reasonably to.

00:12:50 SPEAKER_015: Whether the order is reasonably directed to compliance.

00:12:53 SPEAKER_015: Second, the appellant attempted to limit injurious insects to insects that injure the structure, is not supported by the wording of the bylaw or its purpose.

00:13:03 SPEAKER_015: The bylaw, in its remedial context, it exists to maintain buildings in a safe, sanitary, inhabitable conditions.

00:13:12 SPEAKER_015: Bed bugs are parasitic insects that feed on human blood and cause bites, skin irritation, allergic reactions, sleep disturbance. and psychological distress.

00:13:22 SPEAKER_015: The tenant here reported continued bites.

00:13:25 SPEAKER_015: On any ordinary or purpose, purposive reading, that is sufficient to engage the bylaw.

00:13:32 SPEAKER_015: Third, the no inspection argument fails on the evidence.

00:13:36 SPEAKER_015: The municipal inspection report records a February 12th investigation at 9:26 a.m.

00:13:42 SPEAKER_015: The legal point directly in pest cases, particularly transient conditions like bed bugs. the Building Code Act does not require an officer personally to observe each insect before issuing an order.

00:13:54 SPEAKER_015: The officer may rely on public health confirmation, tenant complaints, photographs, and pest control documents.

00:14:02 SPEAKER_015: This is exactly what occurred here.

00:14:05 SPEAKER_015: Fourth, the Orkin report did not establish compliance.

00:14:08 SPEAKER_015: A single inspection with no observed activity at the moment does not conclusively establish the absence of bed bugs. especially when the technician was shown bed bugs and still treated.

00:14:20 SPEAKER_015: The later February 11th evidence overtook that report.

00:14:26 SPEAKER_015: Fifth, the scope of the order is not punitive.

00:14:28 SPEAKER_015: The city states that inspecting surrounding units in adjacent areas reflects standard pest control practice in multi-unit residential buildings because bed bugs migrate through structural openings, penetrations, conduits, and shared hallways.

00:14:43 SPEAKER_015: The order's scope. corresponds exactly to that problem.

00:14:47 SPEAKER_015: The committee will also see from the appellant's own material, being their document brief and their factum, that the owner adopted an adversarial and threatening posture, rather than compliance posture.

00:15:00 SPEAKER_015: Their disclosure accuses the city of trial by ambush, calls the city conduct gross negligence, threatens personal suits against staff, claims the order is punitive,

00:15:11 SPEAKER_015: and seeks to postpone postpone. meaningful remediation until after the eviction of his tenant.

00:15:18 SPEAKER_015: The posture matters because it explains what this appeal really is—not a legitimate effort to clarify or a narrow order, but a broad attempt to avoid present compliance with property standards obligations.

00:15:32 SPEAKER_015: For these reasons, the city asks that the appeal be dismissed and the order confirmed. Thank you.

00:15:50 SPEAKER_038: The appellant may now provide an opening statement. Thank you. Yes. Good morning. Before I begin.

00:16:10 SPEAKER_016: I was just going to ask.

00:16:12 SPEAKER_016: I have a visual aid that I would like your permission to hand out for absolute clarity.

00:16:17 SPEAKER_016: This is not new evidence.

00:16:18 SPEAKER_016: This is not evidence at all.

00:16:20 SPEAKER_016: It's a visual aid with my talking points divided into three columns. Nothing more.

00:16:25 SPEAKER_016: So, should you choose to not accept the handout, you may follow along by using your mind's eye.

00:16:33 SPEAKER_017: If the handout assists the committee in following what you're explaining, we'll accept it. Will accept it. Thank you.

00:16:51 SPEAKER_016: It is vital for the committee to understand that they have the unfettered power to rescind orders in any and all circumstances.

00:16:58 SPEAKER_016: They are free to do so critically, even in cases where they are certain that the law has been violated.

00:17:03 SPEAKER_016: On September eighteenth, twenty eighteen, the Property Standards Committee did. precisely this with respect to an order against Gray Bruce Property Rentals Incorporated.

00:17:14 SPEAKER_016: Tab one: breach of natural justice. the The appellant has been forced to prepare this defence blind.

00:17:21 SPEAKER_016: The city has ignored five formal requests for disclosure over the thirty five days leading up to this hearing.

00:17:29 SPEAKER_016: This is a trial by ambush that violates the Statutory Powers Procedures Act.

00:17:34 SPEAKER_016: Expert findings and administrative. hearsay.

00:17:36 SPEAKER_016: The city claims of a significant infestation is is directly refuted by a January ninth inspection from Orkin Canada, which found zero live activity.

00:17:47 SPEAKER_016: In the absence of any further evidence, after repeated requests, the order was issued solely based on unverified third-party hearsay. Diagonal overreach.

00:17:58 SPEAKER_016: The order mandates diagonal inspections and follow-up recommendations from private contractors. this is a disproportionate invasion of privacy of six innocent families and an illegal delegation of municipal authority to a third-party company.

00:18:13 SPEAKER_016: There have been zero complaints from any other residents in the building.

00:18:19 SPEAKER_016: Exhibit C four states that I'm an employee of Kepler Real Estate Incorporated, and my primary workplace is the professional office located directly beneath this this apartment building at two. thirty-five Eighth Street East,

00:18:34 SPEAKER_016: I have worked in this location for over two years, and I'm present in the office for about forty hours per week.

00:18:40 SPEAKER_016: I have observed no live bed bugs, no nymphs, eggs within the premises of this office.

00:18:47 SPEAKER_016: I have found no physical evidence of bed bug activity, such as fecal spotting, shed skins, or blood stains on office furniture or our commons area surfaces.

00:18:57 SPEAKER_016: Under the Building Code Act, an order must be necessary to achieve. a compliance,

00:19:02 SPEAKER_016: a diagonal search of clean units where there is no activity has been reported by tenants is an arbitrary fishing expedition that exceeds the officer's authority.

00:19:13 SPEAKER_016: The misapplication of bylaw, the injurious error.

00:19:16 SPEAKER_016: Bed bugs are a human nuisance; they do not injure the structure.

00:19:21 SPEAKER_016: 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. insects,

00:19:30 SPEAKER_016: with the capability to make building structures vulnerable to collapse. The eradication error.

00:19:37 SPEAKER_016: The bylaw defines extermination as removing harboring places.

00:19:40 SPEAKER_016: As documented by Orkin, the tenants hoarding and piles of garbage and debris in the unit, as quoted, piles to the ceiling, provides the harboring places.

00:19:55 SPEAKER_016: The appellant is legally barred from removing these.

00:19:58 SPEAKER_016: Bared from removing these items without a writ of possession, Orkin has said in an email, see exhibit C two, that the condition of the apartment prevents effective treatment.

00:20:08 SPEAKER_016: The city is trying to skip the investigation phase and jump straight to the eradication phase without meeting the evidentiary burden of the law.

00:20:17 SPEAKER_016: The terminal tenancy, the tenant is currently facing eviction through the LTB, the landlord tenant board, as the tenancy is not viable.

00:20:26 SPEAKER_016: It's a waste of staff. Viable.

00:20:27 SPEAKER_016: It's a waste of statutory power to order the building-wide chemical application for a unit that will be legally vacant and ready for professional stripping and remediation shortly.

00:20:31 SPEAKER_016: For no attendance, the Building Code Act 15.22 flows from 15.21.

00:20:43 SPEAKER_016: Only after they enter and inspect, they can find that the property does not conform.

00:20:52 SPEAKER_016: Under 15.21, an officer can.

00:21:06 SPEAKER_016: One an officer can enter upon any property at any reasonable time without a warrant for the purpose of inspecting the property,

00:21:15 SPEAKER_016: and it only flows from fifteen point fifteen two one that an officer can then have findings under fifteen two two.

00:21:17 SPEAKER_016: Page forty five of the city's disclosure package includes a false claim from Officer Riley Burgess that he physically attended the property on February twelve th at nine twenty six a m. It clearly inarguable.

00:21:21 SPEAKER_016: It clearly and arguably says visit date and visit time when the property was not in fact visited on that date or time.

00:21:29 SPEAKER_016: The city paralegal claims that the officer conducted an inspection about the property on February 12th in her factum.

00:21:36 SPEAKER_016: Section 17 of the factum states that there are there was an investigation and an inspection, but there was not an inspection.

00:21:47 SPEAKER_016: Rather, the officer misused the municipal inspection report template, writing a time on the line. for the time to make it seem as though that he did intend in person when he did in fact not. In Ingalls v.

00:21:56 SPEAKER_016: Tuttlek, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified that a municipality's obligation to inspect is operational.

00:22:24 SPEAKER_016: It established the standard for municipality liability regarding negligent inspections, which must be carried out in person with reasonable care.

00:22:33 SPEAKER_016: The court ruled that while the city has the discretion to decide. whether to inspect, once it chooses to do so, it owes a duty of care to ensure the inspection is conducted with reasonable diligence.

00:22:35 SPEAKER_016: Under the case law, a city cannot fulfill its duty to care from a desk if the work is structural or relates to public health and safety.

00:22:37 SPEAKER_016: The city agrees that 2581 does not apply.

00:22:40 SPEAKER_016: The city's position in section 33 of the factum is that 25 Is that two five eight one is not applicable.

00:22:52 SPEAKER_016: Accordingly, absent evidence of actual health risk rising beyond irritation or inconvenience, bed bugs do not meet the threshold of injurious insects contemplated by section two five eight one.

00:23:08 SPEAKER_016: The property provision, if any, should be section two five eight two concerning infestation, which requires a different evidentiary foundation.

00:23:16 SPEAKER_016: The evidence the city relies on public health confirmations and tenant photographs, but public health merely relied on tenant photographs themselves.

00:23:28 SPEAKER_016: Public health did not contribute, and it was effectively absent from the discussion.

00:23:32 SPEAKER_016: It was the same tenant evidence that was sent to the city.

00:23:37 SPEAKER_016: Sorry, it was the same tenant evidence sent to public health that Riley relied on.

00:23:44 SPEAKER_016: An agent re-typing the same verbiage. from the tenant, as the city should not by itself be construed as the agency's confirmation.

00:23:55 SPEAKER_016: The tenant's photograph should not be viewed as one piece of evidence, not double counted.

00:24:00 SPEAKER_016: No photos of live bedbugs.

00:24:03 SPEAKER_016: It has been claimed that the city, by the city, that they were live, but this is not the case. They were dead bedbugs.

00:24:11 SPEAKER_016: No proof of photos were taken at the subject property.

00:24:14 SPEAKER_016: The ambiguous black background does not prove that this was in fact in in the in the unit.

00:24:24 SPEAKER_016: We believe that the city's factum may have partially been written by AI.

00:24:29 SPEAKER_016: Section twenty eight and section thirty one include what we suspect to be AI hallucinations.

00:24:35 SPEAKER_016: With AI confusing section two five eight two with two five eight one.

00:24:40 SPEAKER_016: Section thirty hallucinates a health risk defined. health risk denied by section 33,

00:24:47 SPEAKER_016: which does not sorry which does not subject to rigorous scrutiny as it is for practicing par sorry section 30 hallucinates a health risk denied by section 33 which does not hallucinate we are not members

00:25:05 SPEAKER_016: of the law society and our use of AI and LLMs is not subject to rigorous scrutiny as it is for practicing paralegals,

00:25:13 SPEAKER_016: in Co. versus Lee, 2025, a Toronto lawyer was ordered to show cause for why they should not be cited for contempt of court for including AI-generated,

00:25:24 SPEAKER_016: fake or misleading case citations in their written and oral submissions to the court, including in her factum.

00:25:32 SPEAKER_016: No way to comply for the above Budzman's report. See Appendix One.

00:25:38 SPEAKER_016: No way to comply is a report from. the abudman that details where municipalities have failed to meet provincial standards.

00:25:46 SPEAKER_016: Section two hundred and twenty-two, the executive director never responded to the complainant despite the requirements of the standards to do so.

00:25:54 SPEAKER_016: Section seven, section one hundred and seventy-one, when municipal licensing and standards division is unable to get voluntary compliance, it has the power to lay charges that ultimately may result in court hearings.

00:25:59 SPEAKER_016: Section. one seven two, with the with this function comes an imperative for public accountability and trust.

00:26:16 SPEAKER_016: Both the process and the decision making must be transparent and fair.

00:26:20 SPEAKER_016: In our case, the appellant submitted five formal requests for disclosure between February thirteenth and March ninth of twenty twenty six.

00:26:28 SPEAKER_016: Every one of these requests was cc'd to the city clerk, Brianna Blue Bloomfield, in her capacity as the officer responsible. for municipal transparency and accountability,

00:26:41 SPEAKER_016: despite the accountability and transparency standards of the city of Owen Sound, the city clerk clerk's office provided zero response to five consecutive requests.

00:26:54 SPEAKER_016: The city clerk's silence is not mere oversight; is it?

00:26:58 SPEAKER_016: It is unacceptable conduct that mirrors the bad public service and identified by the ombudsman's in no way. to comply,

00:27:07 SPEAKER_016: the committee is asked to recognize that the city's internal oversight failed because the clerk failed to respond as required by provincial standards.

00:27:16 SPEAKER_016: The appellant was denied a fair opportunity to resolve this matter before the hearing.

00:27:21 SPEAKER_016: It has always been the city's practice to, as late as legally permissible before the hearing, for the purpose of evidence submission,

00:27:30 SPEAKER_016: have the officer re-attend the property before the hearing to provide the committee. with the most recent update, in this case, the officer failed to observe the constant and longstanding city practice and procedure.

00:27:42 SPEAKER_016: We have never before observed an officer failing to conduct a pre-hearing follow-up inspection to present to the committee.

00:27:49 SPEAKER_016: While this inspection would have ordinarily been done the morning of the hearing, procedural changes in two thousand and twenty-four required that the inspection be done ahead of March twenty-four, two thousand and twenty-six.

00:28:01 SPEAKER_016: We understand that the committee can rely. on the city solicitor for legal guidance.

00:28:05 SPEAKER_016: We ask the city solicitor, Errol Tresland, specifically review the statutory authority of this order.

00:28:12 SPEAKER_016: Under the Building Code Act, an order must be correct.

00:28:15 SPEAKER_016: The order cites a law.

00:28:16 SPEAKER_016: The prosecution admits doesn't apply, and is based on an inspection.

00:28:23 SPEAKER_016: The officer admits he never physically performed.

00:28:26 SPEAKER_016: We trust that legal counsel will be will advise that upholding defective. order, which quotes the wrong law, is a jurisdictional error.

00:28:36 SPEAKER_016: And for my visual aid here, I have a breakdown comparative analysis for the current property standards order O S B Y twenty twenty six zero zero seven six versus standard law.

00:28:55 SPEAKER_016: So as you can see here, we have a breakdown showing the differences between. a standard traffic ticket, which is Provincial Offences Act, and a city bedbug order.

00:29:06 SPEAKER_016: Physical investigation under the standard traffic act traffic ticket, officers must personally witness the violation or use verified equipment like radar lidar.

00:29:18 SPEAKER_016: For the city bedbug order, officers performed a desk inspection without entering the building.

00:29:24 SPEAKER_016: Evidentiary basis hearsay from a third party example an email.

00:29:28 SPEAKER_016: Third-party example: An email from another driver is inadmissible under the standard traffic ticket.

00:29:33 SPEAKER_016: Whereas a bedbug order, ordering a base order, is based solely on an unverified email from a tenant and an active rent default.

00:29:43 SPEAKER_016: Statutory citation under the traffic ticket: Citing the wrong section of the Highway Traffic Act results in the ticket being squashed.

00:29:52 SPEAKER_016: Under the bedbug order, the order explicitly cites.

00:29:56 SPEAKER_016: Section two five eight one, which is the prosecution, which the prosecution admits does not apply to bedbugs.

00:30:05 SPEAKER_016: Substance defense: a police officer cannot argue the driver knew they were speeding, so my paperwork error is minor.

00:30:13 SPEAKER_016: Whereas, under the bedbug order, the prosecution argues the substance of the order survives the wrong law being cited.

00:30:21 SPEAKER_016: Prejudice to defend to defendant: under the traffic ticket. an incorrect charge prevents a citizen from preparing a proper legal defense.

00:30:32 SPEAKER_016: Under the bedbug order, the owner is expected by city paralegal to eradicate an infestation.

00:30:38 SPEAKER_016: Section two five eight two for a violation of injurious insects, which include bedbugs.

00:30:43 SPEAKER_016: Section two five eight one.

00:30:46 SPEAKER_016: Duty to disclose evidence must be provided at the first opportunity for a traffic ticket, for the bedbug order. city ignored five formal requests for evidence over a 35-day blackout period.

00:31:00 SPEAKER_016: Status of offense under the traffic ticket: the violation must be active and proven.

00:31:05 SPEAKER_016: Under the bedbug order, terminal tenancy: the tenant admitted a non-viability in January.

00:31:12 SPEAKER_016: An L1 was filed for eviction on April 4th.

00:31:14 SPEAKER_016: The unit is unsanitary with hoarding issues.

00:31:21 SPEAKER_016: Legal result under the. traffic ticket, it is squashed.

00:31:25 SPEAKER_016: Under the bedbug order, it's pending the committee decision.

00:31:30 SPEAKER_016: That is everything for right now. Thank you. Thank you very much.

00:31:35 SPEAKER_016: The city may present its case.

00:31:36 SPEAKER_016: Yes, before I present, and based on.

00:31:51 SPEAKER_015: Mr. Kepler Real Estate's agent, I would like to bring forward new evidence that we have just received from the public health.

00:32:01 SPEAKER_015: They inspected the property on Friday, and we were unable to get this report until this morning.

00:32:07 SPEAKER_015: So, if I may present that to the committee, you may present it.

00:32:11 SPEAKER_015: Are you going to go through it with us, or do you want us individually to read it?

00:32:41 SPEAKER_028: Sorry, I just I'm going to email this to Mr. Orkenson now as well.

00:32:44 SPEAKER_028: So, if you just give me a minute to get that to him.

00:33:02 SPEAKER_016: I would like to object on this matter, as new evidence is being provided on here on April twentieth, when all evidence should have been submitted on March twenty-fourth.

00:33:11 SPEAKER_016: I will agree with you.

00:33:22 SPEAKER_014: I just want to see where the health unit is coming from on this information.

00:33:29 SPEAKER_014: I've just sent the email.

00:33:41 SPEAKER_028: So if you could just let us know when you've received that document. Yes, I've received it.

00:33:50 SPEAKER_028: I'm just going to open it up here. There we go. There we go. Sorry about that.

00:33:52 SPEAKER_028: Apparently, I hit too many buttons.

00:35:37 SPEAKER_015: My first office. witness I would like to call is Officer Riley Bruguez.

00:35:42 SPEAKER_015: As per the Property Standards Committee procedure, a witness must be sworn or affirmed.

00:36:04 SPEAKER_028: Both options mean that you are making a solemn spoken. promise or declaration to tell the truth.

00:36:09 SPEAKER_028: An oath is when you swear to a religious deity.

00:36:11 SPEAKER_028: An affirmation is when you promise on your personal honor with no reference to a higher power. Which do you prefer? Affirmation.

00:36:19 SPEAKER_028: Do you, Riley Bruges, solemnly affirm that you will tell the truth? I do.

00:36:21 SPEAKER_028: If I may, for the officer's reference, use the document brief. Good morning.

00:36:23 SPEAKER_028: Were you the assigned officer on the case OSBY-206-0076 concerning 2358 Street East? I was, yes.

00:36:26 SPEAKER_028: What was the nature of the complaint recorded in that case?

00:36:34 SPEAKER_028: The complaint related to an infestation of bedbugs in the unit.

00:37:18 SPEAKER_015: Did the city receive communication from Graybrew's Public Health in late January, twenty twenty-six, about the property? Yes, the city did.

00:37:29 SPEAKER_015: If you may go to page thirty at the bottom. and thirty one at the top.

00:37:35 SPEAKER_015: What did the public health report?

00:37:46 SPEAKER_015: Public health reported that a sample of bed bugs that was brought to the Gray Bruce Health Unit by the resident was an.

00:38:01 SPEAKER_029: Was inspected and identified by public health as a bedbug.

00:38:04 SPEAKER_029: After receiving that information, what did you ask the landlord to provide for reference, page thirty?

00:38:18 SPEAKER_029: Based on that report, I requested that Kepler Real Estate Inc. provide a plan for eradicating the bedbugs, including the date and time for work to be completed,

00:38:29 SPEAKER_029: the name. of the contractor that would complete the work, the product type and application methods, scope of the work, and any follow-up or secondary application appointments as necessary.

00:38:39 SPEAKER_029: If I can get you to go to page twenty-eight, and then we'll succeed to page thirty-four.

00:38:50 SPEAKER_015: Did the owner provide an Orkin report dated January nine, two thousand and twenty-six at page thirty-four? Yes. they did.

00:38:59 SPEAKER_015: What did that report indicate, as you understood it?

00:39:03 SPEAKER_030: As I understand it, the report indicated that on January ninth, Orkin did an inspection and did not find any live samples, but they did provide crack treatment to cracks in the surface.

00:39:13 SPEAKER_030: Did the city ignore that report?

00:39:14 SPEAKER_030: No, the city did not ignore that report.

00:39:15 SPEAKER_030: What did you do after reviewing it?

00:39:38 SPEAKER_030: After reviewing that report, I sent an email to the tenant requesting them that they continue to monitor the unit for bedbugs.

00:39:47 SPEAKER_030: I also sent an email to Kepler Real Estate.

00:39:56 SPEAKER_030: Inc. I'm paraphrasing here, but I believe I requested that they also continue to monitor the unit and use preventative measures.

00:40:08 SPEAKER_015: Did you receive a further complaint, Hon, about February the eleven, two thousand and twenty-six? Yes, I did.

00:40:16 SPEAKER_015: If you can go to page thirty-nine.

00:40:18 SPEAKER_015: Can you explain to this committee what's on page thirty-nine?

00:40:37 SPEAKER_030: So, on page thirty-nine of this this factum is an email from the tenant who is the original complainant.

00:40:45 SPEAKER_030: It is confirming that bedbugs are still being found.

00:40:51 SPEAKER_030: It further provided two. photographs that were dated and timed, showing evidence of bedbugs as well as bedbug bites on the tenant.

00:41:00 SPEAKER_030: Did the tenant provide photographs?

00:41:01 SPEAKER_030: Yes, the tenant did provide photographs.

00:41:02 SPEAKER_030: Were they supplied in your document brief? Yes, they were.

00:41:04 SPEAKER_031: So the landlord received those photographs.

00:41:05 SPEAKER_031: Yes, the landlord would have received those photographs.

00:41:27 SPEAKER_015: I want to direct your attention to the case package, pages forty-six to forty-seven.

00:41:31 SPEAKER_015: What do these photo descriptions say?

00:41:45 SPEAKER_030: So, on page forty-six, I wrote that. the photograph shows a date, time stamp of February 11, 2026, at 7:29 p.m.

00:41:57 SPEAKER_030: It's a photo submitted by email from the complainant that picks what clearly appears to be bedbugs in the palm of the hand.

00:42:05 SPEAKER_030: Did you conduct an investigation on February 12, 2026?

00:42:06 SPEAKER_030: Yes, I did complete. an investigation on February twelve.

00:42:08 SPEAKER_030: If I can point you to page twenty six, is that the email to the the property owner?

00:42:16 SPEAKER_030: Yes, page twenty six has an email sent by myself to the landlord.

00:42:26 SPEAKER_030: And what time is that email at?

00:42:27 SPEAKER_030: That email was sent at 10:43 a.m. on February 12th.

00:42:53 SPEAKER_015: So, how do you define that your investigation started at 9:26 a.m. but the landowner was not notified until 10 something?

00:43:05 SPEAKER_030: So, the investigation included a review of all of the information that was provided at that point in time.

00:43:11 SPEAKER_030: It included the original emails from public Health, the report from Public Health, the photographs that were provided to me the previous evening, and all of the information related to this case.

00:43:21 SPEAKER_030: What was the result recorded in that investigation?

00:43:29 SPEAKER_030: The result was that it was found that there was an infestation of bedbugs in the unit.

00:43:38 SPEAKER_030: Would. you say that upon the investigation, the landlord had failed by continued violations? Yes.

00:43:59 SPEAKER_015: What sources of information did you rely on in concluding that the property was not being kept free from bed bugs?

00:44:08 SPEAKER_030: I relied on the report from public health. that confirmed that previous samples brought to public health were in fact bed bugs.

00:44:16 SPEAKER_030: I utilized the report from the tenant on February twelve, as well as consideration of the Orkin report that was dated January nine.

00:44:26 SPEAKER_030: Did you have reasonable basis to conclude that further action was required?

00:44:28 SPEAKER_030: Yes, I believed at that time that I had reasonable. and probable grounds to believe that there was an infestation.

00:44:30 SPEAKER_015: Turning to the order at pages nine to eleven, what violation was identified?

00:44:31 SPEAKER_015: In the report, I cited all of section two five eight, which is two five point eight point one. 5.8.1 and 2.5.8.2.

00:44:47 SPEAKER_015: The description of the violation notes that the property is not kept free from injurious insects, namely bedbugs.

00:45:23 SPEAKER_015: What work did the order require the landowner to perform?

00:45:30 SPEAKER_030: The work order required 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 that unit,

00:45:44 SPEAKER_030: it required extermination conducted by the pest control company in any areas where bed bugs, nymphs, eggs, or any other evidence of bedbug activity was found.

00:45:53 SPEAKER_030: Why did the order include surrounding units and hallways?

00:45:55 SPEAKER_030: It included the surrounding units and the hall.

00:45:56 SPEAKER_030: The surrounding units and the hallways, because bed bugs do move around the area.

00:46:11 SPEAKER_030: They go where the food source is, which is where they can find humans or other animals where they can get blood from them.

00:46:21 SPEAKER_030: Additionally, I relied on Section fifteen point eight of the Building Code Act, which provides inspection authority and allows for the the ordering of inspection by a certified. expert was the compliance date immediate,

00:46:30 SPEAKER_030: or was there a time given?

00:46:31 SPEAKER_030: No, the compliance date was set for April twenty first, twenty twenty six.

00:46:52 SPEAKER_015: Did the order require you personally to decide technical treatment methods, or did it require a certified pest control company to perform technical inspection and treatment? and report back. That is correct.

00:47:01 SPEAKER_015: It did not rely on on my determination.

00:47:03 SPEAKER_015: It was based on what a certified pest control company determined.

00:47:05 SPEAKER_030: You heard in the the property owner's opening statement, it stated that you never left and never inspected the property.

00:47:06 SPEAKER_030: Under the municipal act and under the building code act, are you allowed to reference from the? public health unit.

00:47:34 SPEAKER_030: Absolutely, I do believe that the property owner is mistaken in that case.

00:47:38 SPEAKER_030: Section fifteen point two one provides the authority to inspect a property and actually enter on that property.

00:47:40 SPEAKER_030: It does not include a requirement to do so.

00:47:41 SPEAKER_030: It specifically uses the term "may inspect."

00:47:43 SPEAKER_030: Section fifteen point two two is the section where it talks about issuing an order, where it says. that where an officer finds a property to have a violation, they may issue an order.

00:47:49 SPEAKER_030: So I do not believe that that that is correct.

00:47:52 SPEAKER_030: Can you advise what happened on Friday, April seventeen, two thousand and twenty-six? Yes.

00:47:58 SPEAKER_030: So on April sorry, I do want to provide a correction.

00:48:02 SPEAKER_030: The inspection was on Thursday. April sixteenth. I apologize.

00:48:05 SPEAKER_030: Could you tell me what happened on April sixteenth? Yeah.

00:48:11 SPEAKER_030: So on April sixteenth, myself, along with a fellow bio enforcement officer and Robert Reed, who is a certified public health inspector, completed an inspection at the residence at two thirty-five Eighth Street East.

00:48:51 SPEAKER_030: With the tenant's permission, we entered the unit and did an inspection of the property at. that time, bedbugs were not found inside the unit.

00:49:00 SPEAKER_030: However, Robert Reed did have some some report some more information in that report.

00:49:02 SPEAKER_030: Now, was there an earlier date that the health inspector could have attended between March twenty-fourth and that date?

00:49:04 SPEAKER_030: I can't speak to his schedule directly. I'm sorry.

00:49:05 SPEAKER_030: I have no further questions for this witness. Thank you very much.

00:49:07 SPEAKER_030: Does the appellant wish to ask any questions of this witness?

00:49:12 SPEAKER_033: Yes, I have a few questions for the officer, and I have one question for Miss Arms.

00:49:22 SPEAKER_033: Question for Miss Armstrong as well, Mr. Bruges.

00:49:26 SPEAKER_033: Did you attend and step foot on the property, or are you saying that you did not physically attend at all for the inspection?

00:50:10 SPEAKER_030: I my first physical inspection of the property was on April sixteenth, April fifteenth. No, sorry, April sixteenth.

00:50:19 SPEAKER_030: Why do you think it is acceptable to validate an order that you didn't attend?

00:50:21 SPEAKER_030: As I spoke to previously, the Building Code Act does not require a physical inspection.

00:50:24 SPEAKER_016: It makes it very clear that property standards cover a very large range of topics.

00:50:43 SPEAKER_030: It's impossible for somebody to be an expert in everything, and that is why it provides those those inspection.

00:50:49 SPEAKER_030: Powers to allow certified experts to come in and assist with that that type of thing.

00:50:51 SPEAKER_030: There is no requirement for a physical inspection on the property.

00:50:53 SPEAKER_030: What it is required is that the officer is has a reasonable belief that there is an violation.

00:50:55 SPEAKER_030: So, are you agreeing that the public health?

00:51:19 SPEAKER_016: if if they didn't attend to the property either, do you think that that is still viable for conducting your inspection not on site? Yes, I do.

00:51:29 SPEAKER_016: The sample that the tenant found on January in late January was brought to public health.

00:51:31 SPEAKER_016: They did an inspection on that sample, and they found that it was a bed bug.

00:51:46 SPEAKER_030: So based on that, we know that. at some point there were bedbugs inside the unit.

00:51:51 SPEAKER_030: When the tenant came back and said that they found more, and sent photographs of that of a new sample that was also a bedbug, that is further evidence that there are bedbugs in the unit.

00:52:01 SPEAKER_030: So if a bedbug was brought to an off-property location to conduct an an inspection, you still feel that it. Inspection.

00:52:15 SPEAKER_016: You still feel that it's viable to complete your inspection while still not attending the actual physical property.

00:52:22 SPEAKER_016: I don't believe that the definition of inspection requires physical presence.

00:52:23 SPEAKER_016: And one more question for Miss Armstrong.

00:52:25 SPEAKER_016: May I ask if you used AI in any of your preparations for this actum?

00:52:26 SPEAKER_016: First off, it's an inappropriate question.

00:52:28 SPEAKER_054: Second, making false allegations against any member of the public is sanctioned.

00:52:31 SPEAKER_054: I do not use AI.

00:52:37 SPEAKER_054: That's all my questions for now. Thank you very much.

00:52:40 SPEAKER_054: Are there any questions from the committee?

00:52:42 SPEAKER_054: to this witness, carry on.

00:53:18 SPEAKER_032: Yeah, can you speak to the appellant's comp comp comments there about five formal requests with no no disclosure or no information received for that?

00:53:27 SPEAKER_032: Yeah, thank you for that question.

00:53:28 SPEAKER_032: So the landlord did absolutely email us requesting disclosure.

00:53:30 SPEAKER_032: The emails are in the factum that was here.

00:53:33 SPEAKER_030: The landlord was very belligerent in the manner that they they requested that disclosure, but it was also a misunderstanding of how disclosure is is supposed to work.

00:53:42 SPEAKER_030: The property standards committee has a procedure on disclosure.

00:53:44 SPEAKER_030: Disclosure is sent to the secretary, which is then disclosed to the landlord.

00:53:46 SPEAKER_030: So it it doesn't come directly from the officer.

00:53:49 SPEAKER_030: That disclosure package was was. created and provided to the secretary well before the date that was required.

00:54:16 SPEAKER_032: I have another question, though, just to for my timeline and understanding and that kind of stuff.

00:54:24 SPEAKER_032: So obviously, we have January twentieth as the date that a bedbug was taken to public health to confirm that it was a bedbug.

00:54:32 SPEAKER_032: February eleventh for a further complaint that was submitted, saying that there's still obviously ongoing. with photo evidence and all that.

00:54:41 SPEAKER_032: From that point of the February eleven th, obviously there was the reach out back out to Kepler Real Estate for the for the remediation, all that kind of stuff.

00:54:52 SPEAKER_032: What was I'm just looking for the timeline as to this is how much longer they had before the actual order was applied,

00:54:58 SPEAKER_032: saying that obviously non-compliance is like compliance is not looking to be done here.

00:55:00 SPEAKER_032: So. as of February eleven th, I did issue an order.

00:55:01 SPEAKER_032: At that point, based on the previous response that I received, I did not believe that there was any effort to comply.

00:55:26 SPEAKER_014: With your discussions with the health unit, would would you and health consider these insect infestation to be injurious?

00:55:39 SPEAKER_030: So I don't believe public health considers bed bugs to be a health hazard, which is what they go on under the Health Prevention and Protection Act.

00:55:49 SPEAKER_030: There's a definition for a health hazard.

00:55:51 SPEAKER_030: They do not consider, excuse me, bed bugs to be a health hazard.

00:55:56 SPEAKER_030: In my opinion, the it really depends on what you want to say injurious is. Do they physically? harm you?

00:56:05 SPEAKER_030: Not more than a mosquito, no. But they do create, in my opinion, a mental health issue for people who are being bitten every night. They have trouble sleeping.

00:56:15 SPEAKER_030: It's it's an irritation that that really affects your ability to live in your home comfortably.

00:56:25 SPEAKER_030: So, I I do think in in some regards they are injurious, but they don't physically harm you in. any physical way.

00:56:35 SPEAKER_030: I thank you for your opinion.

00:56:36 SPEAKER_030: I tend to agree with you.

00:56:37 SPEAKER_030: I I know from dealing with bedbugs in the past, a doctor has said that they are injurious, and I'm not going to argue with his medical opinion.

00:56:54 SPEAKER_014: He said if an adult gets bedbugs on, say, 15% of the body, a two-year-old, it would. be closer to eighty percent, and the children he sees with that number of bugs are not well.

00:57:03 SPEAKER_014: So I agree with you.

00:57:10 SPEAKER_014: What I tend to disagree with is section fifteen two one, where the bio law under section fifteen one is in fact the officer may producing property infection. Now it says may.

00:57:20 SPEAKER_014: The only reason it says may, the alternative is shall.

00:57:26 SPEAKER_014: The alternative would be shall, and he's not demanding that you do an inspection.

00:57:33 SPEAKER_014: He's saying you may do an inspection.

00:57:34 SPEAKER_014: May enter a property a reasonable time without a warrant for the purpose of inspecting the property.

00:57:42 SPEAKER_014: Now, when the officer inspects the property, normally he accompanies the structural engineer, the electrical expert, and he goes along with them to understand what they are looking at. and what they're explaining in their reports.

00:58:01 SPEAKER_014: So it's the opinion of this committee that the property inspection is done by you and whomever you wish to take with you.

00:58:10 SPEAKER_014: In evidence in the act, it says the being true copies of the act of the original by the person who made them, then they are admissible as evidence,

00:58:12 SPEAKER_014: the same as having this same evidence and value of the originals.

00:58:53 SPEAKER_014: I'm not going. to get into a load of paperwork haggle if they were copied by a person who certified them, but it's just for future reference.

00:59:03 SPEAKER_014: Again, on that vein, we're relying on photographs taken by somebody else. given to you, and in reflection, the photographs could have come from elsewhere, being held in hand.

00:59:05 SPEAKER_014: So we rely on your communication with the health unit to make sure that this bonds as a good unit.

00:59:31 SPEAKER_014: So I do understand your point.

00:59:38 SPEAKER_014: There, we do have the tenant here who we intend to bring as a witness, which is going to speak to. how the photographs were taken, so that will be spoken to. Thank you.

00:59:40 SPEAKER_014: That will ease a lot of questions.

00:59:41 SPEAKER_014: No more questions from the committee. Thank you, officer.

00:59:44 SPEAKER_030: The appellant may present the case. May present their case. I apologize. That's okay.

00:59:49 SPEAKER_030: I would like to call the tenant Jericho Dodd. Thank you.

00:59:53 SPEAKER_030: You know how to operate the microphone.

00:59:56 SPEAKER_030: As per the Property Standards Committee procedure, a witness must be sworn or affirmed.

01:00:45 SPEAKER_028: Both options mean that you are making a solemn spoken promise declaration.

01:00:49 SPEAKER_028: Soken promise, declaration to tell the truth, an oath is when you swear to your religious deity, an affirmation is when you promise on your personal honor with no reference to a higher power. Which do you prefer? An affirmation, please.

01:00:51 SPEAKER_028: Do you, Jericho Dodds, solemnly affirm that you will tell the truth? I do.

01:00:53 SPEAKER_028: Jericho, can you advise this committee where you live?

01:00:54 SPEAKER_028: two thirty-five Eighth Street East, Owen Sound, Ontario, apartment five.

01:00:56 SPEAKER_028: Are you aware that this appeal is subject to your apartment? Yes.

01:00:59 SPEAKER_028: Did you report suspected bed bugs to your landlord before public health became involved? Yes, I did.

01:01:15 SPEAKER_028: How did you advise him? Through email.

01:01:17 SPEAKER_028: And how long before you went to public health did you advise your landlord? I'm sorry.

01:01:30 SPEAKER_033: Before you went to the public health, how long?

01:01:35 SPEAKER_033: was it before, like, prior to that, that you had informed your landlord?

01:01:44 SPEAKER_033: Like, I'm just shooting notes and numbers.

01:01:49 SPEAKER_033: One hundred and twenty days, ninety days, like that kind of thing.

01:01:57 SPEAKER_033: I think it was in January that I informed them. Oops.

01:02:12 SPEAKER_033: If I can get you to page thirty one.

01:02:16 SPEAKER_033: Can you advise the committee what that is? It's an email. An email from whom?

01:02:22 SPEAKER_033: Raid of Public Health, I do believe.

01:02:24 SPEAKER_035: Now, did did you bring insect samples to Graber's Public Health in January, 2026? Yes, I did.

01:02:37 SPEAKER_035: Were you told those samples were positively identified as bed bugs? Yes, I was.

01:03:41 SPEAKER_033: On page thirty four is the Oregon report dated January nine th. Yes.

01:03:51 SPEAKER_033: After that date, did you experience any issues with bed bugs? Yes, I did.

01:03:52 SPEAKER_033: On February the eleven th, did you contact the city bylaw officer? Yes, I did.

01:03:54 SPEAKER_033: If I can have you go to page thirty nine. Is that your email? Yes, it is.

01:03:56 SPEAKER_033: And what exactly did you advise the bylaw officer?

01:03:58 SPEAKER_033: That I was still finding bedbugs after. Bed bugs.

01:04:05 SPEAKER_033: After Orkin had come in, investigated.

01:04:12 SPEAKER_033: If I can get you to turn to page fifty-two and fifty-three, can you advise the committee what these are?

01:04:22 SPEAKER_033: It's a picture that I took in my apartment of two bed bugs that I had found.

01:04:34 SPEAKER_035: When did you take those?

01:04:37 SPEAKER_035: They're not dated right now.

01:04:38 SPEAKER_035: Do you know the approximate month?

01:04:44 SPEAKER_035: It would have been in February.

01:05:16 SPEAKER_035: Now, these photographs—did you alter them or change them in any way? No, I did not.

01:05:26 SPEAKER_035: Did you supply these photographs to the bylaw officer? Yes, I did.

01:05:27 SPEAKER_035: Now, when you took those photographs, did you send it to the officer right away?

01:05:29 SPEAKER_033: If not right away, it was the next day.

01:05:31 SPEAKER_033: So, was the bedbug issue after January ninth when Orkin was there to use their treatment in the building?

01:05:40 SPEAKER_033: Sorry, could you repeat that?

01:05:56 SPEAKER_033: Was the bedbug issue resolved after the January ninth treatment by Orkin? No, it was not.

01:06:28 SPEAKER_033: Did the landlord arrange a building-wide inspection? after February the eleventh. No, they did not.

01:06:35 SPEAKER_033: After the January nine th attendance through up to today, can you advise the council or sorry the committee?

01:06:37 SPEAKER_033: Are you still living with bedbugs? Yes, I am.

01:06:38 SPEAKER_033: When the health inspector was there, did you show them any evidence? Yes, I did.

01:06:40 SPEAKER_033: And what did you show them?

01:06:52 SPEAKER_033: I showed them samples of the bedbugs that I had found.

01:07:01 SPEAKER_033: Did you show them any bite marks? Sorry.

01:07:03 SPEAKER_033: Yes, and but the bite marks that I did find or have.

01:07:04 SPEAKER_033: That's all the questions I have for you.

01:07:06 SPEAKER_033: The appellant has questions for the witness.

01:07:16 SPEAKER_033: Yes, when Public Health just recently attended, and you stated that you showed them bed bugs.

01:07:26 SPEAKER_033: Were they alive or dead bed bugs?

01:07:27 SPEAKER_033: They were a sample of dead bed bugs.

01:07:57 SPEAKER_016: Do you believe that public health has the understanding and knowledge of diagnosing what a bed bug bite looks like, or would that be more for a doctor to to approve?

01:08:12 SPEAKER_035: I think that they are quite well aware of what a bed bug bite looks like, so they can definitely identify what a bed bug, sorry, what a bed bug bite is.

01:08:22 SPEAKER_035: That's all the questions I have.

01:08:23 SPEAKER_035: Under under your affirmation, did you collect the bedbug from your home address at two thirty-five Eighth Street East, Department Five, when you brought it to Public Health? Yes, I did.

01:08:24 SPEAKER_034: Were you Were you present for the Orkin inspection on January the ninth? Yes, I was.

01:08:26 SPEAKER_034: Can you talk about it a bit?

01:08:30 SPEAKER_034: Like, how did that go for for their inspection, and just how that overall went?

01:08:42 SPEAKER_032: So the Orkin man came in, looked around.

01:08:44 SPEAKER_032: I showed him the samples, and all he did was say that he didn't think that the source of the bed bugs were coming from my apartment,

01:08:59 SPEAKER_032: and asked if I wanted him to spray because he didn't find anything there anyway.

01:09:28 SPEAKER_035: So I said sure, and I lifted up my bed for him, and he continued to spray underneath my bed, and then left.

01:09:35 SPEAKER_035: He said he was going to do my entrance, but he never ended up doing that.

01:09:40 SPEAKER_032: So he's so he's thinking that the source is somewhere else than that they're migrating to yours, essentially.

01:09:46 SPEAKER_032: Yes, because I had informed him that I had. found one bedbug alive coming from the adjoining wall from the living room to my next door neighbor's apartment.

01:09:48 SPEAKER_032: And so we have obviously the January twentieth, the the sample that was sent, the February eleventh pictures, and all that kind of stuff. Have there?

01:10:05 SPEAKER_032: So you sent it obviously February eleventh, the pictures of the bed bedbugs with the with the bites.

01:10:18 SPEAKER_032: That has With the bites, now has there been, sorry, subsequent instances that you found more, and you just haven't sent it in,

01:10:28 SPEAKER_032: or as that was that the last time that you found ones to send a picture in?

01:10:29 SPEAKER_032: No, I had found one more other. It was dead.

01:10:31 SPEAKER_032: I found it in my bed.

01:10:32 SPEAKER_032: I did not take a picture of that. I don't believe.

01:10:34 SPEAKER_032: On what date did you see the last live dead bug in the apartment? I can't recall. Thank you very much.

01:10:36 SPEAKER_032: Your palant may present his case, but just.

01:11:15 SPEAKER_014: They present his case, but just just to backtrack, this what you call recent evidence is no more than what you referred to earlier about the officer doing an inspection prior to the hearing.

01:11:31 SPEAKER_014: And I put the same weight in this paper that was presented to us from the health unit.

01:11:38 SPEAKER_014: There are some items in there that are new items, and we're going to disregard all the new items in the in the. memo, thank you.

01:11:45 SPEAKER_014: You may present your your case.

01:11:46 SPEAKER_014: So, as mentioned before, we have the declaration of protest that Kepler Real Estate Incorporate Incorporated hereby submits this disclosure package under the protest.

01:12:07 SPEAKER_016: This filing is necessitated by the upcoming. statutory hearing date of today, and is made despite the Owens City of Owens Sound's ongoing and total refusal to provide basic disclosure of particulars regarding the subject order.

01:12:28 SPEAKER_016: As noted in Exhibit B five, we've issued five formal written requests for disclosure, and did not receive anything back from them.

01:12:37 SPEAKER_016: So, I think in total here we we have a breach of natural justice.

01:12:39 SPEAKER_016: Expert findings versus the administrative hearsay.

01:12:50 SPEAKER_016: We we didn't have public health attend the property at the original time that they've that this was brought up.

01:13:08 SPEAKER_016: We had a professional. pest treatment company, Orkin Canada, that came in and said that there's zero live activity found in the apartment.

01:13:20 SPEAKER_016: We have six other tenants that live in this building, and we've not received one complaint from any of these tenants.

01:13:28 SPEAKER_016: Also, with myself working in the office on the main level floor of the building, I've received no evidence,

01:13:37 SPEAKER_016: or I've I haven't seen any activity. and nothing to show that there is any live activity throughout this building. The diagonal overreach.

01:13:46 SPEAKER_016: The order mandates diagonal inspections and follow-up recommendations from private contractors.

01:13:48 SPEAKER_016: This is a disproportionate invasion of the privacy of the six other families that are living in this building.

01:13:50 SPEAKER_016: With the in terms of of the tenant's current standings with with the landlord tenant board and the upcoming termination of the lease, he isn't going to be.

01:14:20 SPEAKER_016: He did state to us that he's moving out May one st. Once we have that unit vacant, we can then do another inspection to to actually see. and and possibly treat anything in that unit.

01:14:30 SPEAKER_016: But as it states right now in our evidence package, the Orkin representative that showed up stated that the unit is not in any condition to be treated as it is,

01:14:32 SPEAKER_016: with the the tenants hoarding and and mess in the unit. It just does not.

01:14:37 SPEAKER_016: The the treatment won't work. if if there were to be live bed bugs in that unit.

01:14:45 SPEAKER_016: So we do need that unit inevitably cleaned and and vacant to to do a proper treatment.

01:14:54 SPEAKER_016: If there were any evidence of live bugs.

01:14:59 SPEAKER_016: The the the mix up here with fifteen fifteen two one and fifteen two two the bylaw officer is is to property properly. identify the issue by doing an on-site inspection,

01:15:12 SPEAKER_016: and then they can then move towards fifteen two two to go and find the evidence.

01:15:22 SPEAKER_016: So it's just kind of ironic to to have an enforcement officer not visiting the property and and working off of of a desk to submit this order when they didn't in fact attend the property.

01:16:08 SPEAKER_016: to to get this this issue solved if if that's what they're claiming there.

01:16:17 SPEAKER_016: For the in in regards to the evidence, the the city that's relying on public health confirmations and and the tenant photographs, public health merely relied on the tenant photos themselves,

01:16:32 SPEAKER_016: and then had them brought in to the. office, they were dead.

01:16:43 SPEAKER_016: They also bed bugs are known to travel on clothing, on items like backpacks.

01:17:09 SPEAKER_016: So to have them bring something in to the to an offsite office and to you know to do that, it it it's not proving that the bed bugs were found in that unit,

01:17:23 SPEAKER_016: as well as the. the source, like yeah, for the sources, if they're not, you know,

01:17:34 SPEAKER_016: with with Orkin attending as well as this new evidence showing that there's no there's no new live activity in in the building or in the apartment,

01:17:43 SPEAKER_016: just goes goes to show even more that there isn't an infestation within this building.

01:17:45 SPEAKER_016: It's it's. irrelevant in in that fact.

01:18:13 SPEAKER_016: I also don't believe that public health would have the the health background to diagnose what's a rash versus what's bug bug bites versus what's a mosquito bite, etc., like that.

01:18:23 SPEAKER_016: In terms of no way to comply, we have the report from the above budsmen's that.

01:18:24 SPEAKER_016: Budsman's that details where municipalities have failed to meet provincial standards, as mentioned before, section 222.

01:18:31 SPEAKER_016: The executive director never responded to the complaint, and despite the requirements of the standard, of the standard to do so.

01:18:40 SPEAKER_016: This is found in Appendix One, section 171, where municipal licensing and standard division is unable to get voluntary compliance.

01:18:49 SPEAKER_016: It has the power to lay. charges that ultimately may result in court hearing.

01:18:56 SPEAKER_016: Section one seven two with this function comes an imperative for public accountability and trust.

01:19:01 SPEAKER_016: Both the process and the decision making must be transparent and fair.

01:19:03 SPEAKER_016: In our case, we've just going back that we we requested five formal emails for disclosure between February thirteenth and March ninth, and we were we were ghosted. essentially.

01:19:05 SPEAKER_016: Nobody replied back to us.

01:19:06 SPEAKER_016: Nobody got anything back to us in that sense.

01:19:09 SPEAKER_016: And I do want to just once again bring back that comparative analysis chart that I handed out at the beginning,

01:19:21 SPEAKER_016: showing the provincial Provincial Offences Act for a standard traffic ticket versus an Owen Sound bylaw bedbug order, and just showing the comparison and and breakdown of. of of how those are worked through,

01:19:46 SPEAKER_016: and it's it shows that this this bed bug order is a little bit more let's say over over done in in terms of of how a police officer and the Provincial Offences Act would conduct

01:19:55 SPEAKER_016: a a traffic ticket here.

01:19:59 SPEAKER_016: At this time. that is that is everything.

01:20:03 SPEAKER_016: Ms. Armstrong, if the city has any questions of your own, please feel free. Thank you.

01:20:11 SPEAKER_016: So, you received the public health communication advising that samples from the property have been positively identified as bed bugs, correct? That's correct.

01:20:29 SPEAKER_036: Dead bed, dead bed bed bugs.

01:20:35 SPEAKER_015: You also received the January twenty seventh municipal email requiring a plan to eradicate bed bugs from the building, correct? Yes.

01:21:07 SPEAKER_015: So by January twenty seventh, you knew all of the following: public health had identified bed bugs; the tenant had previously complained about bed. bugs, and that the city was asking for a building eradication plan. Correct. Yes.

01:21:16 SPEAKER_015: Would you say that they were trying to work with you and be proactive before infestation?

01:21:30 SPEAKER_016: When we emailed them back to show them that our previous findings from Orkin Canada stated that there was no live activity, they did a treatment just for good measure, but. at that at that point,

01:21:40 SPEAKER_016: we had the ORCON work order that stated that there was no live activity in that unit.

01:21:41 SPEAKER_016: That ORCON report is January ninth, correct? Correct.

01:21:43 SPEAKER_016: The complaint is February the eleventh, correct? Correct.

01:21:45 SPEAKER_016: You would agree with me that the complaint is after the the treatment. Correct.

01:22:24 SPEAKER_015: On that report, did it say that there was no bed bug bed bugs within the entire building?

01:22:33 SPEAKER_016: We had them just attend Unit Five, so they stated that there was no live activity within Unit Five.

01:22:39 SPEAKER_016: You would agree with me. Bed bugs do travel.

01:22:41 SPEAKER_016: You said that in your own testimony.

01:22:49 SPEAKER_016: Yes, and there's also six other tenants that live in the building, and we have not received one complaint, as well as myself working in the office here.

01:22:57 SPEAKER_016: So after January ninth report, and then further complaints of bed bugs.

01:22:58 SPEAKER_016: Your choice was to sit and wait in the weeds to see what the committee has to say.

01:23:00 SPEAKER_033: Wasn't necessarily to sit and wait in the weeds.

01:23:04 SPEAKER_033: However, there's there's things that the the process of how the city conducted their inspection made us question the validity. of this actual accusation.

01:23:14 SPEAKER_033: After the city requested an eradication plan for the building, you refused to conduct speculative building-wide inspections of surrounding units or common areas. Correct?

01:23:33 SPEAKER_016: When it is. hold on one sec here.

01:23:38 SPEAKER_016: Putting six other families, it's through that you know run around of of that.

01:24:04 SPEAKER_016: When there's there's been no other complaints or evidence from any other tenants, it's it's just not.

01:24:13 SPEAKER_016: We didn't find it necessary to to disturb these families. lives to to do this inspection.

01:24:41 SPEAKER_016: You would agree with me that just because a tenant does not complain, that it doesn't doesn't mean that it does not exist. Correct.

01:24:53 SPEAKER_016: Well, we take things you know as as a corporation, we take things into consideration for how to approach certain. things,

01:25:03 SPEAKER_016: when you have six other families living in the building and not one of them mentions anything or has written in and complained of anything, it starts wondering.

01:25:15 SPEAKER_016: You know, you start to wonder where this is all presiding from, where and why these issues are being brought up.

01:25:25 SPEAKER_016: And it's you know, with a tenant that we're currently facing, a landlord.

01:25:30 SPEAKER_016: Landlord-tenant board eviction for certainly with with their language and how they've used their their harsh language and emails just further shows that you know it could be coming from a different standpoint instead of just bed bugs.

01:25:53 SPEAKER_033: You've seen the same pictures that we did, correct? Correct. Are you?

01:25:59 SPEAKER_033: suggesting that those are not bed bugs?

01:26:05 SPEAKER_016: I'm not suggesting that they're not bed bugs, but they are dead bed bugs, and the picture of the alleged bites.

01:26:12 SPEAKER_016: I'm not a doctor or health professional, so I can't I can't make any claims as to whether that are whether those are in fact bed bug bites or not.

01:26:20 SPEAKER_016: In your comparative summary, can you advise this committee how the Provincial Offences Act is one of the same as the Municipal Act and the Building Act?

01:27:00 SPEAKER_016: Well, when it's mentioned injurious in terms of a standard traffic ticket, if somebody's driving one hundred, one hundred and twenty, one hundred and forty kilometers an hour, that's quite injurious.

01:27:13 SPEAKER_016: That's quite quite, you know, that that's certainly going to harm somebody a lot worse. And that goes.

01:27:22 SPEAKER_016: The breakdown shows that the. the standard the the procedures of how those tickets are are presented and and fought there's there's a process to it.

01:27:24 SPEAKER_016: So when you compare something that's quite dangerous versus a bedbug order where it's a lot less minor or more minor than than a speeding ticket,

01:27:34 SPEAKER_016: that just shows our breakdown of of why we feel. this is a little bit overkill.

01:28:08 SPEAKER_016: Did you read the Municipal Act and the Building Code Act and the applicable sections that were at the back of my factum? Yes or no? I did not.

01:28:17 SPEAKER_016: I have no further questions.

01:28:18 SPEAKER_016: Do does your does your company?

01:28:19 SPEAKER_016: have a procedure or policy on on like what you do in regards to when you receive a complaint in this in this form and fashion and how you you execute it? Yeah.

01:28:26 SPEAKER_032: So when we receive any pest control complaints, I'm not a certified pest control person,

01:28:55 SPEAKER_016: so we rely and reach out to Orkin Canada to service all of our buildings in Owen Sound here. so when that complaint arises,

01:29:04 SPEAKER_016: we we do schedule a time based on the availability for the pest control company to come out,

01:29:06 SPEAKER_016: and we have them come out as as they're available and complete an inspection and provide us a report and their recommendations.

01:29:08 SPEAKER_016: The part that I'm I'm I'm I'm struggling with here from the from the January nine th one is.

01:29:29 SPEAKER_032: From the January ninth one is from what the tenant said, saying that if the organ representative was there and said that, oh, I don't see them, I don't see them here.

01:29:38 SPEAKER_032: They're probably not from this unit.

01:29:39 SPEAKER_032: That that I would I would imagine with with this, and again, correct me the the change on that if my thinking,

01:29:41 SPEAKER_032: but there should be some sort of creep as to like we need to find the source of this if we're finding you know the the cause.

01:29:57 SPEAKER_032: Like it's essentially finding the the symptom to the to the problem, and that they just stopped dead in their tracks and didn't proceed to request or investigate further to find the source of it.

01:30:07 SPEAKER_032: Because again, like I understand you saying that the other units might not have might not have complained,

01:30:08 SPEAKER_032: but there is somewhere a source for a even a dead bedbug to be a to be apparent from in that.

01:30:10 SPEAKER_016: And if they're saying that they're coming from somewhere else, can you talk about that? For sure.

01:30:12 SPEAKER_016: So to when it comes to a multi-family building like this, it's that would be like finding a needle in the haystack and and trying to look for something that's that's evidentially not there.

01:30:18 SPEAKER_016: As I mentioned before, yes, bed bugs are transient.

01:30:30 SPEAKER_016: So whether the tenant visited a friend or was at another type of property that may have bed bugs,

01:30:38 SPEAKER_016: he could have very well picked them up on a backpack or on a sweater and then just brought them back into into his. house without even noting knowing that.

01:30:47 SPEAKER_016: So for for we've we've had in the past before at other locations that if there are bed bugs, we're generally getting multiple emails, multiple complaints from from different tenants that they have issues.

01:31:05 SPEAKER_016: But if the tenant is the only one in the building and only showing that they're dead bed bugs.

01:31:13 SPEAKER_016: Whether he brought them in while they were alive, the treatment of the of the original Orkin Good Measures, or just you know when when Orkin first attended, and did that that treatment for, I'll quote,

01:31:22 SPEAKER_016: just in case, just to to be on the safe side.

01:31:24 SPEAKER_016: Obviously, that treatment would be working then because all these all these bed bugs that the tenant has found have always been dead. so they're stopping them right in the tracks.

01:31:36 SPEAKER_016: However, they could be coming from from a whole different property, whether we own it or somebody else owns it.

01:31:44 SPEAKER_016: It's it's just not it's not enough grounds for us to dispatch and and and pay for Orkin to come back and disturb all of these tenants,

01:32:03 SPEAKER_016: get them potentially worried and and you know build up their mental health as well, thinking that there may be bed bugs. when there's been no signs of it. Okay, so, and I,

01:32:13 SPEAKER_037: so I understand that that obviously in the original email that was probably at the early of early January that the tenant complaining about this that then instigated or instituted that or can come on January the ninth.

01:32:24 SPEAKER_032: I'm the part that I'm now even the other part that I'm struggling with here is that there was further instances or further com.

01:32:34 SPEAKER_032: Instances or further comments of January twentieth and February eleventh, but there wasn't a further inspection or a redone of an inspection. That kind of stuff.

01:32:41 SPEAKER_032: Can you explain the the the rationale or the thinking behind that?

01:32:50 SPEAKER_032: I just, if you have another case of saying we have bed bugs, I would I would assume you'd want then another professional report to show even a more recent recent completion,

01:33:00 SPEAKER_032: so that you have the relevancy.

01:33:02 SPEAKER_016: For sure, as stated in Orkin's.

01:33:05 SPEAKER_016: Report when they first showed up, they said that the the unit was not was not clean.

01:33:08 SPEAKER_016: It would there was stacks of of boxes piled to the ceiling.

01:33:19 SPEAKER_016: So inevitably, with Orkin's findings, the treatment would be not very satisfactory.

01:33:26 SPEAKER_016: It it would be essentially throwing throwing money away.

01:33:33 SPEAKER_016: That it it would just not would not cure the problem if there was a problem there.

01:33:39 SPEAKER_016: Along with that, we've been working with the landlord-tenant board in terms of the nonviability of of tenancy.

01:33:49 SPEAKER_016: So we're just trying to we were just trying to work out a time to dispatch them once the tenant has has moved out of the the unit,

01:33:56 SPEAKER_016: which he has stated on May first he will be vacated.

01:34:00 SPEAKER_016: So at that time, we we do plan to to have.

01:34:04 SPEAKER_016: Orkin attend and check it out,

01:34:07 SPEAKER_016: but there's just you know you're you're you're throwing throwing services at something that's that's not able to be cured when there's conditions of that apartment unit the way they are.

01:34:19 SPEAKER_032: Do we know if the other tenancies conditions are the same in in in that in that regards, or is this a or That regards, or is this?

01:34:32 SPEAKER_032: Or are you saying this is simply a one-tenant exclusion from the from the remaining six?

01:34:39 SPEAKER_016: I personally haven't been through the all of the units recently, but the times that we have been up to Unit Five, I can attest that Orkin is is right.

01:34:53 SPEAKER_016: The the unit is is one of the messier units that I've seen compared to the the past.

01:35:01 SPEAKER_016: While I've been been through that building, so it's it's it's that place that they you know when it when it's in those conditions,

01:35:10 SPEAKER_016: those are where they would harbor and hang out versus a cleaner unit.

01:35:20 SPEAKER_014: Did you ask the other units, or are you just going to wait for complaints from other units?

01:35:30 SPEAKER_016: As mentioned. we didn't want to to make make an issue larger than than what it is in terms of scaring other tenants.

01:35:40 SPEAKER_016: As mentioned before, we've we've had experiences where multiple tenants will reach out if they've been affected.

01:35:50 SPEAKER_016: Six other tenants haven't reached out to us, so it's just you know if if we did receive some other complaints, absolutely we would we would have gone. in and gotten it checked out,

01:36:01 SPEAKER_016: but for having one out of out of six units being the only one to complain,

01:36:08 SPEAKER_016: we didn't want to disrupt the other tenants and and you know rattle things up because it's we we do believe that it's it's not an issue throughout the whole building.

01:36:26 SPEAKER_016: There there is no infestation.

01:36:28 SPEAKER_016: Now, did you ask ork?

01:36:32 SPEAKER_016: Did you ask Orkin to inspect the common areas?

01:36:35 SPEAKER_016: I believe it is in their standard to when when they're entering into a building, they do look around.

01:36:43 SPEAKER_016: I was not present with the Orkin technician, so I'm not sure if he did in fact take a look at the common areas.

01:36:52 SPEAKER_016: But I do know that as they enter into a unit, if they go through an apartment, they generally check out to see if there's other. sources of of where they might be,

01:37:02 SPEAKER_016: and we do rely on them to make note if they if they do see stuff while they're traveling up to that unit.

01:37:10 SPEAKER_016: If if they do see evidence of of other spots, they generally put that down in their report. Thank you.

01:37:19 SPEAKER_016: Being the landlord, do you do a routine inspection of the common areas yourself? We do. a fairly.

01:37:24 SPEAKER_016: We we try to keep up on the routine.

01:37:27 SPEAKER_016: We do have a contractor that goes and regularly cleans all of our large multi-unit hallways through town.

01:37:43 SPEAKER_016: So between myself, my coworker, and our contractors, we do work together to to you know update everybody on on their findings if if they do see anything.

01:38:01 SPEAKER_016: Thank you very much, Ms. Armstrong.

01:38:04 SPEAKER_016: Do you have any closing statements for the city?

01:38:09 SPEAKER_016: I just have a closing submission. Okay.

01:38:11 SPEAKER_015: At the end of this hearing, the question is not whether the appellant has raised many arguments; they have.

01:38:15 SPEAKER_015: The question is whether those arguments displace the actual record. They do not.

01:38:21 SPEAKER_015: The record begins with an independent confirmation.

01:38:24 SPEAKER_015: Graybrew's public health told both the city and the landlord that samples from the property were positively identified as bed bugs, and asked for a timely eradication plan.

01:38:35 SPEAKER_015: That is the point at which the responsible landlord in a multi-unit building should move towards broad containment and professional follow-up.

01:38:44 SPEAKER_015: Instead, the appellant chose a narrow course, relied on relied solely on a January nine th Orkin attendance, resisted broader inspection, and argue that there were no reasonable grounds for a building wide issue.

01:39:04 SPEAKER_015: On January nine th, Orkin report never carried the weight that the appellant puts on it.

01:39:10 SPEAKER_015: It was earlier in time.

01:39:12 SPEAKER_015: It did not erase the public health's confirmation.

01:39:15 SPEAKER_015: It did not erase the tenants' February the eleven th report.

01:39:18 SPEAKER_015: It did not say that it had been. there had been no bedbug evidence.

01:39:23 SPEAKER_015: Rather, as summarized in the artifact, and the tenant had shown bedbugs to the technician, and treatment was still applied.

01:39:31 SPEAKER_015: The city did not ignore that report.

01:39:33 SPEAKER_015: The city took it into account, monitored the situation, and only moved to an order after fresh evidence of continued activity arrived on February the 11th.

01:39:40 SPEAKER_015: That is careful enforcement, not reckless enforcement.

01:39:44 SPEAKER_015: On February the 11th and 12th, evidence. is that is what matters the most.

01:39:48 SPEAKER_015: The tenant reported continued bed bugs and continued bites.

01:39:52 SPEAKER_015: The officer received photographs in dated February the 11th at 7:29 p.m.

01:39:58 SPEAKER_015: The very next morning on February 12th at 9:26, the officer did investigate by asking the health unit and the tenant.

01:40:06 SPEAKER_015: The case package and the factum line up exactly on this point.

01:40:10 SPEAKER_015: One photograph was described as appearing to show bed bugs in the complainant's hand. another was described as appearing to show bite marks.

01:40:18 SPEAKER_015: Based on that evidence and on the existing complaint history and the public health confirmation, the officer concluded that property was not being kept free of bed bugs and issued the order.

01:40:30 SPEAKER_015: The order itself is measured and comprehensible.

01:40:33 SPEAKER_015: It identifies the property, the owner, the inspector, the quoted bylaw sections, the violation, and the work required.

01:40:41 SPEAKER_015: It does not order random or punitive acts. Random or punitive action.

01:40:46 SPEAKER_015: It orders inspection of the infected unit and surrounding units and hallways, extermination where evidence is found, follow up until eradication, and report for each visit.

01:40:55 SPEAKER_015: In a multi-unit bedbug case, that is a conventional containment and eradicated response.

01:41:02 SPEAKER_015: The the factum explains the bedbugs migrate through openings, penetrations, conduits, and shared spaces.

01:41:09 SPEAKER_015: The appellant has never seriously met. that technical point.

01:41:14 SPEAKER_015: They merely call it punitive, but labels are not evidence.

01:41:17 SPEAKER_015: The city's rationale is anchored in the nature of the past and the nature of the building.

01:41:23 SPEAKER_015: The appellant's legal arguments also fail.

01:41:27 SPEAKER_015: Their attempt to define "injure insect" as only an insect that injures a structure strips the bylaw of its habitability function.

01:41:37 SPEAKER_015: Their argument that the order is invalid because it does.

01:41:42 SPEAKER_015: Order is invalid because it describes the violation rather than using the word infestation in a particular box. Is formalism without prejudice?

01:41:52 SPEAKER_015: Paragraphs thirty-eight to forty-one of the factum answer that directly.

01:41:53 SPEAKER_015: The owner plainly understood the nature of the deficiency and the work required, as proven by the detail of the notice of the appeal. The appeal itself. There's no inspection.

01:42:05 SPEAKER_015: Argument fails because the record shows February twelve th investigation. and because the factum correctly states that pest enforcement may rely on public health confirmation, tenant reports, photos,

01:42:16 SPEAKER_015: and pest control documents informing the opinion of noncompliance.

01:42:21 SPEAKER_015: Finally, the committee should consider the practical and credibility dimension.

01:42:26 SPEAKER_015: The appellant's own disclosure shows that their reaction was not collaborative remediation; it was accusations of gross negligence, assertions of bad faith. threats of personal litigation against staff,

01:42:40 SPEAKER_015: and a strategy of postponing meaningful remediation until after eviction—that is how a responsible owner responds to confirmed bed bugs in a multi-unit residential property.

01:42:52 SPEAKER_015: Of course, other units are going to be affected.

01:42:56 SPEAKER_015: The committee is entitled to view the conduct of undermining the appellant's claim that the order is the order was the problem.

01:43:04 SPEAKER_015: The real problem was that the owners. refusal to undertake a proportionate eradication response when it mattered.

01:43:11 SPEAKER_015: For all those reasons, the city asks that the appeal be dismissed and the order be confirmed. Thank you very much.

01:43:26 SPEAKER_014: The appellant may provide its closing statement. Yes.

01:43:34 SPEAKER_016: In closing, we would ask the committee these following questions: A property standards order is a quasi-criminal instrument, carrying fines of up to fifty thousand dollars for individuals and five hundred thousand dollars for corporations.

01:43:48 SPEAKER_016: Does the committee believe that a five hundred thousand dollar risk should be based on a rough draft of the law?

01:43:53 SPEAKER_016: If the committee upholds this order, are you officially endorsing desk enforcement, where city officers no longer need to physically inspect properties before issuing thousands of?

01:44:03 SPEAKER_016: dollars of mandates, does a citizen's intelligence, i.e., their ability to spot the city's error, excuse the city's failure to follow the Building Code Act?

01:44:14 SPEAKER_016: Correctness is not a suggestion; it's a statutory requirement.

01:44:18 SPEAKER_016: If the city is allowed to issue orders without physical inspections, what is the purpose of having an enforcement division at all?

01:44:25 SPEAKER_016: Why not just have an automated system that sends out work orders every time a tenant uploads a photo?

01:44:32 SPEAKER_016: The order only requests fifteen five eight one and not fifteen five eight two.

01:44:41 SPEAKER_016: An infestation, in any case, in any case, not has not been shown to exist.

01:44:53 SPEAKER_016: Furthermore, by by seeing the new evidence that's been submitted. today, that there is no signs of bedbug activity found.

01:45:07 SPEAKER_016: Now that Officer Burgess has the better understanding of how vital in-person inspections are, since he has now completed one, there's no, there's still no bedbug activity proven,

01:45:22 SPEAKER_016: whether it's from public health or from from bylaw.

01:45:32 SPEAKER_016: We are appealing this, as we want.

01:45:44 SPEAKER_016: We are looking for both order or this order to be rescinded and refunded in fees.

01:45:50 SPEAKER_016: That is everything for now. Thank you. very much.

01:45:59 SPEAKER_014: Well, from the evidence that was presented to the committee from Arkin and the health unit, there is definitely bedbugs issue here.

01:46:09 SPEAKER_014: And the committee will now retire in separate meeting room to deliberate.

01:46:14 SPEAKER_014: Can the secretary please join us to record our decision?

02:14:17 SPEAKER_014: Okay, the Property Standards Committee denies the appeal by the appellant Keppel Real Estate Inc. and confirms Property Standards Order OSB One.

02:14:26 SPEAKER_014: Order OSBY two thousand and twenty-six zero zero seven six and extends the time for compliance to April twenty-seven, two thousand and twenty-six.

02:14:35 SPEAKER_014: Written reasons for the decision will follow within fourteen days.

02:14:54 SPEAKER_014: Please be advised. that there is a fourteen days appeal period during which time the city or any owner, occupant, or person affected by the decision may appeal today's decision to the Superior Court of Justice.

02:15:08 SPEAKER_014: Next regular meeting scheduled for May fifth, two thousand and twenty-six. Where is it?

02:15:18 SPEAKER_014: It is now twelve fifteen.

02:15:20 SPEAKER_014: I declare this meeting adjourned.