The City of Surrey aims to make known that its war on illegal construction – mobilized in April 2022 with the inception of a team dedicated to curbing the problem – isn't merely an officious exercise in enforcing bureaucratic red tape but rather about potentially saving lives.
"We hope people look at building permits as a public safety piece," says Trevor Welsh, the director of Surrey's building division within the planning and development department.
Not only can illegal construction present an eyesore to neighbours, it can also pose a danger to anyone who ventures near it.
"At the end of the day, it's about making sure that all the homes where people are living are safe and healthy for the people in there. We obviously don't want tragedies to occur but illegal construction without the appropriate safety components in place can increase the risk of that occurring and that's definitely what we don't want to have happen."
Welsh's team oversees building permit approvals, building inspection, and electrical and plumbing permits and inspections as well, working in tandem with the bylaws department.
"Sometimes you get people who are unaware of the rules and benefits of getting permits, unfortunately."
He explains that the idea behind requiring, issuing and adherence to building permits is to make sure that the homes that are being built are safe and healthy for their occupants. Everything from making sure there's appropriate smoke alarms and egress from bedrooms, through bedrooms windows, to even proper H-vac systems to make sure that fresh healthy air was in there, "and then even from the plumbing perspective making sure the sanitary facilities work as they're intended to so that really the homes that we have for people are safe and healthy for everywhere."
Welsh says it's difficult to compare Surrey's experience with illegal construction with that of other cities "primarily because it's not stats we track from other communities. Other communities might have similar programs but perhaps less structure around the operation of them."
The BC Building Code (BCBC) permits one secondary suite in each single-family home, Welsh notes. "If you're constructing additional suites or dwelling units within your home above and beyond that, the BC Building Code really does not have authorization for those additional suites to be considered secondary and really what it does is it turns those buildings, from a building code perspective, into apartment buildings and what the concern with that is the single family homes that we see constructed are not constructed in the same way that we would see in apartment buildings."
And the problem with that, he says, is these buildings constructed without permits, containing multiple dwelling units, often have no fire sprinklers or fire alarm systems.
"It can increase the risk for potential hazard for those occupants in not having the appropriate fire protection and life-safety systems within those buildings. That's where I think it's important for us to have permits obtained for the work that gets done to make sure that when homes are being constructed they align with the appropriate safety regulations under the BC Building Code."
IN THE BEGINNING...
In July 2021, then Surrey city councillor Jack Hundial presented a notice of motion at the final regular council meeting before council's summer break, aimed at curbing illegal and unauthorized construction in Surrey, which he warned “presents real dangers to life.”
Hundial at the time noted that Surrey residents had been raising concerns about this going on, “particularly in existing residential zoning to increase the total enclosed square footing of a house.
“The current volumes of complaints for residents takes an inordinate amount of time and resources from staff, particularly our front-line bylaws, planning and legal departments,” he added.
Hundial’s motion asked council to direct city staff to report back with recommendations that included “enhanced enforcement, prosecution and public awareness that can be implemented to mitigate loss of life, destruction of property, and further compliance of the existing and new bylaws.”
Meantime, a corporate report received by council at roughly the same time revealed that Surrey had seen a 27 per cent increase in “overall value” of construction in the first six months of 2021 compared to the same period in 2020.
In that report Kam Grewal, Surrey’s general manager of finance, noted that the residential sector recorded an increase of 43 per cent in the value of construction year-over-year while the industrial, commercial and institutional (“ICI”) sector recorded a decline of 17 per cent.
“Compared to 2020, overall development activity has shown an uptick and developers are trying to take advantage of the hot residential real estate market by continuing with their existing projects or working on new projects in 2021,” Grewal observed.
At council’s subsequent meeting on Sept. 13, 2021 following the break, the politicians directed city staff to investigate "enhanced enforcement, prosecution and public awareness" in an effort to tackle illegal and unauthorized construction in the city, with an eye to "mitigate loss of life, destruction of property," and ensure compliance with bylaws.
“I know we have all been inundated with emails from people’s concerns about illegal construction,” Hundial told council before it passed his related motion,. He also called on staff to look into how other cities are dealing with this.
Coun. Mandeep Nagra said at the time that stop work orders “are getting ignored all the time, just people rip them up and throw them away. I get a number of phone calls on a daily basis of illegal construction and unauthorized additions and all that.”
“I know we have all been inundated with emails from people’s concerns about illegal construction,” he told council. He also called on staff to look into how other cities are dealing with this.
Brenda Locke, who was a councillor at the time, said she was “really glad” to see the motion come forward. “I’ve had many, many complaints come to me; I’ve gone out to many sites where they have stop work orders that are being ignored,” she said. “That’s pretty disappointing to see people ignoring our processes.” Coun. Doug Elford said he hoped staff would look at increasing fines. “To me, I think the fining structure in many of our bylaws we should be looking at going up,” he remarked.
In January 2022 the City of Surrey sharpened its teeth when it comes to illegal construction within city limits. Council endorsed a corporate report from staff that would, once all bylaw amendments were approved, drastically increase the city’s firepower when dealing with illegal builds.
Laurie Guerra, who was a councillor at the time, called it “very timely” given the number of complaints council was hearing. “You know that if people are coming to councillors, it’s kind-of their last resort,” she said. “In my opinion these changes couldn’t have come fast enough.” Then-councillor Allison Patton especially favoured the part where multiple tickets could be issued for a same offence on separate days, reasoning that “I think that will help with our teeth on the matter.”
As part of the changes, the city doubled the fine from $500 to $1,000 for infractions such as preventing an inspection, construction without a permit, occupancy without a permit, and ignoring a stop work order. City staff clarified that once approved, the amended bylaws would allow city hall to issue a fine for construction without a permit, for example, and return the next day to issue another ticket if it’s evident that construction has continued.
“I think the number one reason that people were doing all these types of constructions was that permitting process was too long,” Nagra observed. “So I hope, I really hope that that 10-week guaranteed time line is now implemented and permits are being issued in 10 weeks so that will encourage a lot of residents to apply for the permits before doing any sort of work.”
Meantime, city staff were also looking to introduce a bylaw and associated fines for when a Stop Work Order is not displayed on the property.
Coun. Linda Annis echoed the other councillors’ concerns, noting the “education piece is really critical” because “oftentimes people don’t understand the dangers that they’re getting themselves into by some of the illegal construction.” The increased fines, she said, would hit those who deliberately engage in illegal construction and view fines as simply the cost of doing business, “I think this will hit them a lot harder.”
Locke noted illegal construction is really disruptive to neighbourhoods “becoming downright dangerous in some cases" while Elford opined that "some of them are just beyond ridiculous – I don’t even know why or how they attempt to do that sort of thing out there.”
Having a dedicated enforcement team, Elford said, would “help discourage a lot of this activity."
And so, on April 27, 2022, the City of Surrey launched its Illegal Construction Enforcement Team (ICET) to crack down on unpermitted residential construction in Surrey with Doug McCallum, who was mayor at the time, declaring that Illegal construction threatens the safety and wellbeing of occupants, site workers and surrounding neighbourhoods.
“In fact, illegal unpermitted construction is six times more likely to result in serious safety issues such as injury or death and can also cause dangerous environmental issues," McCallum said at the time. "Illegal construction is just not worth the risk to yourself, your investment, or occupants.”
In addition to charges and injunctions resulting in court action that could lead to fines up to $50,000 per offence, property owners were now subject to deconstruction and removal costs of unauthorized structures.
CASES
In 2021, Surrey's bylaw enforcement department received over 2,600 complaints relating to construction activities and the city issued over 600 stop work orders. Since the inception of ICET, Surrey in 2022 recorded 1,557 complaints, in 2023 there were 2,330 complaints. In 2024 the number was 2,046.
"These are actual complaints of illegal construction; obviously there are a lot more that we don't know of but we're busy tackling the ones that we know of," Jas Johal, Surrey's director of bylaw and licensing services, tells the Now-Leader. "We're finding single family (residences), duplexes, we're finding these suites in shops."
In 2022, Surrey's council-in-committee heard in a presentation that public complaints had been on the rise in Surrey since 2018 but the problem was by no means exclusive to Surrey as one-quarter of Canada's underground economy was related to illegal and unpermitted construction.
Johal said city hall's focus is primarily on single-family residences where work is being done without appropriate permits.
"If we're compromising people's safety then we're playing a part of it. Our goal is to provide that safe, healthy accomodation to our residents.
"My biggest message is look at the safety aspect of everything. There's often we take all kinds of enforcement action but just simply enforcing the bylaws is not the answer. If there's a stop work order posted on your site, violating and removing stop work orders will result in additional enforcement action."
Johal has two dedicated bylaw enforcement officers working on "Illegal construction homing" with others helping out as required. "Depending on the severity of the file, we can assign others as well."
The City of Surrey's goal is to bring "at least" two completed investigations before council per month. "If we could do three or four, all the power to us.
"But our success rate with compliance has been pretty good," he says. "A lot of times people are willing to make those corrective actions and do what we're telling them, so building inspectors are involved, bylaw officers are involved. And a majority, a lot of people are coming into compliance."
But when push comes to shove, Section 57 hearings under the Community Charter are an important tool through which a building inspector, through counsel, can recommend that council vote to file a Notice of Title on a property that alerts insurers, lenders, potential buyers and the general public about an illegal construction and the risks associated with it.
The most recent special council hearing related to illegal construction was on Jan. 20, 2025, when assistant city solicitor Komal Gill presented a case to council concerning a property at 9397 132 Street in Whalley. The property owners did not appear at the meeting to respond. Nor did they provide written submissions, Gill told council.
"Should compliance be achieved by the owners, the notice can be removed. However, until that time the notice serves as an essential measure to alert the public of the unpermitted construction at this property," Gill said. "It would be unfair for them to sell this property and effectively unload these problems to an unsuspecting buyer. By directing staff to file a Notice on Title, the public will be made aware of this unpermitted construction and can make informed decisions."
A related 117-page corporate report dated Dec. 20, 2024 indicates that city staff issued the owners with nine bylaw contravention notices totaling $4,500 and 10 site visit notices totaling $2,154, "all related to the unpermitted construction," with combined fines and fees totaling $6,654. "The bylaw contravention notices were not disputed," the report indicates. "The bylaw contravention notices remain unpaid and are still outstanding in the amount of $4,500. Nine out of the ten site visit notices have been paid, leaving an outstanding amount of $288."
Mayor Brenda Locke did not make herself available for an interview but in a press release issued by the City, she is quoted as saying council's unanimous approval of having the Notice of Title issued on this particular property serves as "a testament to council’s zero-tolerance approach to illegal construction in Surrey.
“It is shocking that this property has 10 illegal bedrooms within seven illegal dwelling units," Locke said. "Numerous fines have gone unpaid as the property owners blatantly disregarded numerous Stop Work Orders, completing extensive unpermitted construction. Thank you to our Illegal Construction Enforcement Team for their tireless efforts to address these violations. By standing strong on these regulations, we are sending a clear message that illegal and unsafe construction will not be tolerated in the City of Surrey.”
Since July 2024, there have been three such meetings resulting in notices being filed on four properties involving seven owners.
On Dec. 9, 2024 council again unanimously directed city staff to file Notice on Titles on two properties – 5858 140 St. and 16653 31B Ave.
"Today's decisions by Surrey city council reaffirm our commitment to curb illegal construction that jeopardizes the safety of our community," Locke said on those. "By taking action against these properties, we protect not only the character of our neighbourhoods, but also the well-being of our residents. I want to acknowledge the Illegal Construction Enforcement Team for their efforts in holding accountable those who attempt to circumvent necessary permits and safety regulations.”
On July 30, 2024, council directed staff to file a notice on a property at 7686 125 St. A press release was issued on this as well, with Locke again sending "a clear message that there is zero tolerance for illegal construction in Surrey.
ORDERS IN COURT
The City of Surrey has also taken legal action against property owners related to constructing without permits where a judge ordered the structures to be demolished.
Sukhdev Singh and Kashmir Singh Sahota were fined $6,000 in November 2022 after a judge found them in contempt of an interlocutory order to not occupy or use rental properties in Newton.
“The steps taken by the City of Surrey prior to filing the petition included posting ‘stop work’ notices at the property, warning the respondents several times to halt the renovations and to not occupy or use the property, and issuing bylaw infraction tickets to the respondents,” Justice John Gibb-Carsley noted in B.C. Supreme Court in New Westminster.
He noted in his reasons for judgment that the respondents have been using the upper floor of the house “as a fourth rental unit for tenants,” in effect, converting a single-family structure “into an unauthorized and unpermitted 4-plex” contrary to Surrey bylaws and the British Columbia Building Code.
“In the circumstances of this case, where it appears the respondents have blatantly disregarded municipal permitting requirements that are intended to promote and protect the public by establishing minimum standards for safety, I find there is an added element of a public interest,” the judge said. “In my view, builders who flout municipal building codes and the permitting process should be deterred from doing so.”
On Oct. 24, 2023 Gibb-Carsley ordered a Surrey couple who violated the city’s Building Bylaw to tear down an extension to their main house as well as a laneway house.
The City of Surrey had brought a court petition against Jagmohan Singh Sidhu and Gagandeep Kaur Sidhu seeking demolition and removal of the structures, located at 8373 148 St.
“Specifically, the city contends the structures’ square footage greatly exceeds that allowed by the bylaws, its location on the property offends the setback requirements from neighbouring property lines and the structures were constructed without any building permits or requisite inspections," the judge explained.
The Sidhus argued that, given the Lower Mainland's housing crisis, ordering the demolition and removal of the structures was wasteful and too drastic a remedy. They asked that they be given an opportunity to retroactively legalize the infractions so that the structures could continue to be rented to tenants but Gibb-Carsley concluded the structures, built in “flagrant violation” of Surrey’s bylaw, had to be removed.
In response to the couple’s request that they be allowed to retroactively legalize them, the judge said he accepted the “colloquial characterization provided by counsel for the city regarding the fundamental flaw in the respondents’ argument: not only can the genie not be put back in the bottle because permits and inspections were not obtained at each step of the construction process, but in this case, the genie never fit in the bottle in the first place because both the size and the position of the structures are unlawful"
The judge noted in his reasons for judgment that the Sidhus acknowledge they were collecting rent without first obtaining occupancy permits for the rental units. “The respondents’ actions are flagrant and deliberate. As articulated by counsel for the petitioners, the respondents gambled that they could expand the buildings on the property and create rental units without obtaining permits and not be caught by the city. They lost that bet.”
Gibb-Carsley ordered the couple to apply for a permit, under the Building Bylaw, to demolish and remove the accessory building and extension from the property, “including submitting all required documents, information, and fees within 15 days of the date of the order” and to demolish and remove the structures within 60 days of receiving a permit to do so.
Shortly after that decision the City of Surrey issued a press release indicating it had up to that date taken legal action against six property owners for illegally constructing buildings without permits and in each of those cases the structures were ordered demolished.
However, Surrey has also lost in court.
On Feb. 28, 2024 it lost a petition in B.C. Supreme Court against a Surrey property owner whom the city argued had contravened its building bylaw.
The City of Surrey sought a declaration to that end and also asked Justice Terry Schultes to order an injunction to address the contraventions it alleged against Amandeep Singh Kallu concerning an addition and enclosed deck he'd constructed on his property.
Surrey maintained the construction was done without necessary building permits. An injunction would have required Kallu to secure a permit to demolish the structures he built, Schultes noted in his reasons for judgment.
The court heard Kallu obtained a permit to build a house on his property on 130 Street in January 2020 which he said had been completed the year prior. But the City maintained this permit didn’t include the “offending” structures and there was no allowable room for these to be built under the zoning bylaw.
Kallu’s lawyer asked Schultes to dismiss Surrey's petition due to a lack of probative evidence as the affidavits it submitted to the court that the construction was unauthorized were based on hearsay or general statements unsupported by actual documentation of what was authorized, in contrast to what was actually built.
“The difficulty in this case,” the judge decided, is Surrey's key witnesses derived their knowledge of the extent to which the building on the Kallu's property deviated from what has been authorized from reviewing records done by someone else, including the building permit itself which did not set out limitations on what was authorized, and the “one drawing of the rear of the property, which contains a hand-drawn indication of the enclosure and a City of Surrey stamp whose author and origins are unknown.
“What this means is that the resourceful efforts of the city’s counsel to contrast the drawing to the offending construction fall short of providing the required proof, because the provenance of the drawing is unknown and has not been properly proven,” Schultes explained.
“Without admissible evidence before the court defining the extent of what was authorized, the context within such an inference might properly be drawn is absent,” he concluded.
As they say, win some, lose some.
"We can take court orders to stop all constructions; fines can be anywhere from $500 to $10,000 per day, so they keep escalating but my message to the community is follow the rules, follow the building code, get the proper permits," Johal remarked.
"Every time when a tradesperson is coming, a contractor is coming, show them the permit. Tradespeople's responsibility is, when you go to these construction sites, do you have a permit in place? If you don't, they should be saying 'I can't put my business licence or my name on the line" because it does eventually affect them. We find out that this is a contractor that's engaged in this kind of stuff it can impact their business licence."