Legal Costs Paid
Sunshine Coast Regional District
2006 Annual Report
As a general principle, authorities are familiar with their
mandates and their ability to take actions in their field of
expertise. While this principle would not apply to situations
where the state of the law or the empowering legislation is
unclear, members of the public should not be required to hire
lawyers to inform authorities of what the authority can and
cannot do. When this occurs and an authority clearly recognizes
that it should have known that it could not do what it was
trying to do, we believe it fair for the authority to absorb the
legal costs of the member of the public.
One such situation occurred when the Sunshine Coast Regional
District accepted that it was responsible for the legal costs of
a woman when it attempted to place a restrictive covenant on a
building permit to be issued to her. She was only able to
resolve this when she hired a lawyer and the Regional District
accepted the lawyer’s claim that the Regional District could not
attach this type of requirement to the issuance of a
building permit.
She complained that the Regional District was acting unjustly in
refusing to compensate her for all of the legal expenses that
she had incurred to resolve this matter. The Regional District
had taken the approach that it was willing to share the costs
associated with her expenses. Our investigation reviewed the
basis for the Regional District’s offer to share the expenses
that this woman had incurred. Although we accepted that this
woman would have been responsible for paying for the building
permit, we did not agree that the Regional District was acting
fairly when it attempted to recover a penalty amount associated
with this building permit that it had not attempted to recover
until it accepted responsibility for sharing her legal expenses.
At our suggestion, the Regional District agreed to pay this
woman’s legal costs and issued her a cheque for $1,075.42 for
the full legal costs that she had incurred plus applicable
interest. The Regional District also provided this woman with a
written apology.
In her letter of appreciation, this woman observed that “your
office is very necessary for those who dare to dispute
government officials who make their own rules and ignore the
current bylaws.”
Advertising leads to complaint about water charges
City of Richmond
2006 Annual Report
The City of Richmond initiated a new water metering program in
2004 but failed to properly explain how people in the
municipality would be charged for their water use. Confusion
over this matter led to a complaint to us that the municipality
had been misleading in its efforts to publicize the new program.
According to Ms. R, advertising
regarding the water program had led her to believe that she
would be charged for water use based only on the actual amount
she used. However when she was billed she discovered that she
had been charged for more than her actual use.
In discussing this issue with
the City of Richmond, the municipality agreed that advertising
for the water program had not been clear and should have
included a message that there would be a minimum charge applied
which may be more than a resident’s actual usage.
Our involvement led to the City
of Richmond revising its promotional and public information
material to better communicate its water billing policies.
Confusion over sewer connection approval
Peace River Regional District
2006 Annual Report
Mr. L asserted that the Regional District’s Sewer Commission had
acted unfairly by altering its position on his ability to obtain
service, without considering his interests. According to Mr. L,
he and two neighbours had proposed to offer an easement and to
fund a large-capacity line, in return for receiving connections
to the line. Mr. L said that the Commission had accepted this
proposal, and that the work to provide the line had been done on
that basis. After paying for the line, Mr. L was informed that
only one of the neighbours had a right to service, as that
person’s property abutted the existing main line.
Before contacting our office Mr.
L and his neighbours attempted to address their concerns
directly, meeting with the Commission, offering the easement,
and offering written assurance that no further connections would
be sought. According to Mr. L, the Commission was relying on
unclear or inaccurate information about the current capacity of
the system to support its decision to continue to deny him
service.
We notified both the Commission
and the Regional District of the investigation of this
complaint, since the Commission has only the authority delegated
by the Regional District to administer the local service.
Investigation suggested that the
Commission had passed a motion related to Mr. L’s ability to
acquire service, and had rescinded that motion without notice to
him and without giving Mr. L an opportunity to be heard and the
impact on the complaint and on his neighbours had not been fully
considered by the Commission.
After discussions, further
information was obtained about the ability of the system to
absorb two new connections, and those connections were offered
to the parties, on provision of a registered easement for the
line in question. Since Mr. L’s neighbour did not have immediate
need for a connection, the parties and the Commission agreed
that both connections could be assigned to Mr. L, thus providing
the service originally requested. These actions settled the
complaint and so our file was closed pursuant to s13(i) of the
Ombudsman Act.
|
