A Surrey couple who violated the city鈥檚 Building Bylaw has been ordered by a B.C. Supreme Court judge to tear down an extension to their main house as well as a laneway house.

The City of Surrey brought a court petition against Jagmohan Singh Sidhu and Gagandeep Kaur Sidhu seeking demolition and removal of the structures, located at 8373 148 Street.

The case was heard by Justice John Gibb-Carsley in New Westminster.

鈥淪pecifically, the city contends the structures鈥� 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,鈥� the judge explained in his .

Tackling illegal construction has been on the city鈥檚 radar for years. Last year, it doubled fines to $1,000 from $500 for infractions such as preventing an inspection, construction without a permit, occupancy without a permit, and ignoring a stop-work order. Not only can illegal construction present an eyesore to neighbours, it can also poses danger to anyone who ventures near it.

Council-in-Committee heard in a presentation in 2022 that public complaints had been increasing in Surrey since 2018. But the problem is by no means limited to Surrey as a full one-quarter of the underground economy in Canada is related to illegal and unpermitted construction.

The City of Surrey issued a related press release Monday, Oct. 30 following this judgment, indicating it has to 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.

In it, a quote attributed to Mayor Brenda Locke states that illegal construction 鈥� building without permits 鈥� is 鈥渆xtremely reckless as it endangers the builders, occupants and neighbours.

Surrey鈥檚 Illegal Construction Enforcement Team, launched last year, seeks to make sure construction projects in Surrey comply with BC building safety codes and zoning regulations. 鈥淭he City of Surrey will continue to enforce its bylaws to the full extent whenever necessary. Property owners who engage in illegal construction should be aware that they may face legal action, demolition costs, and insurance problems,鈥� the quote reads.

Meantime, in this recent court case, the Sidhus admitted the structures 鈥渙ffend the city鈥檚 bylaws both in the manner in which they were constructed and their size and location on the property,鈥� Gibb-Carsley noted.

鈥淗owever, the respondents argue that given the housing crisis in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, ordering the demolition and removal of the structures is wasteful and too drastic a remedy. They ask that they be given an opportunity to retroactively legalize the infractions so that the structures can continue to be rented to tenants.鈥�

But Gibb-Carsley concluded the structures, built in 鈥渇lagrant violation鈥� of Surrey鈥檚 bylaw, must be removed.

In response to the couple鈥檚 request that they be allowed to retroactively legalize them, the judge said he accepted the 鈥渃olloquial characterization provided by counsel for the city regarding the fundamental flaw in the respondents鈥� 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.

鈥淚 find there is no realistic prospect the structures could be retroactively brought into compliance with the bylaws,鈥� Gibb-Carsley said. 鈥淓ven if there were potential remedies to bring the structures into compliance鈥攚hich I conclude there are not鈥攖he court must not condone unlawful activity.鈥�

Title documentation related to the property indicate the husband is a realtor. In his affidavit, Sidhu noted the Lower Mainland is experiencing a housing crisis, 鈥渨ith the provincial government releasing its plan called 鈥楬omes for People鈥� focusing on four priorities 鈥� unlocking more homes faster; delivering better, more affordable homes; helping those with the greatest housing need; and creating a housing market for people.

The structures contain two rental suites, the court heard 鈥� a one-bedroom suite attached to the main unit of the property, and a suite on the second story of the accessory building. The judge noted Sidhu provided no evidence of hardship he and his wife will face for having to tear down the structures other than requiring their tenants to move out. 鈥淎lthough I accept that the demolition and removal of the structures will be an expense for the respondents,鈥� Gibb-Carsley added.

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. 鈥淭he respondents鈥� 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.鈥�

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, 鈥渋ncluding submitting all required documents, information, and fees within 15 days of the date of the order鈥� and to demolish and remove the structures within 60 days of receiving a permit to do so.