1

Meeting Date: Monday October 28, 2012

Location: Council Chambers, 3r Floor, City Hall

Attendees: Introductions: Jim Evans, Chair Bill Van Wyck, John Middleton (Vice Chair), Mark Stephen

No declarations of Conflict

Adoption of Minutes of September 16th John Middleton advised on page 3 last paragraphs that he forwarded the transcripts and a copy of the video to Karen Kadour to correct that statement. He provided copies to Ms. Kadour. Lee Ann suggested that the minutes be received as currently presented and adoption of the minutes deferred until the November 16th meeting when the Committee and Administration has had an opportunity to review the questions and comments presented by Mr. Middleton. When questioned by Mr. Middleton as to if the question had been reviewed Lee Anne advised that the questions had not been received by email until 10:52 pm October 27th and that she has contacted the Fire Department, whom was unable to attend this meeting at short notice. She reiterated her recommendation to defer the question so that the appropriate staff can review and be scheduled to attend the next meeting to sufficiently respond the questions posed by Mr. Middleton. Mr. Middleton made the motion to defer. Motion seconded by Mark Stephen . Applicant, Larry Lowenstein, Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, representing Canadian Transit Company CTC, introduced his partner Laura Fric and colleges Kevin OBrien, Jeff Grove, Dan Stamper President of CTC and Patrick Morand CTCs General Counsel. He advised they are there because the City has made 114 Repair Orders under the Property Standards By-law for properties that CTC has owned for years, some dating back to 2004. CTC has appealed the Orders under section 15.3 of the Building Code Act. He advised CTC owns and operates the Canadian half of the Ambassador Bridge and that these 114 orders relate to separate properties in the vicinity of the Ambassador Bridge. He advised their position is that the Committee has a range of options to consider. He explained he will provide options and reasoning for the Committee to consider. He advised Option 1 is that these Orders should be modified so as to permit the demolition of these buildings because it is the evidence and report of CTC, written by Titan Construction, that it will cost more to repair these properties than they are worth, in some cases all or substantially all of the value of the property would be consumed by the repairs that would be required to make the properties inhabitable. He advised there are common issues that will be raised, however it is his hopes to schedule days and weeks as needed to deal with the properties one by one. He advised that if Option 2 is that the Committee is in power to rescind and cancel all these Orders. He advised there are two grounds as a basis for such a decision. He explained the first ground is

Property Standards Committee Meeting Transcript

October 28, 2013

2

that they have not been made with a request degree of fairness and reasonableness. They advised the process has been tainted and biased. He explained the second grounds is that they do not meet the requirements of the By-law itself. He advised the By-law provides that sufficient details of the particulars of the repairs for the Orders to Repair were not adequate. He advised Option 3 is to defer or adjourn the hearing because there is a question to whether the By-laws of the City constitutionally and jurisdictionally apply to CTCs properties. He advised that CTC is a federal undertaking in that it is governed by the Canadian Transit Act and that the Citys By-laws would not apply. He advised CTC has applied to the Federal Court to have a determination and that the City is lacking authority. He said that due to the time constraints they are prepared to start looking at property by property, however there are commonalities for all of the properties that the City can exercise their powers to modify and order demolition or rescind based on unfairness and unparticularity for all of the properties. He emphasized CTCs rights are being unfairly adjudicated because the lack of constitutional jurisdiction or authority because the bridge is a Federal undertaking. He advised the City has acknowledged CTCs position in respect of the basic power to decide. He read a quote from Mayor Eddy Francis from a Senate hearing regarding the International Bridges and Tunnels Act I agree with you concerning jurisdiction. The Federal Government has jurisdiction over general works for the advantage of Canada the bridge, the plaza, the facility and the immediate area. He advised the Federal Government in fact has required the bridge to improve the plaza for the next 25 years under the Canada Border Service Agency Master Plan which stakeholders were asked to make comments and the envelope surrounding the bridge is required now by the bridge for current efficient maintenance of the bridge and security for security inspections. He advised these houses are not required for twinning or second span to be built. He advised CTC requires the cooperation of the Federal Government to build a second span and that CTC offered to build it for nothing as well as offered to have a second span in substitution for the Federal proposed NITC Bridge which failed. He advised CTC has no ability to build a second span without cooperation of the Federal Government. He stated that the requirement CTC has for these 114 properties are for current maintenance and operation in the immediate area of the bridge, as said by the Mayor himself. Again, he suggested that this matter be deferred by the Committee while it is sorted out in court. He stated CTC believes the City has acted proceeded with this matter unfairly and that the $40,000 plus fee that CTC was required to post to be there today should be restored because the Orders where abuse of the Citys power under the Building Code Act. He stated that since 2004 CTC started to accumulate the now 114 properties from willing vendors with the intention of trying to have these building demolished because they require these buildings now for the proper operation in maintaining the old infrastructure of an elegant and famous but increasing ageing bridge, as required by the manifest of the CBSA 25 year plan and that Windsor has been made aware in writing by CTC. He advised that the City has therefore been aware of these purchases for 10 years and that they have sat sound and uninhabited over this span of time and at no point before the Orders has the City nor anyone raised any issues in regards to these properties being left vacant. He stated that after allowing the properties to acquire the weathering over the years without a warning that CTC is now being put out approximately $1,000,000.00 (estimated at approximately $100,000.00 per property) to make these properties inhabitable. He stated the City has proactively regulated and monitored these properties over the last several years on a monthly basis and never issued an Order for Repair. He stated in 2012 that CTC made application to demolish 44 of these properties, which was rejected and the office of the City Solicitor and Planning Department prepared a report to the Mayor and City Council prepared December 14th, 2012. He provided copies of the report that gives the

3

background to this application for demolition to the Committee. He then pointed out that on page 3 of 8 in the 4th paragraph The area Building Department Inspector has monitored these properties on a monthly basis for the past 4 years to ensure these buildings where properly secured, structurally sound, and grass cut. To date there have been no Orders to Repair and/or demolish under the provisions of the Maintenance and Occupancy By-law 147-2011 on any of the 44 properties proposed for demolition in the CIP. Today the buildings remain viable housing stock. He advised the report was made less than one year ago and shows a program of monthly maintenance for 4 years with no Order to Repair or Order to demolish. He advised how unfair this is for the City to proactively maintain these properties and deny demolition and then one year later advise CTC that the properties are in such disrepair under the By-law that they need massive repair work after being monitored under the proactive and watchful eye of the City Building Department. He advised that CTC, who wanted to demolish them and has no interest in restoring these properties, is now being required to not just restore them to Code but are required to undertake massive construction to these properties. He advised that some are now being deemed a fire hazard and that it is his understanding that the City has in the past that an owner has been charged criminally for fire incident. He asked what has changed and expressed that they feel they have been met by a stone wall. He stated that bridge thinks that in August 2013 a few people who own properties around the bridge commenced a law suit and their concern was that their property value had been impacted negatively by these housing being boarded up with CTC sympathizes with. He advised that CTC in response offered to purchase their properties at fair value to be determined by those owners. He advised that those plaintiffs also stated that CTC is in violation of the Building Code and that they served for a demand for particulars that they do not have. He states the lawyer for the plaintiffs refused to provide particulars and that CTC wrote a motion for the Court to require the particulars and that within two weeks a blitz of Building Orders was provided by the City after 5 years of monitoring and silence and CTC living under the published standard that they are required only to keep these properties secure, structurally sound, the grass cut. He stated that CTC believe there is a connection between this and the sudden blitz of 114 Repair Orders when the City had apparently been monitoring these properties for years. He stated the City advised a complaint has been made but that CTC has no details of this complaint and that they are suspicious that this complaint was motivated by the lawsuit. He stated he feels it is a breach in the unreasonableness of the City to without warning 114 Orders to Repair so suddenly. He stated they want the emails and background as to how this plague of Repair Orders came forth so suddenly and that again stated that they feel they have been bet by a stone wall. He stated that emails to Ms. Frick by Ms. Doyle state that the background is not relevant. He stated they would like full disclosure of what is going on. He stated because the City who owns the tunnel they are a competitor of CTC, which raises questions. He says the non disclosure itself is reason enough to stop this process under the statue of Powers of Procedures Act in which the rules state there has to be a fair and transparent process with no bias no matter who you are. He quotes a local Journalist (Douglas Smith) in the Windsor on November 27th, 2013 There had been extensive consultation amongst City Hall officials in the issuance of the Repair Orders. He states it unfair of the City to feel it is relevant to have Mr. Smith publish this in the Windsor Star but deny CTC the background they are asking for. He stated they want to know who is involved and how this came about and the Committee should want to see this as well, should stop this process, and order disclosure to CTC. He said the City cannot force CTC to build a landlord and that CTC does not want these properties with the intention to build a second span. He advised that looking at the Canada Borders Services 25 years plan does not include anything in regards to second span

4

to see that CTC does not need this envelope for that intention. He also states that what the Mayor said about the immediate vicinity in the plazas being federal jurisdiction to know that CTC is being put through a process. He states that the Orders are so vague and unenforceable and do not clearly state what the owner has to do to repair these properties. He said the Orders fail to provide the particulars of the Building Code Act. He stated that he viewed an Order for a home within the City that sustained fire damage and that Order was given the specifics for repair and yet CTC only received the standards. He points out one Order states every part of a property shall be maintained in a structurally sound condition so as to be capable of sustaining its own weight, the loads due to the use and occupancy, and the loads imposed by natural causes such as wind rain and snow and that it then cites section 1.4 of the By-law but that is section 1.4 and wrote the standard at the defect. He compared it to a police officer issuing a ticket for not driving 60 km in a 60 km zone and not stating what exact speed the offender was driving. It states the opinion of a structural engineer being needed reciting 1.5 of the By-law, the structural integrity of the foundation 1.6 of the By-law, and the exterior wall 1.7 which are all just standards and tells them nothing of the particulars required. He states the Orders were done in haste, and that CTC has spent over $40,000.00 now to attend and explain what should have been the basic details of the job. He states they asked for the background and all they have been provided is what aspects of the By-law had been looked at. He refers to section 15.2 (2) of the Building Code, which governs what must be in the order, An officer who finds that a property does not conform with any of the standards prescribed in a By-law past under section 15.1 may make and order, and then refers to 15.2 (2) (b) requiring an officer to make a repair order giving reasonable particulars of the repairs to be made or stating that the site is to be clear of all building, structures, debris or refuse and left in a graded and level condition. He compared it to another case in Toronto where the court found that an order that stated The deteriorated concrete retaining wall at the north-east side of the property shall be repaired in an acceptable manner and stated that the court found that was not sufficient particulars finding that the Citys approach to particularity does not strictly comply with the requirements of the statute and therefore the Order to Comply is deficient, she then ordered that the City study the wall further to be in a position to provide particulars or that the parties cooperate that after the necessary degree of investigation resolve upon a description of the appropriate appears. He then quoted another case Saskatchewan in regards to the Maintenance By-law that required an Order will specify the deficiencies noted with the property and specify the methods of remediation of the offending conditions or compliance with the minimum standards and stated that the property owner was to repair or replace the damaged or missing windows, pane, sash or hardware in the entire building and that the court there found that the language was completely vague and uncertain. He stated that Citys position was that anyone acting in good faith would know which windows, panes, hardware etc. they were referring to and that the court rejected that claim. Mr. Lowenstein then states that CTC was provided even less with just a standard and a photograph and they were left in a position of complete uncertainty as well. He urged the Committee to adjourn this matter and look into these questions further and suggested the demolition of these properties. He advised they hired TITAN construction to get the parameters of what it would take to restore these to code and the likely cost would be approximately $1,400,000.00 and referred to the TITAN report and advised he will provide copies to the Committee. He asked how it makes any sense to require an owner to make repairs that are worth more than the property themselves and stated he is open to any questions the Committee may have.

5

Jim Evans asked for any questions to come forward. 5 minute break requested by Lee Anne Doyle and granted by Chair. Mr. Lowenstein pointed out that the President of TITAN Construction is available for questions. Lee Anne Doyle clarified that the Orders issued are consistent in the work required and explained that the process has been that the Building Department meets with the property owners and that they discuss and clarify in that meeting which happens before an appeal is lodged and that it is up to the owner to take that initiative. She advised they provided the pictures and checklist completed by the Property Standards Inspectors and clarified that the Orders are only in regards to the exterior of the property and do not refer to the interior. She stated it is the view of the Building Department that have provided the information and are willing to assist and clarify with the City and that the owners could have contacted the City prior to the meeting. In regards to the details of the Orders being vague and not specific, she advised the City was diligent in being consistent with the Orders and ensuring they complied with the Code by providing the checklists and photographs. In terms of the timing of these Orders she confirms the Building Department has been monitoring them on a regular basis and that there has been an increase in deterioration noted by the Inspectors. She stated the blitz was due to the number of inquires received from the public about the work being done to one of the 144 properties, which triggered the Building Department to look further into the matter because this is a Demolition Control area and permits were not being approved unless by City Council. She advised the Building Department does not precipitate Orders based on cost and did not factor into the issue of the Orders. She stated the Orders are issued to maintain minimum standards and nothing beyond. She asked the Citys legal counsel to speak on the matter regarding the range of options provided by CTC and jurisdictional questions. Chris Williams advised he acted on behalf of the City of Windsor in the action heard by Justice Gates several years ago regarding CTC and the properties in question. He advised his firm has been retained now with this respect and other matters with CTC regarding properties. He pointed out that in the case in Toronto that Mr. Lowenstein referred to that it did not void or quash the Property Standards Order and the court simply found the deficiency was not fatal to the validity of the Order and the court suggested the parties cooperate with the Property Standards Officer to try to determine the particularity that the owner could not understand from the order. He advised it is not a ground for invalidating or quashing the Order as Mr. Lowenstein suggested. He then raised the question of how TITAN could determine the cost of repairs without the particularity of the Orders that CTC claims they do not have and requires. In respect to the bias suggested by Mr. Lowenstein Mr. Williams refers to a case (Scott vs. North Perth) where Scott sued North Perth for allegedly discriminating in its application of the Property Standards By-law because other properties were also not complying. He advised the court said the assumption that it is unlawful for a municipality to discriminate the enforcement of a By-law is incorrect, that enforcement is an entirely discretionary matter and the municipality has discretion of enforcement of a By-law on some residents and not against others. He pointed out that similarity in Arsanios vs. Toronto, a Property Standards appeal to Superior Court, the court said that the fact a municipality has not enforced compliance with a Property Standards By-law; respect of other properties on the appellant street is not a basis for the appellants to

6

evade compliance with the By-law. He said the issue of bias was dealt with in an appeal in the case of Davis vs. Guelph, in an appeal of a Property Standards Order, where the court in overturning the Superior Court decision where they found bias, said they did not find it helpful to apply a standard of bias to a Property Standards Officer. He further explained that what a Property Standards officer was doing was an enforcement matter and not a quasi judicial matter. He stated the court also found that on the facts there was no bias in any event. He advised that was is to be considered is whether CTC is in compliance with the By-law or not, whether the repairs are reasonable, and whether the time to do them in is reasonable. He advised the courts have said the onus is on the appellant to and not the Inspector to prove there is something wrong with the Order and whether it should be modified. In regards to Mr. Lowensteins claim of not being provided with sufficient information, Mr. Williams stated that Mr. Lowenstein and Ms. Fric were provided with volumes of information including the Inspectors own notes as well as photographs of the premises and stated that if there was any area of concern that they could have contacted the City to have an Inspector go out and look at what the problem was. In regards to jurisdiction and properties being inquired for the purposes of the existing bridge, he pointed out that in Hilary Paynes Lawrence Lee application that was joined in by CTC dealt with these same properties in complaints about Blight as a result of the City no issuing Demolition Permits and that Justice Gates in paragraph one of his overview stated these houses have been previously purchased by the CTC over a number of years to assist in the future construction of a second span of the Ambassador Bridge, which it currently owns and will be located approximately 100 meters west of the present span. The houses in question, which are vacant and boarded up, in the view of the residents, have become a blight on the community. He stated that was a finding of the court based upon the evidence provided by CTC to the court. He stated it is a disingenuous development that these properties are required for the purpose of the existing bridge. The issue of the jurisdiction indeed has been put to the Federal court on an application that CTC commenced and he expressed he is not entirely sure that is the right court for CTC to be in and whether they have jurisdiction or not. He points out that similar jurisdictional issues were raised before Justice Gates and they were all adjourned pending an determination of those issues by CTC in another court matter, known as the Ottawa case involving the Federal governing, where CTC alleged they had these super powers of being able to do things under the guise of Federal jurisdiction, which the Federal government denies and is opposing. He stated the City does not have the jurisdiction to determine the constitutionality or the applicability of the By-laws or their validity, there is no argument that those properties are part of the Ambassador Bridge, and it is clear the City of Windsor does not have authority over the Ambassador Bridge where it conflicts with the Ambassador Bridge or its operations, but these are properties acquired beside it which were acquired by CTCs own statement to the court for the purposes of building a second span. He states that until there is some modification by the Federal Government of the Ambassador Bridge those properties are not subject to Federal jurisdiction and are entirely within the jurisdiction of the City of Windsor, the Property Standards Committee, and the Property Standards By-law. He advised that this area is subject to a Demolition Controlled By-law and that no demolition would be possible unless the City authorized a Demolition Permit, which it has not. He stated 35 properties are within the Heritage Conservation District, which means a Heritage Conservation approval would be required. He advised he is open to any questions the Committee may have. Mr. Evans asked if the Committee had any questions. No questions were raised and Mr. Evans called on any delegations. No delegations came forward.

7

Bill Van Wyck if in the immediate vicinity there is a clear boundary line of the Ambassador Bridge. Mr. Lowenstein advised he would like to defer that question to Mr. Stamper, but stated that the envelope CTC is interested in is defined by the Canada Border Services Act Agency 25 Year Plan and that all, or substantially all, of these properties fall within that envelope and that addresses Mr. Williams point about the second span. He advised that Mr. Cogliati, who was also counsel in that case, has shown evidence that the Ambassador Bridge did want to build a second span and at that time had hopes it would be able to. He said those hopes are not able to be accomplished and that it does not trump the Canada Border Service Agencies plan for the bridge and has nothing to do with a second span. He stated these properties are required and that CTC has discretion to determine what it needs to reasonable maintain an aging structure and to make sure that it has clear site lines for security reasons. He advised he can provide the envelope of land involved. Mr. Evans advised that Mr. Lowenstein could now provide his rebuttal in response to the City and their Legal Counsel. Mr. Lowenstein advised he will be asking when they would hear evidence from the Inspector on the particular properties but first advised the Committee that has evidence of emails exchanged with Ms. Fric in which he described Ms. Fric being stone walled. He claimed that Ms. Doyle had not expressed openness to sit down and discuss what they required. He stated that Mr. Williams claimed CTC has the notes, which he had his colleague pass around, and claimed that the notes consist of a checklist of defects and were not informative enough. He stated they still have not received an answer on the timing of this blitz but just some mention based on abatement. He advised that if there were some properties in which abatement activities where noticed that the City could have ordered the status quo restored in respect of those particular properties and did not explain why there was a blitz. Mr. Lowenstein acknowledged that TITAN made a guess on what the cost would be to bring these properties to code and advised that the report from TITAN may have been overstated or understated. He also stated that if the City is seriously suggesting restoration that the interior would need to be addressed as to the reason it was included in the report. He acknowledged that there is another action pending and that what was said before Justice Gates, in regards to wanting the demolition for second span, has now been determined to not be feasible nor involved in the existing action CTC has with the Federal Government. He then reiterated his point that demolition is provided for in the Building Code Act, which is an Ontario Statute that supersedes the Municipal By-law. He advised the Federal Government has opposed the second span and that the purpose of demolition would be to provide local residents with at green space. Mr. Evans asked if the Committee had any questions. No questions were raised. Mr. Evans asked if there were any issues from the Community. A local resident who lives on Rosedale who lives adjacent to the property in question came forward and advised raccoons are living in the properties and on behalf of the residents stated that they are requesting those properties are fixed up so they dont have to live with vermins and asked that CTC do not speak on behalf of the local residents because they have not seen plans from the Bridge Company of this proposed green space. Mr. Lowenstein advised that the plans for the green space where filed as an exhibit in the Payne litigation and CTC are willing to provide that to residents. West end resident Kevin Blitzer advised that there are many residents in the area that wish for the homes to be demolished and informed that he met with Lee Anne Doyle at

8

10:30 a.m. September 3rd and asked her about Indian Road. He advised that she informed him that nothing had changed and that it was the status quo and stated that he found it interesting that the status quo had changed in such a short time. A resident from Edison Street advised that he has never heard of a proposal for green space. Mr. Evans informed the group that it sounds like the Bridge is creating some possibilities to have a discussion with residents regarding the green space and encourages the Bridge to reach out to the residents. Bill Van Wyck asked about the status of whether Ontario Appeals court can allow demolition. Mr. Williams stated that demolition is in the Planning Act and in order to activate it a Property Standards By-law is required and the Planning Act takes over. He stated that in the Planning Act it states that if there is a conflict with the Planning Act and any other Act that the Planning Act prevails and is a very powerful conflict provision and that there is no conflict provision in the Building Code Act. He states the Property Standards By-law comes through the Building Code Act, so in the event of a conflict the Planning Act takes president. So in according with the Planning Act they would require a Demolition Permit. He confirmed City Council is the authority for that subject to an appeal to the Municipal Board, but then would appeal to the OMB. Mr. Lowenstein stated it is his belief that the Committee can modify an Order to Repair and order demolition because if it goes with demolition then CTC can go through the Planning Act route and apply to demolish but that instead of talking through letters and orders whether a will to solve the problem and the Planning Department is willing to consider demolition needs to be determined. He advised it is their intention and wish to have stakeholders sit down and see if they can come up with a compromise. Bill Van Wyck asked the Building Department whether the City is asking them to put glass windows in or whether they will still be boarded up and considered blight. Mr. Vani advised there are provisions in the Property Standards By-law for how windows are to be boarded up. He also advised that the windows identified in the Order are the ones that are missing, which may have not been boarded up above the main floors. John Middleton suggested that the Committee move forward into the regular practices of the Property Standards Committee and move to address the property at 790 Indian Road. Mr. Middleton asked that the Building Department present the particulars on that property, have the appellant answer any questions, and that the Committee move to motion on the strategy for that property. Lee Anne advised that she would then have the Inspector, Rick Gruber, review that specific order. Mr. Evans stated that the Order in question is dealing with the exterior walls and eaves troughs and that there is a note stating that a Construction Permit must be obtained from the Building Department prior to commencing work. He advised he can see possible permit requirement for exterior wall repair but not eaves troughs. Mr. Vani stated that any material alterations to a building under the Building Code Act require a permit, and if it is requiring eaves troughs a permit we be required. Mr. Middleton asked Mr. Gruber why a defect and correction on the Order to Repair was not done for the exterior walls at 790 Indian Road. Mr. Gruber pointed out in the pictures that the siding was missing on the exterior and that once the exposed wood rots out it would crawl to the inside and once that happens the structure would start to fail. He then stated that the defect and correction on the Order to Repair was not done due to the volume when the

9

question was repeated. Mr. Middleton then asked Ms. Doyle if it was not the Building Departments choice to create this massive volume for this Committee by issuing 114 orders and why that decision by the City should make an Order different than what the Committee is used to dealing with. Lee Anne Doyle stated that it was unique because it is dealing with the same property owner, time efficient, consistent, and to assist the Committee in bringing this forward. Mr. Middleton advised he would like to make a motion to deal with this particular order. Mr. Van Wyck questioned the urgency of the blitz. Mr. Middleton stated that once he has someone second his motion that the Committee will discuss it further but would like to move forward. Mr. Evans spoke to the importance of the west end and respect that it is not getting as an historical part of the City and asked Mr. Middleton to proceed with his motion. Mr. Middleton moved to modify from a Repair Order to a Demolition Order and that the demolition shall be carried out forthwith. He stated that to support the motion the first point would be that the City of Windsor through its Building and By-law Enforcement Department has not enforced the Property Standards By-law on the 114 properties on the west end and secondly that the City of Windsor has targeted the CTC properties by issuing the 114 Repair Orders all within a few days. He stated the City of Windsor has put the residents at risk of injury and or loss of live by allowing a fire hazard to remain unchecked for many years. Mr. Van Wyck asked whether these are reasons and if this is an argument for the motion or whether they are dealing with the motion. Mr. Middleton advised that he is providing points on the one motion that the Committee can vote on individually. He then stated that Building Inspectors and By-law Enforcement have ignored the obvious violations of the Property Standards By-law for years. He stated it is his belief that the City of Windsor has acted in bad faith against the CTC Company and would like to award costs. He advised the appeal fee should be returned to the CTC, the administration fee of $225.00 should be returned to the CTC, and that the reasonable legal fees that the CTC has incurred should be paid by the City of Windsor. Mr. Evans stated that some of it is valid and some of it is not. The motion was seconded by Mark Stephen. Mr. Middleton advised that an email was sent to Karen requesting that Mayor Francis be in attendance to determine the people who were consulted at the meeting for the City to do this crack down out of nowhere. Mr. Evans moved on to the motion. Mark suggested the Committee deal with demolition for the non-heritage properties. Lee Anne advised that these properties are in heritage/conservation district and demolition controlled area and Demolition Permits would have to be approved by City Council. Mr. Middleton asked CTC if the massive structure behind 790 Indian is the beginnings of bridge construction. Mr. Stamper, President of CTC, advised that there is ramp behind that property that was permitted and built as part of the plaza expansion of the existing bridge. Mr. Middleton asked Ms. Doyle if the City had approved this ramp. Lee Anne Doyle advised she did not grant approval of that construction as the Building Department did not receive a permit under the Building Code Act and that it is a legislative authority question because it may not fall under the City of Windsors jurisdiction and needs to be deferred to legal counsel. Mr. Stamper advised that it was built with an agreement and permit from the City. Mr. Middleton asked Mr. Stamper if the houses on Indian Street fall within the Federal Plan that Mr. Lowenstein previously referred to. Mr. Stamper replied that it does and the properties that are bought are for the current expansion that Canada Border Services Agency has requested and for current maintenance of the bridge. Mr. Middleton asked how long it would take for CTC to have the property cleared if the Committee granted demolition. Mr. Stamper said it could be done immediately as they have started to do the abatement to the homes and have a bid for

10

demolition that would allow them to move forward immediately. Ms. Doyle confirmed that the City issued permits for the customs booths and canopy but not for the construction of the ramp. Mr. Middleton asked why an Order to take the ramp down has not been issued. Mr. Vani advised that the Building Code does not give the City jurisdiction over the ramp. He stated that it does not meet the definition of building under the Building Code Act and although there may be authority over those the Building Code Act specifically does not have jurisdiction over those ramps. Mr. Middle asked if the City issued permits for the pedestrian overpass south of McDonalds and whether inspections were conducted for that structure. Mr. Vani replied that it too is not considered a building under the Building Code Act and the Building Department would not have issued any permits or conducted any inspections. Ms. Fric read an Order that CTC was made aware of regarding a different property not owned by CTC dated August 19th, 2013 to a home that suffered extensive high intensity fire and water damage. She pointed out that on the Order under correction one it states it is the opinion of this Officer/ Inspector that this building is beyond practical repair due to the severe structural damage as a result of the fire, therefore the entire building should be demolished as soon as practical or for other options. She advised that this is proof that there have been demolition permits ordered for other special circumstances and this Committee has the power to modify the Orders issued. Mr. Middleton advised that he is moving aggressively on this because of all the articles in the paper. He said he has heard from Mr. Williams, Ms. Lee Anne Doyle and Mayor Francis but that the residents of the west end deserve better. He advised that Ms. Doyle has stated in the paper if this Committee wants to be appealed you can appeal it to a judge. He then went on to say the Committee members are volunteers who have been straddled with this because the City chose to issue 144 Orders thinking the Committee would cave. Mr. Middleton urged his Committee members to support him on moving forward on this issue as it is his belief that the residents of the west end have suffered long enough with the blight that is out there. Karen Kadour read back the motion at the request of Mr. Evans: Motion 1 that the Order to Repair be modified at 790 Indian Street to a Demolition Order to be carried out forthwith. Mr. Evans advised that Marc seconded the motion and voting commenced. All in favour. Discussion surrounding a motion/ statement that did not move forward that the City of Windsor through Building has not enforced a By-law on 114 properties on the west end. Mr. Van Wyck said that this is an irrelevant statement and not a motion and questioned what the City is supposed to do. Mr. Evans asked if Mr. Middleton is moving forward on it. Mr. Middleton stated it needs to be voted on as it is part of the motion. Mr. Evans asked if all were in favour of the motion. Mr. Van Wyck advised he is not. the City of Windsor has targeted CTC with 114 Orders within a few days time. Mr. Middleton again stated he is stating a fact to support the original motion and advised if the wording has to be changed that he is agreeable with that. Bill advised that he objects to voting in favour of the other things besides the original motion. He reiterated he does not agree with all the other lines that follow the original motion. Mr. Evans advised that the first motion would remain intact and that the second motion will deal with all of these other issues. Karen was asked by Mr. Evans to read back the second motion/statement again. Mr. Van Wyck advised it is a statement and not a motion and it cannot move forward to a vote.

11

Mr. Evans advised the rest of this is irrelevant and suggested moving forward to the motion of cost. Motion2 the City of Windsor acted in bad faith to the CTC and request that cost be rewarded to return the appeal fees to the CTC, the administration fees of $225.00 to the CTC, legal fees should be paid by the City of Windsor. Mr. Stephen advised he did not second this motion and Mr. Van Wyck did not as well. Motion did not move forward. Motion 3 Mr. Van Wyck stated, on behalf of the Committee, all the buildings without the Heritage Buildings be recommended for demolition. Seconded by Mr. Stephen. Mr. Middleton advised that permission of the parties to bundle them is required. Mr. Lowenstein advised they have the permission of CTC as did Ms. Doyle on behalf of the City of Windsor. All in favour. Motion 4 that approval be given to demolish all buildings without Heritage designation. Mr. Van Wyck suggested that the City meet and consult with CTC to try and find a solution to the Heritage properties and that the appeals could be adjourned on that basis. Mr. Middle asked to defer the decision on this matter until there was time for those negotiations to take place. Mr. Lowenstien suggested the Committee recommend to the parties to meet and negotiate in good faith for a resolution to the Heritage properties by passing such a motion and adjourn the hearing of the Heritage appeals pending satisfactory resolution of those negotiations or with regret if no resolution would be achieve that would terminate the discussion and it could be brought back. Mr. Van Wyck recommended the deferral of the motion. Seconded my Mr. Stephen. All in favour to defer. Mr. Middleton moved to adjourn. Meeting Adjourned Minutes prepared by Andrea Larivee