City Says Trial Judge Erred

Friday, March 18, 2011 01:03 PM

Prince George, B.C.- Legal Counsel for the City of Prince George has argued before the Court of Appeal, that the judge who heard the City vs Columbus Hotel Ltd case, erred on three counts when he dismissed the case.

The City’s lawyer, Sukhbir Manhas put forth his argument that the trial judge, erred when he;

1.deemed the City was the owner of the Columbus Hotel property at the time of the clean up

2.ruled the onus was on the City to prove there was no right to indemnification

3. Even if not the “owner”, the City had a right to be reimbursed for costs incurred to maintain ( in this case demolish) the property.

The City became the purchaser of the Columbus Hotel property in September of 2007 when the Hotel failed to pay its taxes. The redemption period was to expire on September 24^th of 2008, but the hotel went up in smoke on August 19^th of that year.

The City has been trying to force the Columbus to reimburse it for dollars spent on demolition and clean up of the site. That bill, for demolition, security, and clean up is just over $175,000.00

The case is the first of its kinds in the province. It involves rules under the Local government act, and the Community Charter. If the City loses the case, it could mean, that anyone, including a municipality, who is listed as the purchaser of a property through tax sale, would have to have insurance on that property until the redemption period is over and the property title has changed over.

Manhas argued the scenario is not unlike a common offer to purchase a property. The offer is accepted, but the purchaser is not the “owner” until the deal is closed and the seller is then responsible for anything that happens during that period before the deal closes.

Rob Gibson, of Columbus Hotel 1991 Ltd, argued the Act is very clear, because it states that when a property is purchased through a tax sale, the previous owner loses all rights to that property with some exceptions.

Gibson says he is optimistic, the Appeal Court will uphold the findings of the trial judge.

The Appeal Court has reserved decision.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Friday, March 18, 2011 01:03 PM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: He spoke on March 18 2011 1:24 PM

So who paid for the insurance during this time period?

Who is the beneficiary of the insurance if it was in place

Posted by: He spoke on March 18 2011 1:37 PM

So the city took over the property in September of 2007, was Rob paying the rent from September of 2007 until it burned down?

If not, who at the city hall is offering free rent.

Posted by: Resident on March 18 2011 4:38 PM

The city should be happy. Heck they got the Columbus for a song. Bought the PG hotel and Commonwealth gets an easy 1/2 million extra. Bought the old Bamboo gardens and CKPG site. The list goes on and on. Why quibble over a paltry couple of hundred grand.
Suck it up Rodgers and get on with doing something useful like filling in some pot holes. Given the number of pot holes and the condition of the streets at present the photo ops for you and council are endless.

Posted by: gus on March 18 2011 6:48 PM

I think it is pretty simple. As I understand it, during the redemption period, the City is the holder of the lien against the property. If someone buys out the lien, they become the owner of the property in the case of a tax sale. If not, the City or lean holder become the owner.

If there are any other liens against the property other governmental liens, such as demolition liens in this case, the "investor" must pay them off when attaining title to the property. These are not part of the lien sale and remain even if the lien holder (the City in this case) acquires the property.

I predict the appeal will be denied unless there is something we have not been told here.

Posted by: gus on March 18 2011 6:51 PM

"Manhas argued the scenario is not unlike a common offer to purchase a property."

I am perplexed as to why he would argue that. An offer to purchase is totally different from the conditions in place when a lien is registered against a property.

Posted by: Palopu on March 19 2011 8:24 AM

I agree with Gus

Posted by: Harbinger on March 19 2011 10:21 AM

In all, I for one don't believe my taxes and my city hall should be in the real estate game. It is not good.

Posted by: gus on March 19 2011 10:37 AM

Here is the judgement:

http://www.bcjustice.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=751:city-of-prince-george-plaintiff-and-columbus-hotel-company-1991-ltd-following-the-fire-the-city-acting-pursuant-to-division-12-of-the-community-charter-sbc-2003-c-26-charter-required-columbus-to-demolish-the-building-remove-debris-and-fil&catid=487:people-vs-2010&Itemid=1476

I think there is an additional element to this entire matter.

It appears that the urgency the City acted under is due to the Engineer's report that the front wall was unsecured and in danger of collapsing.

Fair enough, even though there appear to be no oipinion about how to prevent the collapse other than to tear it down. I think many people understand that suc h walls have been secured in such situations all over the world, including on Water Street in Vancouver in the case of buildings destroyed by fire. In the case of buildings considered to have some "heritage" value, they are then properly secured to remain for several years while the property is considered for development.

That could have been the situation in the Case of the Columbus. However, that is of no concern to our City daddies and mommies.

So, setting that aside, what is the actual minimum that needed to be done to remove the hazard described by the engineer? Simple. Topple the wall. There was no need to clear the site from a public safety point of view. Put a sight obstructing and secure hoarding along the front and a chain link fence at the back, and the safety issue is taken care of. Material removal can be handled at a later date. Probably, at least half the cost could have been saved.

The City refused to discuss options with the occupier of the property. The City was in sole control of that. If the City felt that they would be recovering from the owner, it is clear from the act, as outlined in the judgment that the City had a duty to mitigate excessive costs and deal only with the safety matter.