►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Thank
you,
Miss
culture.
The
hearing
before
the
panel
this
evening
is
an
appeal
by
the
licensee
of
the
chief
licensed
inspector's
decision
to
suspend
the
business
license
issued
to
her
on
February
8
2022
for
the
provision
of
short-term
rental
accommodation
at
unit
802-183,
Kiefer
Street
in
the
city
of
Vancouver.
A
A
copy
of
that
license
is
contained
under
the
materials
at
tab
for
a
paginated
to
page
18
in
the
top
right
hand
corner
the
suspension
by
the
chief
license
inspector
and
the
base
is
therefore
is
set
out
in
the
letter
of
August
31st
2022
to
the
licensee,
which
is
included
in
the
materials
at
tab,
14
and
I'm.
Just
going
to
read
a
portion
of
that
letter.
For
you,
the
page
number
in
the
upper
right
hand.
Side
is
a
page
192..
A
This
is
the
suspension
letter
from
the
chief
license
inspector
and
you'll
see
from
the
second
a
paragraph
in
the
letter.
The
basis
for
the
decision.
I'll
just
read
that
for
the
panel,
the
city
is
determined
that
in
consideration
of
the
totality
of
information,
including
documentation
provided
during
your
audit
information
received
from
the
community,
the
compliance,
inspection
and
information
from
the
meeting,
the
information
does
not
support
that
unit.
802.183
key
for
place
is
your
principal
residence
as
per
license.
A
Bylaw
4450,
section
25.1,
sub
3
no
person
shall
carry
on
business
as
a
short-term
rental
accommodation
operator,
unless
the
short-term
rental
accommodation
being
provided
is
the
principal
residence
unit
of
that
person.
The
letter
specifically
stipulates
that
the
basis
for
the
suspension
was
due
to
the
licensee
failing
to
satisfy
the
principal
resident
requirement
for
the
premises.
There
is
a
definition
of
principal
residence
unit
in
the
license.
A
A
What
the
panel
can
expect
here
is
an
indication
that
the
decision
required
a
weighing
of
the
claim
of
principal
residency
by
the
licensee
against
a
number
of
other
factors,
namely
a
high
booking
volume,
an
admission
with
respect
to
long-term
absence
from
the
unit
and
admission
with
respect
to
moving
out
of
the
unit
in
May
2022
admissions,
with
respect
to
Alternative
housing
for
long-term
purposes
and
the
fact
that
the
listing
was
listed
for
long-term
bookings
in
and
around
September
2022.
That's
something
that
the
panel
can
take
into
consideration.
A
The
chief
license
inspectors.
Submissions
to
the
panel
is
that
the
conclusion
that
the
evidence
did
not
support
principal
residency
was
a
reasonable
one
that
the
suspension
of
the
license
logically
flows
from
that
and
that
the
decision
to
suspend
should
be
upheld.
Of
course,
the
licensee
has
the
opportunity
this
evening
to
convince
the
panel.
Otherwise,
before
embarking
on
the
evidence,
Mr
Miyagi,
there
are
some
legal
and
procedural
issues
to
note.
A
The
panel's
power
to
review
a
business
license
are
set
out
further
in
section
275
of
the
Vancouver
Charter,
the
granting
or
refusing
and
I'm
just
reading
that
now
the
granting
and
refusing
of
a
license
to
an
applicant
therefore,
and
the
revocation
or
suspension
of
a
license
which
has
been
granted
shall
be
deemed
to
be
in
the
discretion
of
council
and
the
council.
May
Grant
refuse
revoke
or
suspend
a
license
without
stating
reasons,
therefore,
saving
respect
of
a
license
licensee
who,
by
reasonable
efforts,
could
not
be
found.
A
The
council
shall
not
revoke
a
license
without
giving
the
holder
thereof,
an
opportunity
to
be
heard
and
that
opportunity
to
be
heard
is
part
and
parcel
of
this
evening's
proceedings.
But
under
that,
under
that
section,
this
panel
has
broad
powers
to
revoke,
suspend
or
uphold
a
business
license.
This
is
an
administrative
proceeding,
so
rules
of
natural
Justice
do
apply,
including
that
opportunity
to
be
heard,
but
also
the
license
holder
is
entitled
field
to
hear
the
allegations
against
them.
They
may
respond
to
those
allegations.
A
They
may
ask
questions
of
the
witnesses
and
they
may
make
submissions
on
their
own
behalf,
including
the
provision
of
any
further
materials
that
they
see
fit.
If
this
panel,
though,
seems
fit
to
uphold
the
suspension
overturn
it
or
overturn
it
and
stipulate
conditions
to
be
attached
to
the
business
license
because
that's
also
an
option,
the
law
does
state
that
you
must
give
reasons
for
doing
so.
That's
a
supreme
court
kind
of
decision
of
Regina
and
vavalov.
Those
are
the
opening
remarks
from
this
point.
B
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Thank
you
panel.
Thank
you.
Mr
LeBlanc,
my
name
is
Koji
Miyagi
I
am
the
deputy
chief
licensed
inspector
for
the
city
of
Vancouver.
I
am
also
the
assistant
director
of
community
standards,
and
that
is
an
area
in
development,
buildings
on
licensing
department,
I
oversee
three
enforcement
branches
and
one
being
called
proactive
enforcement.
That
area
oversees
the
the
enforcement,
the
the
compliance,
the
investigation
for
short-term
rental
license
issuance
and
the
information
provided
here
today
in
your
evidence,
package
was
created
from
my
staff
and
our
area.
Thank.
A
C
A
A
C
A
I'm,
just
taking
it
from
the
top
then,
and
perhaps
I'll-
ask
the
panel
members
to
turn
to
that
page
five
under
tab.
Two
and
we'll
start
going
through
that
timeline
events,
and
you
can
explain
how
it
is.
We
we're
at
the
stage
that
we
are
at
this
evening.
I
see
it
to
be.
At
the
beginning,
a
reference
to
Land
Title
Office
records
show
that
Miss
coach
are
the
licensee
became
a
co-own
or
the
property
September
9th
2019.
A
C
C
A
A
C
So,
at
the
time
of
issuance,
the
the
licenses
are
self-generated.
If
you
will,
they
apply
online
and
and
they
follow
the
instructions
that
are
online
and
then,
if
they
check
the
appropriate
the
boxes
and
and
and
then
pay
the
fee,
then
the
licenses
are
issued
automatically
to
that
individual
and
the
reference
to
that
statement
is
that,
given
our
staff
limitations
as
well,
we
and
we
want
to
expediate
the
issuance
of
the
license.
We
don't
necessarily
review
or
audit
each
application
to
its
detail.
So.
A
A
C
A
C
C
A
C
Through
the
chair,
that
is
a
one
of
the
very
first
steps
that
we
take
when,
when
we
have
a
complaint,
when
we
review
its
contents,
we
do
a
we.
We
call
it
internally
a
stage
one
or
a
phase,
one
audit,
which
is
request
for
documentation
and
it
is
identified
in
the
in
the
bylaw
as
well
as
in
the
application
process.
It
says
very
clearly
that
before
you
apply,
please
have
all
your
documents
in
place.
A
C
Yes,
through
the
chair,
there
are
examples
provided
and
we
we
asked
for
government
issuance
type
ID,
preferably
with
the
photo.
We
look
for
things
like
the
as
an
example,
Revenue
Canada
information.
We
try
to
look
for
information
that
is
not
self-generated.
So
since
ICPC
information
is,
is
one
of
the
information
that
we
also
asked
for.
We
do
accept
Billings
and
those
kind
of
information
as
well,
but
a
lot
of
times
they
can
be
self-generated,
meaning
you
can
put
down
an
address
that
you
want
on
there.
A
A
I
in,
in
other
words,
the
documents
that
were
provided
to
the
extent
that
they
were
provided,
they
satisfied
the
chief
licensed
inspector
with
respect
to
the
principal
residency
requirement
for
that
unit.
Yes,
that
is
correct
and
I'm,
just
looking
at
Tab
5
now,
starting
at
page
19.,
it
looks
like
the
first
that
first
page
page
19
is
a
copy
of
the
van
connect
complaint.
Is
that
right.
C
Yes
through
the
chair,
so
this
is
the
document
audit
information
and
it
lists
the
the
types
of
documents
to
send
within
a
particular
title
time
limit
30
days.
We
also
asked
for
an
operational
summary
and
then
booking
calendars
if
there
are
any-
and
so
in
this
particular
case,
we
asked
for
the
booking
calendar,
because
the
license
was
issued
in
in
well
December
of
the
previous
year
for
for
the
current
year,
and
there
would
have
been
a
number
of
months
that
perhaps
this
location
was
active.
C
A
The
balance
of
the
documents
look
like
there's
a
booking
calendar
in
here.
There
are
some
of
those
invoices,
ICBC
records
and
and
whatnot
I.
Don't
think
that
we
need
to
go
through
all
of
those,
but
these
are
all
of
the
materials
under
tab.
Five
that
were
considered
with
respect
to
that
first
audit
in
2021
is
that
right?
It's.
C
Is
the
most
frequently
initiated
audit
it?
Although
it
does
take
time,
it
is
a
bit
more
time,
conservative
and
so
we're
able
to
to
to
perform
a
lot
more
of
these.
So
yes,
now
we
do
do
a
stage
two
or
phase
two
audits
where
we
actually
interview
and
we
also
go
on
site
and
do
an
inspection.
So
so
those
are
those
are
ones
that
that
we
may
decide
to
do
later
on,
or
we
may
decide
to
do
in
conjunction
with
in
this
particular
time.
A
So,
fair
to
say,
we'll
call
this
a
stage,
one
sure
and
a
subsequent
one
that
we'll
get
to
will
be
a
stage.
Two
audit
Etc,
that's
correct!
Okay!
So
that's
that's
2021!
The
audit
was
completed
at
the
end
of
of
August
and
the
the
license
then
was
active
through
to
the
balance
of
the
year.
The
next
date,
entry
and
I'm
back
to
Tab
2
at
page
five
of
the
timeline
has
an
entry
for
February
8
2022.
A
A
C
Through
the
chair,
yes,
we
received
another
complaint
and
this
one
again
was
for
a
unit
at
this
address
and
I'd
like
to
add
that
getting
multiple
complaints
does
certainly
flag
our
interest
and,
as
you'll
see
later
on,
there'll
be
a
third
complaint
as
well.
So
so
those
really
trigger
City's
interest.
Frequently
we
actually
receive
no
complaints
for
for
most
of
our
licensees,
and
so
when
we
receive
one
we
take
some
interest.
When
we
receive
two
or
three
multiple
complaints,
then
then
it
does
trigger
our
interest.
A
C
C
This
one
stated
that
it
didn't
have
a
strata
and
if
I
can
maybe
explain
what
a
strata
permission
is
short-term
rentals
that
are
run
out
of
condo
unit
apartments
that
are
strata
stratified,
require
permission
from
the
strata
to
to
indicate
that
that
activity
is
actually
allowed
in
the
building,
and
so
we
look
for
that
document
and,
and
once
again
these
are.
These
are
mandatory
documents.
C
So,
if
you're
renting
a
place,
you
also
need
to
require
require
permission
from
your
your
landlord
so
similar
to
that
the
strata
documentation
is
also
a
mandatory
piece
that
is
required
in
this
particular
case.
They
said
they
don't
have
one
so
so
that
is
also
an
interesting
trigger
for
us
to
look
into
that.
A
C
So
the
complaint
says
it's
not
allowed
by
landowners
or
strata,
which
is
true,
and
for
them
to
state
that
this
particular
the
complainant
state
that
this
particular
unit
doesn't
have
one.
You
know
we
need
to
verify
whether
that's
a
legitimate
complaint
or
how
that
individual
had
that
information
or
the
complaint
and
have
that
information.
So,
in
order
to
do
that,
we
would
in
this
particular
case
we
started.
We
started
down
the
path
of
a
phase
stage,
two
audit,
where
we
will
then
ask
for
the
documentation
again.
A
C
Yes
to
the
chair,
that
is
correctly
correct
and
it's
14
days,
because
it
is
a
mandatory
document
that
that
you
have
to
have
and
so
granted
some
of
those
like
like
the
the
Billings
and
that
that
information
that
supports
your
primary
residency.
We
do
give
some
leeway
to
a
bit
more
time,
but
but
similar
to
a
permission
from
the
landlord.
This
is
a
a
document
that
is
a
must-have
in
order
for
you
to
even
apply
for
a
license.
A
C
Through
this
request,
we
had
discovered
that
she
also
has
some
difficulty
obtaining
this
strata
approval
which
she
had
earlier,
and
so
she
had
to
ask
for
an
extension
and
and
to
her
credit,
she
did
submit
it,
but
it
was
interesting
that
she
had
she
hadn't
received
or
had
that
available
in
14
days.
Once
again,
it's
something
that
you
should
have
had.
The
audit
was
dated
back
in
May
19th.
The
license
was
renewed
December
of
2021.
A
There
was
a
request,
though,
for
some
more
time
and
and
eventually
the
required
documentation
was
submitted.
Is
that
right
through
the
chair?
Yes,
that
is
correct
in
the
interim
July
11
2022
we're
on
the
second
page
of
the
timeline.
There
was
a
third
complaint
that
was
received
through
through
van
connect.
I
assume,
with
respect
to
the
unit
is
that
right.
C
Through
the
chair,
yes,
that
is
the
complaint,
and
in
this
particular
one,
it
states
again
that
this
individual
or
this
unit
does
not
have
the
person
that's
running.
It
is
not
the
principal
residence
there
once
again,
so
this
is
the
third
complaint
in
relatively
a
short
period
of
time
and
both
site
fairly
important,
key
aspects
of
being
compliant
with
the
short-term
rental
license.
So
once
again,
this
triggered
a
very
it
triggered
a
higher
interest
for
us
to
to
pursue
this
matter
a
bit
further.
A
C
Correct
because
of
the
third
complaint,
but
also
the
second
complaint
and
the
fact
that
there
was
a
delay
in
the
documentation
and
just
just
the
general
dialogue
that
we
we
had
going
back
and
forth,
we
felt
it
warranted
further
investigation
of
the
actual
actual
case
File.
And
so
we
proceeded
on
the
path
of
an
inspection
and
also
an
interview.
Audit,
okay,.
A
C
What
she
found
and
interesting
enough
in
this
August
second
comment:
our
staff
noted
what
inspector
Cho
found,
but
also
when,
when
inspector
Joe
spoke
with
Miss
kochar,
there
was
no.
There
were
notes
notations
in
her
investigation
file
that
that
stated
that
Miss
kochar
had
indicated
that
she
doesn't
live
at
the
unit
that
she
stays
with
her
family
in
Surrey,
with
with
the
baby
there,
she
had
a
10
month
old
or
she
has.
A
C
These
are
photos
of
a
two-bedroom
unit
in
Kiefer.
If
you
look
at
page
102,
for
example,
the
refrigerator
it,
it
shows
that
it's
empty,
like
it's
virtually
empty
and
I
I
know.
Miss
coach
air
well
has
indicated
the
reasons
for
that.
But
it
is
something
that
we
note
and
it's
something
that
we
see
commonly
for
Suites
that
are
very
highly
virtually
exclusively
used
for
short-term
rentals.
C
If
I
take
you
to
page
103,
the
the
cupboards
also
indicate
very
little
household
or
regular
household
items,
similar
to
what
you
may
find
in
a
hotel
setting
with
a
kitchen
unit,
and
then
105
is
similar
where
we
have
other
other
cabinets.
106
is
a
storage
unit.
We
see
very
little
storage
there
for
personal
items
and
then
107
is
the
bathroom
108
109,
our
closets
110..
C
All
these
units
we
looking
at
these
and
having
a
10
month
old,
baby
I've,
raised
three
children
myself
and
I
know
that
it's
virtually
impossible
to
to
not
have
any
baby
items
in
the
house
somewhere
in
the
house,
and
we
didn't
see
any
references
to
that.
I
know.
Miss
culture
has
stated
some
of
the
reasons
why
they
may
not
be
there,
but
for
this
particular
unit
for
what
the
inspector
found
we
felt
it.
A
If
I
can
just
maybe
summarize
what
you've
said
is
that
in
the
inspectors
in
the
course
of
the
inspection,
there
was
an
admission
by
Miss
or
by
the
the
licensed
human
culture
that
nobody
was
living
there
and
essentially
the
inspector
saw
a
condominium
void
of
any
personal
effects
through
the
chair.
Yes,
that
is
correct,
so
what
was
observed
by
the
inspector
matched
up
with
with
what
the
license
he
had
divulged
to
her.
A
Thank
you.
The
the
next
thing
that
happened
back
to
the
timeline
at
Page
Six
was
a
phone
audit
meeting
I
completed
with
a
homes,
R
Wong
and
the
licensee
and
I'm
reading
from
that
entry
concerns
of
the
city
regarding
principal
residents
were
discussed
first
before
we
get
to
the
details
of
that
discussion,
can
you
tell
us
who
a
homes
and
R
Wong
are.
C
Yes,
through
the
chair,
Alexandra
Holmes
is
supervising
coordinator
in
our
proactive
enforcement
area.
She
oversees
all
the
enforcement
staff
that
are
there,
the
the
folks
that
do
the
investigations.
What
not
so
so,
Miss
Holmes
will
conduct
the
the
interview
audits
along
with
Miss
Claire
Thompson
who's,
the
manager
there.
She
also
does
some
of
the
audits,
but
in
this
particular
case,
Alexander
Holmes
led
the
interview.
R,
Wong
or
Ray.
Wong
is
the
one
of
the
enforcement
clerks
and
he
participates.
A
C
Some
of
the
other
interesting
key
points
that
if
I
may
raise,
is
she
she
refers
to
in
the
interview
and
it's
captured
by
both
individuals,
Ray
and
Alex,
that
that
she
refers
to
unit
613
of
555
Abbott.
Well,
she
refers
that
because
we
asked
that
question
about
we.
We
noticed
that
you
always
love
another
condo
that
that
is
registered
to
you
and
and
what
what
do
you
do
with
that?
C
And
she
goes
to
explain
in
a
summary
that
that
that
she
uses
that
and
and
oh
and
might
I
add
that
this
this
unit
on
Abbott
is
in
the
on
the
same
complex.
So
it's
it's
like
the
next
building
to
the
place
where
she
is
has
a
license
for
short-term
rental,
and
this
is
a
unit
that
she
used
to
live
at
before
before
she
purchased
802.
C
C
That's
what
Alex
had
asked
and
she
says,
move
back
into
our
unit
in
the
fall
supposed
to
go
back
to
work,
keep
this
unit
as
an
office
space
so
on
and
so
forth.
We
blocked
off
our
MVP
calendar
and
we
don't
continue
in
the
fall
and
earlier
on.
She
states
that
she
is
semi
permanent
or
semi-permanent
in
unit
802.
In
this
conversation
and
I
can
take
you
to
page
127
near
the
bottom.
She
states
when
we
ask
about
the
one
at
613,
555
Abbott.
C
She
says
women
we
move
out
of
802
in
mid-may
fridge
is
not
stock
because
of
covid
we're
just
putting
people
at
risk
with
the
condiments
what
not
empty
out
the
causes,
because
ppls
people
are
staying
here.
We
use
613
at
for
storage,
also
storage
within
the
building,
their
stuff
and
I.
Don't
know
what
you
mean
by
nobody
lives
here,
but
yeah
not
going
to
leave
children
close
in
the
for
people
to
steal,
and
she
continues
to
say
that
other
airbnbs
via
other
airbnbs,
don't
do
that
in
the
next
statement.
C
This
is
where
we
also
found
interest
to
semi-permanently
move
everything
out.
Only
brand
spent
chunks
at
the
time
after
my
summer
months,
one
and
so
forth,
but
once
again,
this
indicates
that
she
clearly
lives
somewhere
else.
She
also
stated
before
that
she
lives
with
her
family
in
Surrey
as
well,
so
so
now,
okay,
so
there's
three
locations
where
we
think
you
might
be
living
as
a
primary
resident
and
certainly
the
photos
that
we've
taken,
even
though
it's
prepared
for
an
Airbnb,
she
says.
C
But
then,
if
you
look
at
the
bookings
up
on
page
27,
I
want
27
that
box
and
the
rentals.
If
I
take
you
through
the
box,
you
can
see
very
clearly
that
on
the
first
row,
June
July
August,
September
October,
that
is
from
2021.
That
indicates
an
number
of
bookings,
that's
pretty
much
solid
for
those
months
and
then
in
2022,
in
May,
June,
July,
August,
September
or
September,
not
so
much,
because
we
cancel
their
license
or
suspended
or
license.
C
C
C
And
so
our
our
thinking,
based
on
the
information
we
receive,
is
that
that
this
unit
is
not
occupied
as
a
primary
residence.
It's
it's
likely
left
vacant
throughout
the
year.
It's
it's
left
as
a
hotel,
a
seasonal
hotel
for
these
summer
months
and
and
then
this
individual
lives
elsewhere,
either
in
Surrey
or
in
this
other
unit
that
that
she
retains
and
of
course,
individuals
have
the
right
to
retain
as
many
units
as
you
want,
I
suppose.
C
Is
it's
not
intended
to
be
run
like
a
hotel
for
a
big
chunk
of
time,
and
this
individual
is
also
doing
this
not
going
to
Florida
for
the
winter
or
not
going
to
school
in
Europe
and
vacating.
For
for
those
reasons.
But
this
individual
Works
in
Vancouver
has
a
resident
another
residence,
a
couple
feet
away
or
in
the
same
complex
and
also
has
access
to
another
residence
in
Surrey
as
well,
and
so
through
the
interview
audit.
Those
were
the
the
situations
that
we
came
to.
A
C
Come
Those
are,
they
should
have
been
provided
by
the
the
license
holder,
so
I
Believe,
Miss
A
co-chair
had
provided
this
information
or
most
of
it.
We
also
have
a
process
through
a
software
that
we
use
that
helps
us
calculate
the
the
bookings
as
well
and
through
the
the
two
pieces
of
information
we
come
up
with
these
dates.
A
C
C
A
C
C
C
Pager
206
that
in
the
lower
right
hand
corner
it
shows
the
number
of
documented
stays
and
it
reflects.
For
example,
if
you
look
at
page
207
and
if
you,
if
you
look
at
anyone,
it'll
say
like
three
documented
stays
on
August
2022.
So
we
take
that
information
documented
stays
reflect
a
number
of
nights
that
were
being
booked,
and
so
we
take
that
information
and
correspond
it
with
the
information
that
that
the
individual
has
provided.
A
So
I'm,
just
looking
at
the
notes
on
the
prior
page
126
about
halfway
down
just
before
beginning
with
rental
days
from
2020..
It
looks
like
these
are
the
notes
of
one
of
the
two
interviewers
yes
and
you'd.
Read
some
of
these
and
I'm
just
starting
sort
of
a
third
of
the
way
down
Alex.
This
would
be
Alexander
Holmes
asking
the
question:
what
are
the
plans
moving
forward
to
6
13?
That's
the
rental
apartment
that
was
that
was
disclosed
in
the
course
of
the
interview.
C
The
555
Abbott,
it
was
also
provided
in
the
ICBC
history
moving
history,
and
so
in
that
initial
document
information
that
address
was
on
there.
But
through
our
investigations
and
through
the
interview
audit,
we
were
able
to
ascertain
that
they
they
still
keep
that
unit.
It's
a
rental
unit
for
her,
but
they
still
keep
the
unit
and
then
use
it
for
these
purposes
and
then
also
it
says
later
on.
It
says
that
she
lives
in
Surrey
as
well
before.
A
So,
at
the
time
of
the
interview,
there
was
an
indication
that
right
now
living
in
613
before
was
in
Surrey,
we
haven't
been
at
802
before
mid-may,
was
in
802..
So
from
that,
the
understanding
combined
with
the
notes
of
Alexander
Holmes,
was
that
that
the
licensee
had
not
been
living
in
802
since
mid
2022,
correct,
mid-may,
mid-bay
2022..
So
that
sure
that
is
correct.
C
A
A
August
18th,
yes,
and
for
August
it
looks
like
there'd
been
19
total
days,
so
it
would
be
the
entire
of
the
month.
I
had
been
so
at
the
time.
At
the
time
of
the
interview,
there
was
the
admission
that
they
weren't
living
in
the
unit
they
were
living
in
the
rental
unit
or
the
licensee
was
living
in
the
rental
unit
and
it
hadn't
been
occupied
since
mid-may
through
the
chair.
A
C
Yes,
so
after
the
conclusion
of
the
audit
and
then
looking
at
all
the
information
having
discussions
with
the
myself,
the
chief
licensed
inspector
and
the
the
all
the
investigators
August
31st,
a
suspension
letter
was
issued
by
the
chief
license
inspector
stating
the
totality
of
the
information
obtained
leads
us
to
believe
that
it
does
not
support
that.
This
is
your
primary
residence.
A
A
C
Yes,
through
the
chair,
we
we
frequently
look
for
compliance
after
we
issue
a
suspension
letter
and
the
in
this
particular
case.
We
have
forwarded
the
letter,
August
31st.
We
monitored
the
activities
on
the
on
the
website
and
we
have
discovered
that
the
listing
was
still
up
and
that
it
was
being
advertised
for
30
days
or
more,
which
is
considered
a
long-term
rental,
and
we
don't.
C
We
did
not
have
record
of
Miss
coach
or
having
a
long-term
rental
license,
which
is
a
requirement
when
you're,
renting
long
term,
and
so
therefore,
we
sent
her
a
warning
letter
saying
please
cease
and
desist
this
activity
until
you
get
a
long-term
rental
license
and,
interestingly
enough,
if
an
individual
rents
or
or
seeks
a
renter
for
long-term
rentals.
That's
another
firm
point
of
confirmation
for
us
that
an
individual
that
rents
something
for
full
time.
Like
that
long
term,
you
wouldn't
be
able
to
do
that.
C
If
that's
your
primary
residence,
if
you
live
there
full
time,
how
can
you
rent
this
for
full-time
as
well?
And
that's
that's
another
point
of
information
that
we
felt
was
very
important
to
include
in
this
evidence
package
and
it
supports
the
decision
that
the
chief
license
inspector
made
about
this
location
not
being
her
primary
residence.
A
C
Through
the
chair,
I
I
believe
all
the
points
were
were
covered
and
I
would
like
to
once
again
note
that
this
particular
building
this
kefir,
180,
Kiefer
or
183
kefir,
is
a
high,
non-compliant
building
I'm,
not
saying
that
she's,
necessarily
because
she
lives
there.
But
but
we
have
a
lot
of
cases
that
generate
out
of
that
building
as
well.
So
we
do
pay
additional
interest
and
attention
to
that
location.
C
B
B
D
C
Through
the
chair,
the
the
complaint
information
is
redacted,
because
this
is
a
public
document
and
the
how
we
treat
complaints
and
complaint
information
is
is
protected
in
the
Privacy
act.
And
so
because
this
document
is
is
is
public.
We
we
had
to
redact
this
I
might
I
am
unable
to
disclose
that
information
in
terms
of
who
or
or
or
what
or,
if
there's
the
same
individual
that
has
complained.
D
Sure
yeah
no
I'm
satisfied
with
the
the
body
of
your
evidence,
I'm
really
just
curious
as
to
how
these
complaints
work
and-
and
you
know
honestly,
just
even
outside
of
this
particular
case-
how
how
we
ensure
that
they're,
not
just
sort
of
personal
beefs
or
what
have
you
but
I'm
I'm,
satisfied
with
the
rest
of
the
information,
the
evidence
you
provided
so
I'm
I'm.
Fine
with
these
questions
at
that.
E
E
A
A
E
C
Yes,
through
the
chair
high
would
be
if
it's
completely
booked
for
the
month,
if
it's
I
guess
anything
over
50
percent,
which
is
not
necessarily
defined
in
the
bylaw,
but
for
more
reasonable,
reasonable
standpoint
to
determine.
If
you
live,
if
an
individual
lives
there
full
time
or
not,
that
those
numbers
do
fluctuate,
but
from
a
reasonable
standpoint,
the
numbers
that
you've
presented
or
that
we
have
for
your
residence
is
considered
high.
E
E
C
E
E
So
32
out
of
the
year,
for
you
is
high
on
I'm
sure
you
do
this
a
lot
in
your
line
of
work
when
you
audit
other
individuals
or
licensees
that
you
deem
it
is
not
or
not
compliant,
or
this
may
not
be
their
primary
residence.
Would
you
say
that
32
percent
is
an
average
of
how
many
bookings
they
typically
have
in
a
year
when
it
is
not
their
primary
residence.
C
Through
the
chair,
I
I
can't
State
those
numbers
that
I
don't
have
those.
What
I
can
state
is
the
totality
of
information
provided
leads
us
to
to
take
the
numbers
of
bookings
into
consideration
and,
as
I
reiterated
before,
we,
we
believe
the
numbers
that
you
provided
for
2022,
which
is
the
the
license.
That's
in
question,
is
high.
E
C
Through
the
chair,
no,
it's
not
correct.
That's
not
what
I
said.
I
I
said
the
totality
of
information.
That's
provided
you're,
going
with
the
annual
average
of
365
days
we're
looking
at
the
totality
the
concentration,
the
the
circumstances
that
you're
under
we
look
at
all
those
kind
of
things,
and
given
the
information
that
you
provided,
we
consider
those
numbers
High.
E
So
I'm,
referring
to
the
opening
statement
in
which
it
was
stated
that
there
was
a
high
volume
of
bookings,
quote
high
volume
of
booking,
unquote
I'm,
not
referring
to
why
my
license
was
suspended,
I'm,
not
referring
to
the
totality
of
the
information
I'm.
Referring
to
that
statement
that
was
made
in
the
opening
remarks,
which
it
said
it
was
a
reason
for
the
city
to
deem
it
was
not
my
principal
residence
so
I'm
only
speaking
to
that
one
reason,
not
the
totality
of
the
information.
So
can
you
please?
C
To
the
chair,
I
can
only
speak
to
your
context
and,
as
I
mentioned
before,
it
is
considered
high,
an
individual
that
rents
every
weekend
may
have
the
similar
numbers,
as
perhaps
what
you
have
in
totality.
But
in
that
context,
that
may
that
may
not
be
considered
to
support
a
non-residency
part
of
totality.
In
your
context,
it's
concentrated
and
so
therefore
I
believe
it
is
high.
E
All
right,
okay,
so
referring
back
to
the
definition
of
principal
residence,
can
you
confirm
that
I
meet
all
of
these
following
requirements?
I
will
ask
them
one
by
one
documentation
related
to
billing
identification
taxation
insurance
purposes.
Can
you
confirm
that
my
income
tax
returns
are
filed
at
802,
183
Kiefer
place.
E
Can
you
confirm,
as
a
part
of
the
definition
that
I
am
paying
bills
receiving
mail
and
generally
the
dwelling
unit
within
the
residential
address
used
on
documentation
related
to
billing
identification
taxation
insurance
purposes,
including
without
limitation
income
tax
returns,
medical
service
plans,
Etc
et
cetera?
Etc
are
I'm
in
compliance
of
all
of
that.
C
Through
the
chair,
no
I
cannot
confirm
that
you
pay
those
bills
out
of
that
particular
residence.
It
indicates
that
that's
what
you
use
to
self-declare
that
that's
what
the
address
you
want
to
be
sent
there.
It
doesn't
necessarily
mean
that
you
actually
do
those
activities
there.
So
I
cannot
confirm
that.
E
C
All
I
can
confirm.
Is
that
that's
the
address?
That's
that
is
shown
on
the
bills
and
the
documents
that
you
that
you
that
you
provided
I
can
also
add
that
and
an
individual
could
place
that
address
anytime
without
verification
from
the
companies,
but
but
what
you
provided
I
can
I
can
see
that
you've
you've
used
the
802
address.
C
E
C
C
E
So
it
said
the
information
received
from
the
community,
the
compliance,
inspection
and
information
from
the
meeting.
The
information
did
not
support
that
802.3
Kiefer
is
my
principal
residence.
Can
you
please
clarify
what
specific
information
you
received
did
not
satisfy
it.
As
my
principal
residence.
C
E
C
Through
the
chair
once
again,
it
is
the
totality
of
information.
It's
information
that
you
provided
information.
We
collected
information
that
we've
gathered
and
looked
at
all
the
information
that
we
were
explaining
through
this
hearing
just
prior
to
you,
questioning
me,
is
what
we
felt
was
relevant.
E
C
E
C
C
C
See
the
chair
through
the
through
what
you've
indicated,
you
stated
that
you
stay
with
your
mother
in
Surrey
and
and
and
we've
been
through
this
before.
You
also
indicated
in
the
audit
that
that
you
live
at
613,
555
Abbott
Street.
That's
what
you've
indicated.
We've
indicated
that
in
this
proceedings,.
E
C
E
On
August
31st,
it
was
determined
that
the
audit
August
31st
2021.
It
was
deemed
that
the
audit
was
completed
the
initial
stage,
one
on
the
audit
that
you
referred
to
as
stage
one.
When
does
this
city
decide
or
determine?
What's
the
process
for
the
city
to
determine
whether
a
stage
one
or
a
stage,
two
audit
is
necessary.
C
E
C
E
C
C
E
C
E
C
D
E
E
No,
you
mentioned
you're
not
familiar
with
that
audit
I'm,
trying
to
figure
out
what
it
was
that
whoever
was
conducting
that
audit.
They
obviously
deemed
that
I
satisfied
that
this
802.3
keeper
place
was
in
fact
my
primary
residence.
So
I'm
wondering,
are
you
familiar
with
the
notes
of
that
file
where
the
auditor
for
that
or
whoever
was
collecting
that
information,
why
they
deemed
that?
No
further
investigation
was
necessary
because
it
is
a
complaint
about
my
primary
residence.
It's
no
different
than
the
complaints
that
are
received
later
on.
C
C
C
Said
perhaps
you
are
lucky
because
the
point
I
made
is
that
I
do
not
know
to
the
detail
of
each
document
audit
we
do
thousands
of
these.
We
have
over
3
000
license
holders
and
we
have
many
applications
that
that
we
review
so
you'll
have
to
understand
that
and
I
hope.
You
understand
that
not
every
piece
of
paper
comes
across
my
desk.
E
I'm
not
asking
about
every
single
piece
of
paper
I'm.
Referring
to
my
hearing
and
my
hearing
has
the
2021
audit
report
and
audit
documentation
and
we've
referred
to
the
audit
in
2021
many
times
in
my
specific
hearing.
So
obviously
I
would
like
it
if
you
were
informed
on
the
2021
audit
process
and
I'm
just
going
to
conclude
here
that
you
think
in
the
2021
audit
I
perhaps
got
lucky.
Can
you
please
confirm.
C
No,
that
is
not
what
I
said,
so
no
I'm
not
confirming
that
I
am
familiar
with
your
2021
audit,
because
it
is
part
of
a
bigger
process
here.
So
yes,
of
course,
I
am
familiar
with
that.
If
you're
asking,
if
I
was
familiar
at
that
time,
that
it
was
done
in
2021,
no,
because
we
do
thousands
of
those,
and
so
it
would
be
realistic
for
me
to
to
look
at
every
document
that
comes
across
my
desk.
E
E
A
E
A
E
B
Okay,
that
question
has
been
asked.
Yes,
excuse
me
that
question
has
been
asked
of
Mr
mayavji.
He
has
confirmed
an
answer
to
you,
which
is
at
that
time.
That
file
was
one
that
he
there's
many
thousands
of
those
kinds
of
files,
and
that
is
not
something
that
has
escalated
to
the
point
of
his
involvement,
which
is
what
is
happening
now.
B
So
I
will
confirm
that
that
the
that
Mr
leblanc's
point,
which
is
that
the
you
have
received
an
answer
to
your
question,
that
is
a
may,
not
satisfy
you,
but
it
is
an
answer,
and
it
is
the
only
answer
at
this
point
in
time.
You
can,
you
know
repeat,
the
question
is
not
going
to
get
you
a
different
answer,
so
you
should
move
on
with
your
questions.
E
Sounds
great
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
the
panel
understands
that
Mr
Maji
thinks
that
I
just
got
lucky
with
that
first
audit.
So
I'll
change
my
question
back
to.
Can
you
please
clarify
what
the
process
is
of
determining
whether
a
stage
one
or
a
stage
two
audit
is
required
because
or
or
maybe
you
could
just
clarify
for
me?
Is
it
true
that
a
stage
two
audit
is
triggered
when
more
than
one
complaint
is
received.
E
B
B
C
E
Sure
the
complaint
that
was
submitted
on
against
me
was
that
I
don't
have
strata's
approval
to
operate
a
short-term
rental
now
I'm,
just
trying
to
understand
why
anybody
or
how
anybody
would
have
that
information
about
me.
It's
very
personal
and
private,
so
I,
don't
I
believe
that
somebody
would
need
to
be
in
a
place
of
power
or
privy
to
be
able
to
to
have
that
information.
Now
it's
been
I've
been
told
that
the
strata
works.
E
A
per
that
authorize-
and
it's
been
voted
on
many
times
at
our
agms,
whether
short-term
rentals
are
should
be
allowed
in
our
building
or
not.
There's
a
handful
of
people
that
are
very
anti-shorter
rentals
in
our
unit,
so
the
city
will
often
will
probably
receive
a
lot
of
falsified
complaints
about
short-term
rental
operators,
because
there
is
this
Vendetta
that
they're
trying
to
get
all
of
them
banned
in
our
building
or
prevent
everybody
from
doing
a
short-term
rental
in
our
building.
So
anyway,
that's
there's
no
question
there.
E
The
same
exact
documents
that
I'd
provided
nine
months
ago,
except
this
time
dated
for
2022,
which
I
provided
and
then
you
also
needed
a
letter
from
the
strata
strata
which
I
also
provided
so
I,
had
satisfied
the
strata
approval
letter,
the
strata
approval,
which
is
what
the
complaint
was.
So
after
you
deemed
that
the
complaint
was
false
and
misleading
and
in
fact
incorrect.
E
What
made
you
decide
that
a
further
investigation
was
necessary.
An
audit
had
already
been
conducted
and
a
city
employee
had
already
just
determined
that
802.183
keeper
place
is
my
principal
residence.
Then
somebody
complained
that
oh
she
doesn't
have
approval.
You
received
that
approval
letter
you
received
all
of
the
documentations
about
it
being
my
principal
residence
for
dated
for
the
new
year.
What
was
missing
in
the
information
that
you
received,
that
that
caused
you
to
further
investigate.
E
E
That
is
why
I
did
not
have
that
license
and
it
should
be
in
the
email
thread
and
the
evidence
between
Rey
and
I,
and
you
also
mentioned
earlier
in
your
questioning
when,
in
your
statements
to
Mr
LeBlanc,
that
it
was,
it
triggered
your
interest
or
you
found
it
in
interesting
that
I
needed
an
extension
to
obtain
this
strata
authorization
letter.
Can
you
please
clarify
what
you
mean
by
that
was
interesting.
C
Yes,
because
you
didn't
have
the
authorization
letter,
the
letter
was
dated
June.
If
I
recall
correctly,
you
had
renewed
your
license
in
December.
Every
renewal
is
considered
a
new
license
in
terms
of
when
your
information
could
be
asked.
It's
your
circumstances
could
change
so
granted
it's
a
renewal,
but
it
is
a
new
license,
and
so
the
information
is
is
up
to
the
city
and
the
city
reserves.
C
C
Through
the
chair,
we
follow
the
bylaw,
the
bylaw
says
if
you
apply
for
a
license
over
or
if
you
receive
a
business
license
that
says
here,
14
a
short-term
rental
accommodation
operator
shall
provide
documentation
or
records
that
demonstrate
compliance
to
this
bylaw
to
the
chief
licenses
inspector
upon
request,
including
but
not
limited
to,
and
it
talks
about
documents
for
short-term
rental
that
prove
your
principal
residence
as
section
a
section:
B
States
proof
of
strata
authorization.
If
the
short-term
rental
accommodation
is
in
a
strata
lot,
you
applied
for
a
new
license
in
2022.
C
E
Right,
but
does
it
state
that
a
new
letter
is
required
because
you
just
you
deemed
that,
oh
at
the
at
any
call
any
time
that
you
felt
you
it
was
necessary?
You
can
call
upon
me
and
I
should
present
this
letter
and
I
did
present
a
letter
to
you,
except
you
said
you
felt
that
that
one's
from
June
2021,
so
you
wanted
a
new
one
where
in
the
bylaws
does
it
say
that
you
need
it?
You
need
to
present
a
letter
dated
for
every
new
calendar
year.
C
E
Sure,
I'm
just
going
to
end
that
by
Mr
Meiji
said
that
it
was
interesting
that
I
needed
an
extension
I
needed
an
extension
to
obtain
that
strata
authorization
letter
nowhere
in
the
bylaws.
Nowhere
on
the
city's
website
is
it.
Is
it
clear
that
I
need
to
get
a
new
license
every
time
I
apply
for
a
new
letter
every
time
I
apply
for
a
short-term
rental
license,
that's
dated
for
that
calendar
year,
which
is
why
I
didn't
have
it
and
which
is
why
there
was
a
delay.
C
Through
the
chair,
it
does
say-
and
I
stated
this
earlier-
it's
very
clear
on
the
website
that
you
must
have
all
your
documentations
ready
to
present
when
you
apply.
It
says
that
right
on
the
website,
when
you
apply
so
it
is
on
there
and
the
strata,
documentation
is
one
of
the
documents
that
says
you
you
have
to
have,
so
it
is
on
there.
So
when
you
apply
for
your
2022
license,
you
should
have
had
that.
E
E
E
B
E
The
totality
of
the
information
to
clarify
was
a
I
am
in
compliant,
and
the
complaint
was
invalid
about
whether
I'm
allowed
to
operate
or
not
and
B.
My
primary
residence
had
already
been
confirmed
a
few
months
prior
by
a
city
member,
so
with
that
information
I
was
compliant
in
both
of
those
complaints.
You
still
felt
that
further
investigation
was
necessary.
Correct.
C
Through
the
chair,
we
we
noted
the
the
on-site.
I
was
gonna,
say
investigation,
the
the
the
the
on-site
visit
by
our
inspector,
it's
the
totality
of
information
and
and
there's
things
that
you've
indicated
about
you
not
living
there
as
I
as
I
mentioned
earlier
in
the
in
the
cross,
questioning
by
Mr
LeBlanc.
E
C
Well,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
the
inspection
triggered
questions.
The
comments
that
you
made
at
the
inspection
triggered
questions
which
then
were
verified
in
the
audit,
the
the
the
duration
of
it's,
it's
all
in
the
evidence
package
and
so
Madam,
chair,
I,
I,
don't
know
if
I
need
to
go
through
this
again.
B
And
I
think
that
the
these
questions
do
seem
to
be
repetitive.
So
if
you
have
a
another
set
of
questions
or
a
different
question
to
ask,
I
I
encourage
you
to
to
move
to
that,
because
I
think
the
question
has
been
reframed
a
number
of
times
by
by
yourself,
and
the
same
answer
is
given
so
I
think
moving
to
to
something
new
or
a
different
set
of
inquiries.
You
might
have
would
be
useful
at
this
time.
B
C
E
E
E
E
So,
in
an
email
from
Fiona
Cho,
who
is
the
compliance
inspector,
it
says
in
the
email,
hi
Penny
further
to
our
telephone
conversation,
please
be
reminded
that
the
bylaw
compliance
inspection
has
been
scheduled
for
Monday
July
25th
2022
at
10.
30
a.m,
for
your
reference,
I
will
be
looking
for
the
following
fire
extinguisher
and
every
floor.
If
applicable,
unit
802
fire
exit
plan
with
contact
information
sheet
and
mustard
Point
smoke.
Detector,
carbon
monoxide
detectors
no
key
key,
lock
locks
or
deadbolts
on
any
interior
doors
work
without
permit.
E
E
C
Once
again,
we
we've
indicated
Fiona
has
been
very
clear
on
point
six
that
we
look
for
bylaw
in
fracs,
or
compliance
that
that's
what
it
states
how
we
conduct
our
bylaw
inspection
is
up
to
us.
So,
if
you're
asking
why
we
didn't
tell
you
in
advance,
that's
not
our!
How
we
conduct
our
inspection
is
how
we
conduct
our
inspections.
E
But
you
do
mention
the
need
for
all
of
the
other
items
like
a
smoke
detector
or
making
sure
that
there's
no
key
locks,
you
know
make
hey
we're
letting
you
know
make
sure
you
don't
have
any
work
without
permit
there.
But
it's
interesting
to
me
that
you
leave
out
this
one
item
where
you're
also
checking
to
see
hey.
B
E
B
C
E
No,
what
I'm
asking
is
I've
been
given
a
very
specific
list
of
items
that
I
need
to
ensure
I'm
doing
in
order
to
be
compliant,
but
when
I
look
at
the
findings
of
Miss
Cho
I
see
that
some
of
the
items
are
just
not
mentioned
in
the
findings.
As
a
matter
of
fact,
there's
a
lot
more
information
about
my
personal
life
than
there
is
about
the
five
items
that
she
had
listed
in
her
email
to
me.
The.
A
E
B
B
E
B
A
A
Of
maybe
sometimes
there's
some
confusion
by
the
licensees
as
to
when
they
should
be
saying
what
I'll
say.
This
is
that
the
witnesses
would
be
required
to
give
evidence.
That
would
be
evident
that
the
licensee
would
like
the
panel
to
rely
upon
in
weighing
whether
or
not
there
was
a
reasonable
decision
by
the
chief
licensed
inspector
to
suspend
a
license.
So
if
you
have
any
evidentiary
points,
Miss
kochar
that
you'd
like
to
put
before
the
panel,
then
you
should
be
giving
evidence
on
your
own
accord.
E
Okay,
I'm
sorry
I'm,
not
sure
I
fully
understand
if
how
this
is
different
from
opening
and
closing
remarks.
So,
if
I
repeat
myself,
I
apologize
but
I
I
believe
that
I've
I
mean
to
start
I
reside
at
802.183
Kiefer
place
for
majority
of
the
year.
As
you
can
see
in
my
calendar
we
only
operate
a
short-term
rent.
E
We
only
operate
Airbnb
and
do
short-term
rental
in
the
summer
months,
because
it's
a
way
for
us
to
make
a
little
bit
of
extra
cash
and
Vancouver
is
a
really
expensive
place
to
live
and
I'm
I'm
a
new
mom
and
I'm
on
maternity
leave.
So
there's
that's
been
really
helpful
in
getting
a
little
bit
of
extra
money
to
help
with
the
mortgage
payments.
E
I
am
not
that
well
off
that
I
have
the
luxury
of
owning
and
living
in
multiple
places.
We
moved
into
802
Kiefer
183
Kiefer
place
shortly
after
the
pandemic.
I
believe
it
was
in
the
summer
time
because
the
rental
market
was
becoming
terrible,
and
so
we
decided
to
move
into
that
unit
and
at
that
time
my
partner
and
I
were
both
working
from
home.
E
So
we
didn't
know
what
to
do
as
far
as
how
we
were
going
to
separate
our
office
spaces,
because
both
of
us
take
a
lot
of
meetings,
so
our
unit
probably
did
sit
empty
for
maybe
one
month,
not
even
probably
they
sorry.
When
I
say
you
know,
I
mean
802,
183,
heifer
place
and
then
a
cousin,
my
cousin
Paul,
who
is
actually
our
property
manager,
is
he
he
said
to
me:
hey
I.
E
We
decided
that
okay
well
sure
we
can
try
to
see
how
it
works
for
a
few
months,
but
we
and
then
after
that
we
moved
in
to
802.183
keeper
place
so
for
timeline.
We're
looking
at
2020.,
that's
when
in
the
summer
of
2020
that's
when
we
would
have
moved
into
802
183
Kiefer
place,
we
looked
into
subletting
our
unit
at
613,
Abbott
Street.
E
E
He
uses
that
as
an
office
space
to
conduct
his
work
and
I
stay
in
802,
183
Kiefer
place
with
our
baby
for
the
most
part,
and
he
also
needs
that
space
between
not
working
at
home
with
the
child,
I'm
I,
know
Mr
Meyer.
You
said
you
raised
three
kids
I'm
sure
your
kids
wouldn't
have
been
running
around
in
the
house.
While
you
were
working,
it's
not
doesn't
make
for
a
very
good
environment.
So
I
don't
know
if
that
satisfies
why
we
have
two
places.
E
Oh
I
also
forgot
to
mention
that
my
partners
anyway,
that's
not
relevant.
It's
fine,
okay,
I,
don't
know
what
else
I
should
be
saying:
I
also
pay
my
taxes
for
at
802,
183
Kiefer
I
declare
that,
as
my
principal
residence
I
satisfy
from
a
tax
perspective,
I
can
confirm
that
I'm,
an
accountant
from
a
tax
perspective,
802,
183,
Kiefer
place,
is
considered
my
principal
residence,
especially
since
I
only
own
one
unit.
E
E
I
receive
and
I
pay
all
my
bills
out
of
802
Kiefer
place
as
far
as
I,
understood
and
I
know.
I
satisfied
the
principal
residence
unit
definition
and
the
bylaw
to
the
best
of
my
knowledge,
to
the
best
of
my
knowledge,
I,
satisfied
and
I
was
very
compliant
in
providing
all
of
the
documents
the
city
required.
E
I
have
many
tips
with
Roy
are
strata
president,
who
I'm
sure
is
the
one
that's
submitting
all
of
these
complaints
because
he
can't
handle,
or
he
is
very
anti-shore-term
rental,
because
he's
had
a
few
of
his
own
bad
experiences
with
it
and
you're
absolutely
you're.
Absolutely
right.
There
were
quite
a
few
units
in
our
building
that
were
operating
short-term
rental
without
being
compliant
and
they're,
causing
quite
a
nuisance
for
other
residents
residents
in
our
building
and
I.
B
Okay,
thank
you
yeah!
That's!
That's
it
for
your.
This
is
just
usually
have
closing
comments
just
so
that
you,
you
understand
that
you
were
right.
So
there
is
this
point
where
you
get
to
sort
of
introduce
or
do
opening
remarks,
but
and
you've
said
that
you
don't
have
any
other
Witnesses,
so
I'm
going
to
move
to
the
panel
members
and
ask
if
they've
got
any
questions
for
you.
B
F
E
That
is
absolutely
untrue.
I,
don't
know
why?
That's
why
I
asked
if
that
conversation
was
recorded
because
I
mean
she
also
thinks
that
I
have
a
10
year
old
child,
so
I
don't
know
why
she
said
that
I
lived
in
Surrey.
That
is
very
false.
I
actually
told
her
that
at
the
that
day,
I
was
staying.
At
that
moment,
I
was
staying
with
my
mom
in
Surrey,
but
I
haven't
lived
in
Surrey
since
2015.
D
E
Yeah
so
I
the
reason
for
that
is
our
property
manager.
Once
we
told
him
that
we
were
suspended
from
doing
short-term
rentals,
he
assumed
and
changed
it
to
30-day
rentals
on
his
own
accord.
I
don't
have
access
to
our
Airbnb
listing,
it's
managed
by
our
Airbnb
sorry,
our
property
manager
named
Paul,
and
so
he
had
done
that
when
I
received
that
letter
I
didn't
even
know
that
our
list,
our
unit
was
listed
for
a
30-day
30-day
rental,
so
I
once
I.
Let
him
know
he
removed
that
listing
immediately,
but.
D
E
E
I,
don't
know
why
that
would
be,
because
it's
only
we're
only
renting
it
out
for
the
summer
months,
so
primarily
for
eight
months
out
of
the
Year
we're
living
in
that
unit,
conducting
all
of
our
business
in
that
unit
conducting
all
of
our
daily
Affairs
as
per
the
bylaw
in
that
unit.
It's
only
for
a
few
four
months
out
of
the
Year.
D
B
A
A
The
purpose
of
the
principal
residency
requirement
is
that
it
ensures
that
any
property
in
the
city
that's
being
offered
for
short-term
rental
accommodation
is
actually
a
residence
in
which
people
conduct
their
daily
Affairs
and
and
fall
within
that
definition
that
is
established
in
the
in
the
bylaw.
The
licensee
has
has
indicated
that
she's
confused
how
there's
no
explanation
by
the
city
as
to
where
she
goes,
and
there
would
need
to
be
large
chunks
of
time
for
which
you
need
to
be
absent
from
her
from
her
her
property
I.
A
Think
that's
borne
out
by
by
the
by
the
evidence.
The
indication
and
that's
not
controverted
at
this
point
is
that
it
was.
It
was
vacated
in
mid-may
by
the
time
in
August
that
the
premises
had
been
audited
and
the
decision
was
made
by
the
G
license
inspector.
It
was
still
being
occupied
not
by
a
a
principal,
a
resident.
It
was
occupied
by
short-term
rental
accommodation
parties
on
on
more
or
less
a
full-time
basis.
A
It
is
intended
to
be
and
to
remain
a
full-time
principal
residents.
That's
not
what's
been
borne
out
by
the
evidence.
The
decision
of
the
chief
licensed
inspector
that
that
the
license
he
had
not
established
to
the
chief
licensed
inspector
satisfaction
that
this
was
a
principal
residence
and
the
onus
is
on
the
license
to
establish
that
was
a
reasonable
decision.
That
information
was
available
to
the
chief
license
inspector
and
when
that
information
was
available,
it
still
wasn't
being
occupied
by
the
chief
or
by
the
by
the
principal
residence.
E
Sorry,
apologies
as
for
all
the
evidence
that's
been
submitted
and,
as
it's
been
mentioned
earlier,
I
only
operate
short-term
rental
for
a
small
portion
of
the
year
and
for
the
remaining
of
the
time
I
reside
at
802.183
keeper
Place.
In
the
12-month
period
of
the
initial
audit.
My
unit
was
rented
for
35
percent
of
the
time
in
the
second
audit
for
the
12
month,
12
months,
my
unit
was
rented
only
for
32
percent
of
the
year.
E
I
feel
that
the
city
has
made
many
speculations
and
assumptions
to
conclude
that
802
183
Kiefer
place
is
not
my
princess
principal
residence
such
as
not
stalking,
my
fridge
and
not
having
personal
belongings.
In
my
unit
during
the
compliance
inspection,
I
was
advised
by
our
property
manager
that
we
should
remove
all
items
in
the
fridge
as
it's
not
sanitary
and
guess
one
empty
fridge
due
to
coveted
fears.
E
He
also
advised
that
we
not
keep
any
of
our
personal
clothes
and
valuables
there
for
two
reasons:
one
he
will
not
be
liable
if
they
get
stolen
and
two
there's
not
enough
closet
space
left
for
our
guests.
If
we
leave
our
stuff
in
there
in
my
lifetime,
I
have
seen
at
many
airbnbs
and
not
at
one
place
have
I
seen
the
host's
clothes
left
in
the
closet.
E
If
that
is
the
expectation
of
the
city
for
them
to
believe
that
it's
my
principal
residence,
quite
frankly,
I
think
it's
absurd
I
find
I'd
like
for
the
panel
to
consider
whether
they
would
feel
safe
and
comfortable
leaving
their
clothes
and
toothbrushes
and
extra
pairs
of
glasses,
jewelry
or
accessories
at
your
place.
If
you
had
random
strangers
that
you
would
never
you've
never
met
before
staying
there,
would
you
leave
photo
albums
full
of
your
family
photos?
E
E
It's
been
such
a
headache
in
the
past
few
years
and
I'm
tired
of
having
this
Vendetta
with
my
neighbors
as
I
stated
in
our
interview,
our
plan
was
only
to
operate
short-term
rental
for
the
busy
summer
months,
so
that
we
can
make
a
little
bit
of
extra
cash.
Forgive
me
for
doing
so.
I
didn't
know
that
wasn't
allowed
I'm
here
today
to
get
Justice
and
I'm
here,
because
the
city
wrongfully
suspended
my
license
and
I
want
the
city
to
be
held
accountable
for
this
decision.
B
C
D
D
D
Yeah,
you
know
I
just
want
to
reflect
that
I
I
I
I
do
sympathize
with
who
need
coacher
on
on
how
this
would
feel
you
know
personally
upsetting,
but
it
is.
This
is
the
the
bylaw
as
we've
written
it,
and
it
really
does
require
this
sort
of
principal
resonance
component.
Then,
and
I
I
do
feel
satisfied
that
the
the
evidence
suggests.
D
So
for
the
folks
who
really
are
principal
residents
of
those
buildings
we
hear
from
them,
and
we
hear
how
disruptive
the
constant
stream
of
airbnbs
can
be
people
who
are
just
visiting
there
and
don't
have
that
sort
of
investment
into
living
in
the
units
and
that's
not
a
reflection
on
the
on
the
owner
in
this
case.
But
it's
it's
a
reflection
on
the
guests
and,
and
that
can
be
super
frustrating.
D
So
I
really
do
appreciate
that
folks
are
frustrated
by
scenarios
where,
where
the
the
the
the
spirit
of
the
the
bylaw
here
is
not
being
uphelded
and
in
fact
the
actual
specifics
of
the
bylaw
are
not
being
upheld
and
I
think
you
know
it.
The
argument
sort
of
falls
apart
when
we
start
looking
at
the
shifting
to
long-term
rental
and
and
really
the
some
of
the
photos
that
we
see
and
I
certainly
recognize
that
you
know.
B
F
So
very
quick,
I
think
I
like
to
alcohol.
Fries
just
said:
I
do
empathy
for
the
the
situation
for
the
applicant,
but
all
the
evidence
is
pretty
evident
and
I
think
the
law
is
the
law
of
the
policies
policy
we
have
to
follow
whatever
we
have
in
the
bylaw
and
the
the
the
the
comments
from
the
applicant
and
didn't
give
me
enough
car
didn't
convince
me
enough
to
overturn
my
decision
based
on
all
the
evidence
from
the
inspector.
Thank.