From: brian.kieller execuvault.com <[email protected]>
Sent: December 4, 2023 10:34 AM
To: Kamal Gogna <[email protected]>
Cc: Cristine Giampaolo <[email protected]>; Brian Hewlitt <[email protected]>
Subject: [External Sender] Immediate Action Request – Property Encroachment on 15 Collahie Street

Kamal,

We are contacting you as instructed by the Toronto Ombudsman Office (file no. C/2023/3168).
Should you require additional details you can communicate with any/all of the numerous contacts included.
Please let us know if you are able to do anything or we will proceed with the next person on the Ombudsman’s list.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Toronto Building,

Your office failed to prevent the unlawful construction of structures on our property at 15 Collahie St. Toronto M6J 1T6.

It is taking an inordinate amount of time to secure the drawings for said structures through FOI (Access Request – 2023-01621_RQ, IPC Appeal File: MA23-00698) and the owners at 13 Collahie Street have criminally removed survey monuments in order to conceal the full extent of their encroachments (evidenced by photos).

Please find a survey conducted by Vladimir Dosen Surveying denoting the encroachments attached.

Despite repeated requests to Toronto Building Inspectors and various other municipal staff over the last 18 months, no action whatsoever has been taken by the City of Toronto to rectify this situation, and that is simply unacceptable.

As a consequence of City of Toronto’s inaction, we have been forced to spent exorbitant amounts of time and money on surveys, legal and architectural consultations, and have yet to receive any measurable amount of help or direction from any municipal staff in the matter. These costs are in addition to the significantly higher impact on the property value of 15 Collahie Street, our home.  Lastly, it is impeding our ability to complete the permit application for our own planned renovation.

Therefore, we require Toronto Building Inspections to ORDER THE OWNERS OF 13 COLLAHIE STREET TO REMOVE ALL ILLEGAL STRUCTURES OR PORTIONS THEREOF from the 15 Collahie Street property IMMEDIATELY. 

/ Brian Kieller
15 Collahie St.
(416) 520-1060 

*** Additional information including permit and information request numbers & Contacts are below*** 

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Originating permits (granted to 13 Collahie St.): 19114804BLD00SR, 19114804BLD01SR

Administrative Party Wall Permits: 18178569BLD00SR, 19119745BLD00SR AND 19230861BLD00SR

Toronto Building investigation: 22 238766 BR

FOI Access Request: 2023-01621_RQ

IPC Appeal File: MA23-00698

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Contacts listed below are aware of the issues and/or have related correspondence 

(please contact them directly for more information)

*************************************************************************************************

On Dec 5, 2023, at 10:58 AM, Kamal Gogna <[email protected]> wrote:

Good morning Brian,

By copy of this email to Nancy Macsween  and Tony D’Amico, I am requesting staff to review your concerns on my behalf.  Once our review is completed we will connect with you.

In the meantime, I am also requesting Nancy Macsween to follow up with appropriate staff regarding your FOI request.

Thank you, 

Kamal Gogna

*************************************************************************************************

On Dec 12, 2023, at 8:51 AM, Nancy Macsween <[email protected]> wrote: 

Good morning Mr. Kieller,

The City’s Information Access Unit has advised that the FOI request,  Access Request – 2023-01621_RQ, is complete.  The neighbour appealed the City’s decision to disclose the plans/drawings and the matter is now with the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC).  Please contact the IPC directly at 416-326-3333 referencing  IPC Appeal File: MA23-00698 for more information.

Tony and I are reviewing your concerns and will advise once our review is complete.

Best regards,

Nancy

Nancy MacSween
A/Manager, Strategic Support & Issues Management
Executive Director and Chief Building Official’s Office
Toronto Building
City of Toronto
O: 416-392-2690

*************************************************************************************************

From: Nancy Macsween <[email protected]>
Date: December 22, 2023 at 2:38:33 PM EST
To: “brian.kieller execuvault.com” <[email protected]>
Cc: Kamal Gogna <[email protected]>, Cristine Giampaolo <[email protected]>, Brian Hewlitt <[email protected]>, Tony D’Amico <[email protected]>, Natasha Zappulla <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Immediate Action Request – Property Encroachment on 15 Collahie Street

Good afternoon Brian, 

Thank you for your patience as we reviewed the files; please note this response has been reviewed with Kamal Gogna, Acting Chief Building Official.

Toronto Building issued and closed the following permits with respect to the two properties:

#13 Collahie St. Permits:

• 18 163029 BLD 00, permit cancelled.
• 19 114804 BLD/HVA/PLB 00, issued Mar 25/19, closed Nov 5/20, “Remove rear garage, addition and deck. Create second suite, addition (47.29 m2)  and interior alterations (116m2)”
• 19 114804 BLD 01, issued Oct 8/19, closed Nov 5/20, “Revision 01: elimination of bench underpinning to fully underpin the basement. Alter interior of 3rd floor: add sauna. Remove rear garage, addition and deck. Create second suite, addition (47.29 m2) and interior alterations (116m2)”

#15 Collahie St. Permits:

• 18 178569 BLD 00, issued Jun 27/18, closed Dec 6/22, “Party wall admin permit in relation to 18-163029 at 13 Collahie”.
• 19 119745 BLD 00, issued Mar 25/19, closed Dec 6/22, “Party Wall admin permit for work done at 13 Collahie St, permit # 19 114804 BLD 00 SR”.
• 19 2300861BLD 00, issued Oct 18/19, closed Dec 6/22, “Party Wall Admin permit related to Revision Permit # 19 114804 BLD 01 SR”.

Permits were issued as the proposed work met the requirements of the Ontario Building Code and applicable law. The project was duly inspected and the construction deemed complete. Subsequently, the permits were closed. As such, Toronto Building will not reopen the closed file.

Under the Building Code Act, it is the role of a builder:

(a)  to ensure that construction does not proceed unless any permit required under this Act has been issued by the chief building official;

(b)  to construct the building in accordance with the permit;

(c)  to use appropriate building techniques to achieve compliance with this Act and the building code; and

(d)  when site conditions affect compliance with the building code, to notify the designer and an inspector or the registered code agency, as appropriate.

The building inspector does not act as a construction manager or project supervisor. If the inspector becomes aware through their inspection or is made aware of non- complying issues, the inspector will exercise powers to gain compliance as necessary before the permit is closed. Once closed, an inspector’s powers are limited and the encroachment issue you note becomes a civil matter.   In any event, an inspector is not a surveyor and would not be able to detect de minimis encroachments.  It is the responsibility of the builder to ensure that the construction does not encroach, and any such de minimis encroachments would be a civil matter between the two property owners.  

As I shared with you December 12, 2023, the FOI request for documents was appealed by the neighbour and the matter is now with the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario.

Please be advised that Toronto Building awaits your application for construction that was carried out without a permit. Failing to do so in a timely manner may result in the issuance of an order issued to you pursuant to the Building Code Act.

Should you have any other inquiries, please connect with Natasha Zappulla, Director for Toronto East York District, copied on this email.

            Thank you,

            Nancy

Nancy MacSween
A/Manager, Strategic Support & Issues Management
Executive Director and Chief Building Official’s Office
Toronto Building
City of Toronto
O: 416-392-2690

************************************************************************************************* 

On Jan 16, 2024, at 10:38 AM, brian.kieller execuvault.com <[email protected]> wrote:

Kamal,

Thank you for reviewing our situation. As I’m sure you anticipated, we find the City’s latest response wholly unacceptable and leaves us even more convinced that the costly and agonizing situation we find ourselves in is the result of procedural deficiencies within the Toronto Building organization. Given that your most recent response merely reiterates and even controverts earlier correspondence, it is evident that Toronto Buildings has not only failed to review the information previously provided but has little intention of working to rectifying the situation.

Notwithstanding that, our initial request was simply for Toronto Buildings to have an illegally encroaching structure removed from our property. We find the suggestion that this issue would be a civil matter between property owners risible, given that Toronto Buildings raison d’être is to ensure building projects adhere to the laws of Ontario and thus mitigate unnecessary disputes between constituents. 

Your message unashamedly evades the concern at hand. Either Toronto Buildings:

1)    Approved, whether willfully or in error, a building to be constructed on our property contrary to the Ontario Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 23. and therefore owes us recompense for said property value loss, or

2)    Did Not Approve what was built yet refuses to rectify a code violation, and should be required to compensate for any/all costs taxpayers incur to correct the infraction on the City’s behalf.

Further, your comments referring to the encroachment as ‘de minimis’ are both inaccurate and disingenuous. The many experts¹ we have consulted refute your determination. Should we ignore such a flagrant trespass on a mortgage application, it would be considered fraudulent. Toronto Buildings should be held to the same standards and refrain from making spurious statements.

What you refer to as de minimis has a real impact to our home:

–       A reduction in the value of our property between $100K and $250K 

–       Caused immediate material damage to our home and creates a greater risk of further deterioration.  

–       Infringes our right to renovate, control and enjoy our property (which extends the lost value to any future purchaser of the property)

–       Impedes our ability to secure financing for any home improvement renovation, until the issue is resolved.

It is apparent Toronto Buildings motivation is to minimize any violation in order to obfuscate its responsibility. If Toronto Buildings actually believes that the encroachment is as minor as you purport, then it should use its authority to simply request the infraction be removed.

We request an in-person meeting so that the City can explain what exactly they approved be built on our property and, if not approved, the process the City will undertake for its removal. Given that this has already taken an inordinate amount of time, we suggest a meeting the week of January 22^nd.

In preparation for our meeting, since Toronto Buildings recording of, and access to, past correspondence appears to be inadequate, and exasperated by Toronto Buildings aggressive shuffling of staff members; we’ve summarized some of the most pertinent information below:

#13 Collahie St. Permits:

·       The Toronto Buildings Permits (19 114804 BLD/HVA/PLB 00, 19 114804 BLD 01), which were issued as a replacement for cancelled permit (18 163029 BLD 00), contained numerous errors which should not have been allowed under the Ontario Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 23.

• Toronto Buildings failed to properly understand or investigate the pre-construction condition of the buildings in question and therefore mistakenly allowed construction to progress illegally onto our property.
• Toronto Buildings falsely assumed, or were misled into thinking, that our acknowledgement of the initial proposed renovations (18 163029 BLD 00) granted our tacit agreement to all subsequent permits and issued them without our knowledge.

–       Toronto Buildings further approved modifications to these building permits that had massive underlying risks to our property (e.g. changing bench underpinning to full underpinning).

–       Toronto Buildings failed to notify us of issuance, or changes to, building permits precluding us from taking measures to preserve and protect our property.

• Toronto Buildings failed to consider, or were unaware, that the addition of a 3^rdfloor suite at 13 Collahie St. would require separating, and thereby interrupting and compromising established attic and roof ventilation space, resulting in heating/cooling issues, moisture concerns, and ongoing jeopardy to the integrity of neighbouring structures.

–       Permanently altered, previously established, drainage rights and means for rain and melt water run-off from adjacent roofs areas, posing additional risks of moisture, mold, and water damage to neighbouring structures and their occupants.

#15 Collahie St. ““Party wall admin” Permits:

• 18 178569 BLD 00, 19 119745 BLD 00, 19 2300861BLD 00 were all issued without notification or consent.
• Each of the three (3) “Party Wall Admin permits” were all closed summarily on Dec 6/22 incongruent with the closing dates of the originating permits, clear indication of failures in Toronto Buildings permit inspection process.
• These permit closures were against our expressed written objections due to damages sustained to our property during the construction process. No inspection report was provided (even after being awarded all written information on file through our FOI request). 
• Toronto Buildings website is devoid of description or documentation of ‘Party Wall Admin Permits” – requirements for issuing them on properties where no actual permit is being considered, notification standards, access to originating drawings, conditions that must be met to close them, etc.

We certainly agree (as stated in your most recent email) that building inspectors do not act as construction managers or project supervisors; neither should it be necessary for these roles to be performed by neighbouring homeowners. While not performing these tasks directly, Toronto Building Inspectors have the responsibility and authority to ensure projects are properly supervised.  However, in this case, Toronto Buildings by acts of inaction, omission, inadequate diligence, failures of responsibilities and/or other deficiencies allowed construction to proceed at 13 Collahie St. without proper oversight.

Also in your email, you assert that “an inspector is not a surveyor”. Once again, we agree. In fact, we never suggested or inferred that an inspector was a surveyor and our investment of $3677.17 to have a survey completed and property lines marked is certainly proof of that fact. Building inspectors however can, and must, insist that the property lines are surveyed and marked prior to the start of construction — once again, this responsibility shouldn’t fall on neighboring homeowners. Without such basic and critical information inspectors can’t accurately complete their task of ensuring any non-complying issues are accounted for. 

Despite being given assurances that The City would rectify any issues if we were to undertake the expense of providing a survey that detailed the extent of the encroachment, once provided Toronto Buildings has chosen not to act.  Toronto Buildings allowed, without consequence, the removal of a legal survey monument, for no reasonable purpose other than that of concealing or otherwise obfuscating the aforementioned property encroachment.  

Although we are aware that Toronto Buildings is unconcerned with aesthetics, they exacerbated the problem by allowing for the exterior cladding to be changed from ‘fire resistant wood siding’ (as stated on the permit application) to corrugated steel siding. It should have been blatantly obvious to any trained inspector that the thickness of the cladding required to maintain the same R-Value using corrugated siding verses what was initially proposed would require an even greater intrusion onto our property.  Yet no reference is mentioned in the inspection records.

Despite multiple promises made by a plethora of Inspectors – Steven Moss, who was replaced by David Jan, thenreplaced by Michael Krolikowski, then replaced by Nadeem Marzook (with input from Simi Dhillon) and finally replaced by Bhagavati Patel – and despite discussions with Joseph Fusco, none of the damages we’ve outlined in our countless emails and pointed out in person during multiple site visits have yet been addressed. Contradictory, and frankly incorrect, statements that have been made by the many inspectors has made us concerned with their training and experience. Nevertheless, we believe that the bulk of the deficiencies at Toronto Buildings are a result of faulty processes, omissions of critical information, and poor communication, and do not fall on any individual employee.

We have included a diagram of the damages which were caused by the construction at 13 Collahie St.  Descriptions, details, and images can be found in our previous emails and/or from the Inspectors mentioned above (we staunchly recommend reading all of the correspondence, and the concerns raised prior to closing the Party Wall Permits on December 6^th 2022).

We believe Toronto Building is mistaken in its assertion that it “awaits your application for construction that was carried out without a permit”. We have not undertaken nor completed any construction that requires a permit, according to the information provided on the Toronto Building Website. We outlined all such repairs/alterations which were necessitated to impede further water/moisture damage, mitigate cooling demands and prevent conditions affecting air quality and potential health risks to occupants in our email dated July 31^st, 2023 and again on October 5^th, 2023; despite our requests for clarification as to what a permit would be required for, we have received no reply.  

We are on the record, of course, as having made application for future planned construction. However, that application is “on hold” as the related construction drawings necessary for us to complete a permit application requires information (presumably) found in 13 Collahie St.’s construction drawings, which, as you know, has been requested, but is yet to be released under our FOI request.² Also, all encroachments on our property need to be removed prior to securing financing required to proceed with our project.

The City of Toronto, Toronto Building, and officials at many levels therein continue to avoid, ignore, or otherwise stall on the multiple issues raised in our numerous written, telephone and in-person communications. The questions we have are straightforward and have been communicated extensively and exhaustively to Toronto Buildings, yet remain unanswered after more than 20 months. 

As residents and taxpayers, we never imagined that after doing our part for over 20 years to preserve and maintain the beauty of a Historic Toronto neighbourhood, that poor decisions by the City of Toronto would eviscerate our equity and put our financial future in question. 

Please let us know when you are available for a meeting.

Sincerely,

Brian Kieller 416-520-1060

Cristine Giampaolo  647-298-4914

[email protected]

[email protected]

15 Collahie St., Toronto, ON.  M6J 1T6

1. These include: Sasa Krcmar Principal and Managing Director of one of the largest survey companies in Canada, Vladimir Dosen, Dozen Surveying Inc, Michael & Olga Gray, Royal LePage Real Estate Services Ltd., Graham Barrett, SGL Planning & Design; Bill Gilmore, Gilmore Barristers; Mario Simoes, Vine Group Mortgage Brokers, among others…
2. The owners of 13 Collahie St. continue to impede our own efforts to both have these impairments remedied, and to secure documents necessary to improve and renovate our own property, by their continued reliance on: City inaction; disregard for any order that may have been issued by the City; and/or the City’s complicity, whether direct or indirect, in their efforts to impede the release of relevant construction documents under Freedom of Information.

*************************************************************************************************

SENT BY EMAIL

February 1, 2024 Brian Kieller

15 Collahie Street

Toronto, ON M6J 1T6 Dear B. Kieller

I am a lawyer with the City of Toronto’s Legal Services Division, assisting the Toronto Building Division(“Toronto Building“). I am writing in response to the complaints and demands raised in your recent emails dated December 4, 2023 and January 16, 2024 to Toronto Building staff, regarding construction work conducted at 13 Collahie Street around 2019-2020 (the “Construction”).

First, I wish to note that your recent emails and the document you provided titled “Damage/Encroachment to15 Collahie Caused During Renovation of 13 Collahie” are in fact the first detailed written notice to the City of Toronto (the “City”) regarding the specifics of your claims about actual damage to your property (asdistinct from encroachments). It is clear from your recent correspondence that the nature of your complaint primarily involves claims for compensation, rather than requests for information, which is why I have been asked to respond.

Please be clear that Toronto Building’s authority does not extend to addressing compensation claims as you suggest. Any such claims for compensation may only be advanced and addressed by way of commencing anaction against the City. However, it is the City’s position that the claims and allegations raised are barred in accordance with the provisions of the Limitations Act, 2002 given that they are being advanced more than two years after the completion of the Construction in 2020. In any event, separate and apart from the issue of the limitation period and as discussed below, any such claims and allegations are denied by the City.

Regarding your complaints about encroachments onto your property and Toronto Building’s role, and to elaborate on a point Ms.MacSween made in her email to you dated December 22, 2023, these matters are not regulated by the Ontario Building Code or “applicable law” as defined therein. They constitute a civil matter between private property owners. (I note that in an email you sent to Joe Fusco on December 9, 2022regarding the roof encroachment, you initially assumed that this would be a civil matter; that assumption wascorrect.) The plans and drawings submitted to Toronto Building with a permit application must restrict theproposed construction to the subject property. Toronto Building will review the plans and drawings and will issue the permit once it is satisfied that the proposed construction complies with the Building Code Act, theOntario Building Code and all applicable law as defined therein. Such was the case with 13 Collahie in thatissued permits did not authorize encroachments onto your property. It is then the responsibility of every builder to construct within property lines and in accordance with the issued permit drawings. TorontoBuilding inspectors are not surveyors and are thus not in a position to detect or check for encroachments.Such encroachments fall under the domain of private property rights and the law of trespass. Accordingly, while we acknowledge your concerns, it appears they are based on a misunderstanding about Toronto Building’s responsibilities.

To clarify, Toronto Building’s primary responsibility is to review construction plans/drawings for conformity with the Ontario Building Code’s minimum standards. Following permit issuance, Toronto Building conductsstaged, visual inspections at prescribed mandatory stages of inspection to assess the ongoing constructionagainst the issued permit plans and the Ontario Building Code. Your complaints about building inspector conduct, such as citing a failure to address cladding material thickness, do not align with the inspector’s role or established inspection process. Contrary to your assertion, Toronto Building’s primary purpose is not to ensure building projects adhere to all the laws of Ontario. Instead, its focus is on enforcing the specificstandards and laws identified in the Building Code. Furthermore, while fostering positive interactions between neighbours is always desirable, Toronto Building’s role does not extend to mitigating disputes between neighbours.

Regarding the party wall permits associated with the Construction, such permits are required when proposedconstruction will be carried out on both portions of an existing party wall. Applicants for party wall permitsconfirm, by signing the declaration included in the application form prescribed by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, that they are the authorized agent of the neighbouring property owner. Municipalitiesreasonably rely on said declarations as they do with any building permit application where an applicant declares to be the authorized agent of the owner. While the party wall permits are building permits authorizing the work to the party wall on the neighbouring property, they have casually been referred to as administrative permits since they effectively act as administrative placeholders. All project plan review andinspection activity are currently recorded under the ‘parent’ building permits associated with the constructionproject. Party wall permits are routinely closed in batches, such that the dates do not reflect any inadequaciesin Toronto Building’s process (in terms of when the parent permits are closed). The building permits whereall information pertaining to the Construction was recorded, i.e. the parent permits issued in connection with 13 Collahie Street, were closed in 2020. If there are any discrepancies in the representation of your authorization for the party wall permits, we strongly advise you to address the matter directly with your neighbour who, according to the information provided, declared themselves as your authorized agent. 

I acknowledge that construction can be challenging for those residing in proximity. While we appreciate your concerns, in our assessment, Toronto Building has fulfilled its role. Consequently, the City of Toronto rejects any claim for damages, particularly given that they are now statute- barred. We suggest addressing these issues directly with your neighbour, as it appears to be the most pertinent avenue for resolving your dispute.

Sincerely,

Jared Wehrle (he/him/his)

Solicitor

Cc:       Kamal Gogna, Toronto Building NancyMacSween, Toronto Building Tony D’Amico, Toronto Building Joe Fusco, Toronto Building

*************************************************************************************************

On Feb 5, 2024, at 11:14 AM, brian.kieller execuvault.com <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Jared,

Thank you for your letter.

We are presently reviewing your letter and our detailed response is forthcoming.

However, while our email does make mention of “damages” to our property, your assertion that “that the nature of {our} complaint primarily involves claims for compensation” does not fairly and accurately characterize the purpose of our communication.

Rather, the main objective of our email was to, once again, reiterate questions and concerns that have gone, and continue to be, largely unanswered for more than two years by Toronto Buildings, and to request a meeting in the hope that such an in-person meeting with officials might provide more definitive answers than the dozens of emails, letters, on-site discussions with inspectors, and phone call exchanges with numerous City representatives to date.

Consistent with past responses from the City, your response also fails to adequately address our outstanding questions. For clarity, and in the most simple of terms,

we have simply been pursuing answers to:

1. What was permitted by the City to be built at 13 Collahie; and,

2. The information in the possession of Toronto Buildings that is necessary to determine what the owners of 13 Collahie did actually construct.

For certainty, we have engaged with numerous individuals at many levels of Toronto Buildings, the City, the Ombudsman, our own consultants, and have filed requests under Freedom of Information in pursuit of these answers, all to no avail. Without exception, Toronto Buildings has been vague, non-specific, and (seemingly) obfuscating in their responses.

Notwithstanding your letter and its reference to the Limitations Act, this is not the first time that the City has been made aware of damages to our property resulting from construction at 13 Collahie. Even a cursory review the history of the communications, or discussions with the persons involved at Toronto Buildings in this matter, should make it readily apparent that this has been an ongoing, continuous matter between ourselves and the City for over two years. Any reference to the Limitations Act is both premature and debatable.

What is also readily apparent to us is Toronto Building’s unwillingness to directly answer, or in the alternative, provide the information that would answer, these simple questions, and their demonstrable efforts to unnecessarily waste both crucial time and taxpayer dollars in this matter.

We, therefore, respectfully request that you clarify if you or Toronto Buildings will be preparing any further response to our questions.

Please advise, and thank you in advance.

Sincerely,

/Brian Kieller
416-520-1060

Cristine Giampaolo
SGR
647-298-4914
[email protected]

*************************************************************************************************

From: coa.tey <[email protected]>

Subject: Voice mail follow up

Date: March 8, 2024 at 12:39:56 PM EST

To: “‘[email protected]'” <[email protected]>

Hello Brian,

I hope this email find you well.

Please find attached Notice of Decision for 13 Collahie Street

Regards,

Lucia Commisso
Support Assistant C
Committee of Adjustment TEY
City Hall, 1^st Floor West Tower
100 Queen St. W | Toronto, ON M5H 2N2
[email protected]

City of Toronto

**** SEE FILE attached ****

13 Collahie Street Notice of Decision.pdf

*************************************************************************************************

From: brian.kieller execuvault.com <[email protected]>
Sent: March 11, 2024 4:59 PM
To: Joe Fusco <[email protected]>
Cc: Cristine Giampaolo <[email protected]>
Subject: [External Sender] 13 Collahie COA Bylaw variances confirmation 

Joe,

I spoke with the Committee of Adjustments Signatories, and given that I don’t have access to the plans for 13 Collahie St., they asked me to confirm that what Toronto Buildings permitted adhered to the By-law adjustments set forth in the inclosed document.  They seemed confident that Toronto Buildings would be able to provide that.

Can you review the enclosed document and confirm that the Permit reflects these COA decisions – seem like a bit of a formality, and I doubt it will take more than a few minutes, but I’m just doing as I’m told 😉  

Thanks Joe,

/Brian

**** SEE FILE attached ****

  13 Collahie Street Notice of Decision.pdf

*************************************************************************************************

From: Joe Fusco <[email protected]>
Date: March 11, 2024 at 6:04:48 PM EDT
To: “brian.kieller execuvault.com” <[email protected]>
Cc: Cristine Giampaolo <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 13 Collahie COA Bylaw variances confirmation

Thank you for your e-mail Brian. 

Not really a simple answer. Also, I am not a zoning expert.

I can say, however, that zoning examiner’s role is to review the permit drawings for compliance with the zoning bylaw. If it did not comply, the permits would not have been issued. Both zoning and building code and other applicable law needs to met prior to permit issuance.

I would like to note that at the time of C of A application and decision many portions of the zoning bylaw 569-2013 were under appeal. That is why there are many variances that look identical in the decision you sent.  Although many sections of the bylaw were resolved, some sections remain under appeal. As you know, 13 Collahie had 2018 application(s) cancelled and then reapplied for permits in 2019.  As stated, the plans were reviewed for zoning compliance.

If you wish to know more about the zoning bylaws, I can provide the following link:

https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning-development/zoning-by-law-preliminary-zoning-reviews/zoning-by-law-569-2013-2/

Hope the explanation helps.

Joseph Fusco
Manager – Inspections
Toronto Building
Toronto and East York
95 The Esplanade
Toronto, Ontario  M5E 2A2
(416) 392-7569
[email protected]

*************************************************************************************************

On Mar 12, 2024, at 11:34 AM, Paul Posluszny <[email protected]> wrote:

Good morning Brian,

Keep in mind that construction is to be built in accordance with issued Building Permit drawings.  A Building Inspector does not use Committee of Adjustment plans for inspection.  Those plans would of course have to show compliance with the Zoning By-law and any approved Variances however.

I’m not sure what you should do now.  Please refer to Jared Wehrle’s letter.  You may wish to retain the services of someone who can review and respond to this letter and provide you with direction if you decide to go this route.

Paul Posluszny
Senior Building Inspector (Acting)
Toronto & East York District
416-338-0835

Requesting Building Inspections:

https://www.toronto.ca/services-payments/building-construction/building-inspections/

*************************************************************************************************

From: brian.kieller execuvault.com <[email protected]> 
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 12:17 PM
To: Paul Posluszny <[email protected]>
Cc: Cristine Giampaolo <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Committee of Adjustment DECISION – 13 Collahie St.

Thank Paul,

I totally agree.  The inspector would use the permitted drawings to ensure compliance.

Based on the COA (which Joe claims matches the Permitted plans) the total width of the construction is not to exceed 14’ 3”.

A simple measurement, however, shows that the actually width is 15’ 2 1/2” (see photos)

From a pure Building Code compliance perspective, this raises a number of concerns:

1. Is the Exterior wall construction structurally adequate given the additional dimensions;
2. Lengths of spans – is the unsupported portion of a span more than the dimension on the plan (which seems likely given that the exterior dimensions are off by nearly 1 ft), then we don’t know if the ridge / beam / joists carrying it is adequate structurally.  It needs to be in accordance with the permitted plan but I’m not understanding how that can be the case. 
3. The Ridge Beam (which encroaches into my attic space) is definitely a piece of lumber that an engineer did the structural calculation on. Was is its length measured to plan? Is it the same as on the plan? Because the engineer would have signed the plan, and the plan was permitted, so it must meet Code.  How was the additional 11& 3/4” accounted for given that the plan shouldn’t even reflect the added dimension?  How are we to know what impact that will have on our property?

See the problem?  And that’s me taking 5 minutes to take ONE measurement.  What else isn’t ’to plan’?  And why isn’t Toronto Buildings concerned?

I totally agree with the statement “construction is to be built in accordance with issued Building Permit drawings.”  Who makes that happen if not Toronto Buildings? 

/bk

*************************************************************************************************

 From: brian.kieller execuvault.com <[email protected]>
Sent: March 15, 2024 9:57 AM
To: Kyle Knoeck <[email protected]>
Cc: Cristine Giampaolo <[email protected]>; Joe Fusco <[email protected]>; coa.tey <[email protected]>; Brian Hewlitt <[email protected]>
Subject: [External Sender] NOTICE: COA decisions being ignored (File #A0044/18TEY)

Kyle,

It has come to our attention that construction at 13 Collahie St. contravenes the decision set forth by the Committee of Adjustment (File #A0044/18TEY) and is therefore in breach of the agreed bylaw variances. We can supply additional information and irrefutable proof, if required.

Toronto Buildings has been notified but is unable (or unwilling) to address the bylaw infractions.

Given that this inaction “flies in the face of” the Committee’s power and jurisdiction, we thought you would be interested to know.

We would also like to inquire about what steps you can take (or recommend we take) to rectify the situation. 

Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you require additional clarification.

Thanks in advance,

Brian Kieller
[email protected]

DIRECT (416) 520-1060

************************************************************************************************* 

On Mar 15, 2024, at 10:04 AM, Kyle Knoeck <[email protected]> wrote:

Mr. Kieller: 

Thank you for your email.  Neither I nor the Committee of Adjustment have any enforcement power.  That authority resides with the Chief Building Official, in their role to enforce compliance with building permits.  Based on your email, it sounds that you have already contacted Toronto Building.   I have copied Natasha Zappulla, the Director in Toronto and East York District in Toronto Building, in the event that you wish to escalate the matter to her.

Kyle Knoeck | M.Sc.Pl., MCIP, RPP
Director, Zoning and Secretary-Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment
City Planning Division | City of Toronto
City Hall, 19 East
100 Queen Street West
Toronto, Ontario | M5H 2N2
(416) 392-0871

*************************************************************************************************

From: brian.kieller execuvault.com <[email protected]>
Sent: March 18, 2024 11:41 AM
To: Joe Fusco <[email protected]>;

Joe,

We wanted to thank you for your previous email, and for the link to the Zoning bylaws that ultimately lead us to connecting with Kyle Knoeck.

Given Kyle’s reply:
Will you (Toronto Buildings) be contacting the owners of 13 Collahie notifying them that what they built DOES NOT comply with the adjustments that were granted by the COA (and by extension the building permit)?

They (the owners of 13 Collahie) assured me that having Toronto Buildings investigate our skylight was simply because they want to ensure everything adheres to the bylaws and building code guidelines.  We couldn’t agree more.

Notification should be sent by Toronto Buildings requesting that they bring their building into compliance with the bylaw variances they previously agreed to.  Hopefully, this will impress upon them the severity of the situation and allow us to move towards a remedy.

Toronto Buildings need to take appropriate/necessary action “in their role to enforce compliance with building permits” (to quote the Director, Zoning and Secretary-Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment).

Please let us know when that can happen.
Much appreciated.

/bk

*************************************************************************************************

From: Mee Lai Tam <[email protected]>
Date: March 25, 2024 at 12:37:49 PM EDT
To: “brian.kieller execuvault.com” <[email protected]>
Cc: Jared Wehrle <[email protected]>, Naomi Brown <[email protected]>, Nancy Macsween <[email protected]>, Natasha Zappulla <[email protected]>, Joe Fusco <[email protected]>
Subject: 13 and 15 Collahie Street

Mr. Kieller,

Please find attached Mr. Wehrle’s letter dated March 25, 2024.

Mee-Lai Tam | Legal Assistant, Litigation Section
City of Toronto | Legal Services Division
Metro Hall, 26^th Floor, Stn. 1260 | 55 John Street | Toronto  ON   M5V 3C6
Tel:  416-338-5809 | Fax:  416-397-5624 | Email:  [email protected]

 SENT BY EMAIL 
March 25, 2024 

Brian Kieller 
15 Collahie Street 
Toronto, ON M6J 1T6 

 I am writing in response to your email dated February 5, 2024, as well as the subsequent emails you sent to Natasha Zappulla and Joe Fusco on March 15 and 18, 2024, respectively, regarding construction work that took place at 13 Collahie Street in 2019-2020. This letter is further to my previous correspondence dated February 1, 2024. I regret the delay in responding to your email, as I was unexpectedly away from work for an extended period. 

With regards to the questions listed in your February 5th email about the construction proposal at 13 Collahie Street and related information held by the City of Toronto (the “City”), it is important to clarify that the disclosure of City-held records, including building permit records and the release of information from these types of files, must be in accordance with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (“MFIPPA”). I understand that you have initiated a formal disclosure request through the City Clerk’s office, which is currently under appeal to the Information & Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (“IPC”). For updates on the status of your appeal, I recommend contacting the IPC directly. Unfortunately, neither Toronto Building staff nor I can provide information about City-held records outside of this process. 

I understand that navigating the process of requesting records information from public bodies can be time-consuming due to administrative procedures. However, any delays in the process are a result of the established procedures dictated by provincial legislation and the ongoing dispute with your neighbour, and not due to any inaction on the part of the City.

Regarding your questions about compliance with zoning variances granted by the Committee of Adjustment, Toronto Building’s application review process involves dedicated zoning examiners who assess proposals and drawings for adherence to applicable zoning by-laws, including any variances granted. Permits issued for the construction at 13 Collahie Street were based on drawings and specifications that met the requirements of the Ontario Building Code and applicable law, including zoning requirements and variances. While staff cannot disclose specific information from records not yet released to you under the MFIPPA process, I can advise that the construction generally adhered to the issued building permits and those permits were accordingly closed. It is important to note that building inspectors conduct spot checks at various stages of construction against the issued building permit drawings; however, they are neither required nor able to identify every possible deviation from the permit drawings. Additionally, for projects where a commitment to general review is given by a professional engineer and/or architect, Toronto Building is entitled to and may have reasonably relied upon reports and letters from such professionals to confirm compliance with the issued building permit drawings and Ontario Building Code. 

While we have endeavoured to assist you within the confines of MFIPPA requirements, it is important to clarify that staff cannot provide you with an in-depth review of the building permits issued for the construction solely to determine your rights as against your neighbour or the City in the context of what is obviously an ongoing private dispute. This service is not offered by Toronto Building. As previously stated in my February 1st letter, we have examined this matter closely and determined that Toronto Building has fulfilled its statutory obligations with respect to the impugned construction. Therefore, please understand that further inquiries regarding the same matter and along the same lines will not be addressed. We appreciate your understanding and cooperation in this regard. 

Sincerely, 

Jared Wehrle (he/him/his) 
Solicitor 

Cc: Naomi Brown, Legal Services 

Nancy MacSween, Toronto Building 

Natasha Zappulla, Toronto Building 

Joe Fusco, Toronto Building 

*************************************************************************************************

“Further inquiries regarding the same matter and along the same lines will not be addressed.”

To Paraphrase: TORONTO BUILDINGS HAS NOT and WILL NOT TAKE ANY ACTION, but…

“(They) appreciate your understanding and cooperation in this regard.”???

This just goes to show that Toronto Buildings either doesn’t understand the meaning of “cooperation” or they really think that it’s laughable to have to deal with the public in a respectful manner? 

But it’s certainly nice to be appreciated.

This image shows the construction of a fence much higher than the bylaw allows and the awning discharges water onto our property