The Case of the Forbidden Shed

Today we have the Case of the Forbidden Shed or, to use its correct legal name, the case of Surrey (City) v. Koonar. This is a short case, but it still touches on some interesting topics. It is about an unusual shed that some residents of Surrey, British Columbia built in their back yard and how that landed them in some trouble with the city’s zoning bylaw.

The story begins in the spring of 2022 when an official with the City of Surrey became aware of something odd about a property in a residential neighbourhood of the city. The property in question was the home of Mr. Jaswinder Koonar and Mrs. Praveen Koonar and the official found there was a shipping container located on the premises. The Koonars reportedly had modified the container, installing a door and windows, and had begun using it as a storage shed.

This was a problem though, because the City of Surrey had a zoning bylaw which expressly stated that shipping containers were only permitted in industrial areas. There was an exception for a shipping container to be in other non-industrial areas, but only on a temporary basis, when construction was occurring on a property; this was to allow for the storage of construction materials. The Koonars admitted that there was no construction ongoing on their property, telling the City that they were using the storage container turned shed for storing various property which belonged to their children while they were away at university.

The City directed the Koonars to remove the shipping container, issuing them a letter on April 11th, 2022, which gave a deadline to remove the container by May 9th, 2022. After receiving the letter, Mr. Koonar requested an extension of the deadline until June 14th, and the city granted this.

However, in July 2022 a City official noticed that the shipping container was still present on the Koonar property, and so the City again advised them it needed to be removed. Some time then passed, but the container continued to sit on the premises. Therefore, in November 2022, the city issued a letter warning the Koonars that, if the container was not removed by March 2023, the City of Surrey may begin legal proceedings in court against them for violation of the zoning bylaw.

Following the letter warning of legal action, Mr. Koonar again asked for another extension of the deadline, requesting it be extended until September 15th, 2023. Mr. Koonar stated the reason he needed this was because he needed time to empty the shed of its contents, that being the belongings of his children. The City of Surrey granted this second request for an extension, but on September 7th, 2023, Mr. Koonar came back and requested a third extension, this time until January 31st, 2024. Mr. Koonar’s justification for the extension was that the graduation date for his children had been delayed, and thus they would not have time to attend and empty the shed of its contents until later.

It seems the city was a little skeptical of this request for a third extension and it requested that Mr. Koonar provide documentation to show when the children would graduate. It was then discovered that the graduation date for the children would not be until April 2024. Consequently, Mr. Koonar then asked that the deadline be moved until April 2024.

The city was unwilling to agree to this and informed Mr. Koonar that the deadline would be extended no later than October 15, 2023. This final extended deadline was not met and so, in November 2023, the City of Surrey filed a petition with the Supreme Court of British Columbia seeking a court order to require the shipping container’s removal.

After legal proceedings began, the city made a final attempt to resolve the issue by offering to extend the deadline for the removal to May 2024 if the Koonars would sign what is known as a Consent Order, agreeing to remove the shipping container by that date. A Consent Order is a legal instrument, essentially the same as a judge’s order, except that persons involved voluntarily agree to it, and hence the name Consent Order. A person is legally bound to comply with a Consent Order in the same manner as they would have to comply with a judge’s order.

Mr. Koonar was not willing to sign the Consent Order however, and so the matter proceeded to trial before Justice Geoffrey Gomery of the Supreme Court in February 2024. At the hearing, the main point of argument was whether the structure was prohibited by the bylaw or not, as Mr. Koonar argued that he had modified it into a shed and it was no longer a shipping container. He noted that he’d never seen a shipping container with a door and windows, and therefore it must be a shed and not a shipping container.

Unfortunately for Mr. Koonar, this argument was not persuasive to Justice Gomery, who pointed out the wording of the bylaw. It specifically stated that a shipping container was “an enclosed unit used or intended to be used for storing and transporting goods via ship, rail or truck, whether or not it is actually being used for such a purpose.”

Justice Gomery commented that it was apparent that the bylaw was concerned about maintaining the character of residential areas by restricting what could be placed there. The justice opined that those who had drafted the bylaw been proceeding on the basis that the appearance of shipping containers was not consistent with residential neighbourhoods. He went on to state that, in photographs of the disputed structure which were presented, it looked like a shipping container to him, pointing out a serial number and other markings on it. Consequently, the justice ruled that the object was still a shipping container, even though Mr. Koonar had made modifications to it.

Justice Gomery then issued an order giving the Koonars 30 days to remove the shipping container and awarded $1,000 to the City of Surrey to partially cover the legal costs incurred in taking the matter to court.

There ends the shipping container saga. What can we take away from this? Well, it reminds me that, even when municipal enforcement officials give property owners who are breaking the law repeated chances to voluntarily correct problems, sometimes people will just refuse until you take the matter to court.

Having worked as a bylaw enforcement officer myself in the past, I have dealt with some similar situations where people just doggedly refused to listen to warnings. It’s unfortunate, because the stress and cost of court proceedings could easily be avoided, but I guess that’s just how the cookie crumbles sometimes.

SOURCES:

CBC News. (2024, April 19). Judge orders shipping container removed from Surrey property. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/judge-orders-modified-shipping-container-removed-surrey-1.7179530

Steacy, L. (2024, April 17). Storage shed or shipping container? B.C. Supreme Court settles long-running bylaw dispute. CTV News. https://bc.ctvnews.ca/storage-shed-or-shipping-container-b-c-supreme-court-settles-long-running-bylaw-dispute-1.6851313

Surrey (City) v. Koonar, 2024 BCSC 627. https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/24/06/2024BCSC0627.htm

Surrey Zoning By-law, 1993, No. 12000, Part 4, Section B, 17. https://www.surrey.ca/sites/default/files/bylaws/BYL_Zoning_12000.pdf

Zytaruk, T. (2024, April 26). Judge tells Surrey residents to remove shipping container from property. Surrey Now-Leader. https://www.surreynowleader.com/local-news/judge-tells-surrey-residents-to-remove-shipping-container-from-property-7350530

VLOG VERSION