GROW-OP INSPECTIONS: MISSIONS REVIEWS, ABBY SLOWS

The District of Mission is reviewing its grow-op inspection process
after complaints from those who have run afoul of the bylaw.

Meanwhile, Abbotsford's program is operating at a lower level than
in its early days.

The local Public Safety Inspection program was formed in 2005, modeled
after a similar program in Surrey. By 2007 there were three teams of
inspectors, who looked at 725 properties and 150 confirmed grow-ops
were shut down that year.

So far this year, there have been only 44 grow-ops dismantled in
Abbotsford.

Only slightly more than that number of properties were searched and
found to not contain grow-ops, said city bylaw manager Gordon Ferguson.

He explained that the number of tips from the public has dropped
dramatically, so now the team acts mostly on information obtained from
police.

There are no longer three teams. Rather, one bylaw officer coordinates
the inspections, calling in a building inspector, fire inspector and
police as deemed necessary.

When they find evidence of a grow op, the house is issued a
no-occupancy order, the water is shut off, and the owners are subject
to a $3,500 safety inspection fee. Once remediation work is done to
the municipality's satisfaction, a follow-up inspection is done,
which brings an additional $1,000 fee.

"We ensure the property gets cleaned up properly," said Ferguson,
adding the municipality also puts a notice on the property title, so
future buyers know it was used for a grow-op.

Mission follows a similar process, but levies a $5,200 inspection
fee.

Ferguson said the need for the program has likely reduced because of
the success of the inspections, because growers have moved out of the
area, or because they have become better at hiding their operations.

Mission Mayor James Atebe said the grow-op inspection teams are still
at work in his town, but Mission council is seeking legal advice
concerning the stage in the process where homeowners are allowed to
present their case before council.

Mission Coun. Jenny Stevens said she often does not feel qualified to
judge cases when property owners appeal charges, and evidence is often
not sufficient for her to feel confident that there was definitely a
grow-op.

Stevens said she is all for getting rid of grow-ops.

"I would cane them harder if I could."

However, she said innocent people should not be subjected to having
their neighbour seeing their home searched by authorities, or charged
an unwarranted fee. She hopes council reviews the entire process and
makes revisions.

Mission dealt with 219 files in 2009, levied 137 inspection fees and
57 non-occupancy orders.

Municipal grow-op inspections have not fared well against court
challenges. In 2008, the case Arkinstall vs. the City of Surrey found
that the municipality should only continue without the involvement of
police.

A May 2010 Appeals Court ruled that Surrey's grow-op program
violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and called the
searches "extremely invasive."

David Eby of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association contends the
searches are a way for police to get around the legal standards they
must meet to obtain a search warrant.

"That attitude toward constitutional rights is problematic," he
said. "You need to have grounds for a search."

He said there are numerous legal and legitimate reasons for high
energy consumption, and a judge would never grant a search warrant
based on hydro meter readings alone.

Eby said municipalities are flouting the law, referring to the legal
decisions from Surrey challenges.

"The court was unambiguous that this was not going to fly," said
Eby. "I see it being litigated again in Mission, which is a waste of
the court's time."

Ferguson said there have been few complaints about the team. Those
affected by the Abbotsford bylaw are entitled to a hearing, but
"hardly anyone ever shows up."