WAR ON GROW-OPS IN B.C. HAS UNEXPECTED CASUALTIES

VANCOUVER- In the war on marijuana grow-ops, municipalities across
the Lower Mainland are slapping homeowners - including those with no
link to illegal drugs - with a hefty bill for an inspection of their
property, saying the fees cover the costs involved.

But those cost-recovery fees vary by thousands of dollars. In
Mission, the bill for an inspection is $5,200, but Surrey assesses a
fee of $3,200.

Mission resident Stacy Gowanlock, who was given a bill for $5,200
after his property was inspected, said Tuesday he believes Mission
charges more because the municipality is strapped for funds. He has
been unable to find out how Mission arrives at its fee.

Mr. Gowanlock said he paid $350 for a six-hour home inspection when
he bought the house. "They were here for 15 minutes and it was
$5,200," he said.

Ten municipalities in the Lower Mainland have safety inspection
programs that send inspectors armed with B.C. Hydro statistics on
abnormal energy consumption into homes. In addition to Surrey and
Mission, Richmond, Coquitlam, Langley, Langley City, Abbotsford, Pitt
Meadows, Chilliwack and Port Coquitlam use the inspection process.

The safety inspections came about as a result of concerns over
grow-ops that pose electrical hazards from faulty wiring and the
overloading of residential electrical circuits.

Critics say the safety inspections are a substitute for police raids
of suspected grow-ops. Police cannot enter a home without reasonable
grounds for believing that they will find illegal activity. However,
safety inspectors can just go in and look around. If they find a
grow-op, they call police, who are usually waiting at the curb.

B.C. Hydro said 15,213 residential accounts last year had unusually
high power consumption, a figure that includes farms, multifamily
dwellings and home-based businesses, as well as single-family homes.
About one-third of the high-consumption accounts are in the Lower Mainland.

The 10 municipalities conducted 3,528 inspections between 2005 and
2009. Safety violations associated with grow-ops were found in 2,311
homes, Surrey Fire Chief Len Garis said in an interview.

However, many of the homeowners who were inadvertently caught in a
crackdown on marijuana grow-ops say they were doing nothing more than
using power to run their hot tubs, baseboard heaters or air-conditioning units.

Mr. Gowanlock has a 4,500-square-foot home with six children,
landscape lighting, a hot tub, a pool and a 1,200-square-foot shop
that is used as a pool house and to store a boat. He has been
fighting city hall for more than a year over the inspection fee. In
recent months, he has heard from more than 100 homeowners in Mission
who were also inspected and assessed a fee, although they were not
charged with doing anything illegal.

Mr. Gowanlock said he is now speaking to lawyers about launching a
class-action lawsuit, challenging the right of a municipality to
inspect his home as if it were a crime scene and to impose a fee. He
felt he was being fined for something he did not do.

"They [the safety inspectors] are violating the rights of many
people," Mr. Gowanlock said Tuesday in an interview. "The city should
not be fighting crime. They should be allowing the RCMP to conduct
their own investigation. [The RCMP] are trained professionals,
whether it involves drugs or firearms. [The inspectors] are untrained."

Micheal Vonn, policy director of the B.C. Civil Liberties
Association, said the inspections appear to be "an end-run around the
need for a criminal warrant," with police often waiting outside while
safety inspectors go into the homes. "It's not about safety," she said.

Ms. Vonn said she believes the inspectors need an administrative
warrant before entering a home. They have to show the evidence to
somebody, to go through a process of review for the city to assess
it, she said. "This is what we think is required."

Municipalities say the fee is imposed only when evidence of a
controlled substance is found on the property, Ms. Vonn noted. But
when inspectors fail to find marijuana plants, they have pointed to
mud from potted plants, mould and hooks on the wall as evidence of a
grow-op and the grounds for assessing the fee, she said.

The association has also received a complaint about a fee based on an
empty room that inspectors found to be suspicious. The room was empty
in order to be painted for a new baby, Ms. Vonn said.

Mission Fire Chief Ian Fitzpatrick said the inspection fee is
assessed "if there are enough observations made and the team believes
that the property is in violation of the Controlled Substance Property bylaw."

The indication of a violation could include alterations to the
structure of the house, vent holes, new drywall, mould, alterations
to the gas lines, remnants of plants, and soils or fertilizers.

Chief Fitzpatrick also said no fees are levied if a legitimate reason
can be identified for higher-than-normal electricity usage. The fees
are meant to be brought only against those who are violating the
regulations, he said.

Surrey has collected $5.3-million in fees from the inspections. Chief
Garis said the inspections are conducted at no charge if inspectors
do not find any problems with electrical safety or alterations to the
building that have been made without a permit. "If there is something
found that is wrong that is associated with a controlled substance,
then the full effects of the inspection will be charged," he said.
"It's not a fine, it's a cost-recovery fee," he said.

Mission has collected almost $1-million in fees since introducing the
safety inspections in September of 2008.

With a report from Evan Duggan