GROW-OP HUNTS TO TRIGGER LAWSUIT

Citizens Subjected to Pot Searches Cite Insult, Costs

There's no way Len Gratto is paying a $5,200 fine to Mission city
hall for growing cucumbers in his basement.

Gratto -- a 67-year-old who has lived for 30 years with his wife in
their Mission home -- says he's raring to join an imminent
classaction lawsuit attacking the municipality's grow-op bylaw inspections.

A number of citizens, led by Mission man Stacy Gowanlock, will allege
their homes were illegally searched for pot grow-ops and they were
slapped with fees and repair orders costing upward of $10,000 -- all
on questionable evidence.

Gratto says he's never grown pot, but "laughable" evidence against
him consists of pictures of some "dirt" on the basement wall and "a
furnace pipe going up into the chimney, where it should be."

"It's upsetting they can do this," Gratto said. "We were growing
cucumbers in the basement because they wouldn't take outside."

Gowanlock said he was searched in 2009 and hit with thousands in fees
and repair orders despite never growing pot in his home. A lawyer
could be filing his civil suit within days, he said.

"I'm going to be the one that steps forward," he said. "It's the
whole process. You're violating people's rights."

And in a move that could potentially alter the landscape of drug
enforcement in B.C., the B.C. Civil Liberties Association says it
will join the battle against Mission but widen the focus into a
region-wide challenge to "home grow-op bylaws."

Grow-op bylaw programs, which are based on provincial legislation,
allow municipal inspectors to enter homes with abnormally high hydro
usage -- about 93 kilowatts per day or more -- and look for evidence
of illegal marijuana grow-ops for public safety reasons. Inspectors
don't have to find grow-ops, but if they find supposed residual
evidence, such as high mould readings, they levy search fees and
order repairs. If homeowners don't comply, homes are tagged under the
bylaw and effectively condemned as unsafe, and unsellable.

According to proponents, the bylaws have been phenomenally successful
in driving pot production out of the Lower Mainland.

In mid-December, the BCCLA's Micheal Vonn led a delegation to
Mission's council, warning grounds for a class-action suit are
strong, and searches are "putting innocent people under horrible duress."

David Eby of the BCCLA says council was not receptive and has not
responded. Even if the promised citizen-led action against Mission
fell apart, the BCCLA would then likely initiate its own case.

"Our concern is the program is very poorly run, and there is no due
process around these massive fines," Eby said.

Mission chief administrative officer Glen Robertson said he would not
comment on the allegations or threat of litigation.

Documents released to The Province under freedom of information law
show Mission has drawn $1.43 million in revenue from Public Safety
Inspection Team searches since 2008. From 2008 to 2010, there were
362 searches. In 177 cases, residents were found in contravention of
the bylaw. Additionally, there were 98 RCMP grow-op inspections.

Including both RCMP and PSIT searches, inspection fees of $5,200 were
levied 275 times. Mission says its inspection program is revenue
neutral, and paid back its startup costs by Dec. 31, 2009. Fees
include funding for the RCMP, who monitor searches from the sidelines.

Critics such as Gowanlock claim Mission's inspection funding scheme
amounts to a "cash grab."

Coun. Jenny Stevens says she initially supported the program, but now
believes about half of homeowners inspected are innocent.

"My biggest worry is about 50 per cent of these people were subjected
to embarrassment and innuendo," she said. "I'm very concerned about
the threat of litigation . . ."

Mission Mayor James Atebe was unavailable for comment but told The
Province in a report on this subject last November that he strongly
supported the inspection program but was willing to improve it.

"I don't want to lose the tool because it's imperfect," Atebe said.
"Also, I don't want to keep the tool if it's encroaching on people's rights."

Another current class-action suit against municipal grow-op bylaws is
unfolding in Coquitlam.

One of the litigants, Drew Smith, told The Province he is innocent,
and his story is almost identical to the complaints made in Mission.
His home was searched, no growop evidence was found, fees and repair
orders were levied and an allegedly innocent person suffered a
damaged reputation.

"I had to get sedatives because I couldn't sleep at night with the
stress and embarrassment in the neighbourhood," Smith said.

"Financially, I don't care if I get a dime [in the Coquitlam
classaction suit]," he said. "I told my lawyer I don't want to sue
anyone but this is not a just process, and it has to stop."