Local resident Knowlton Hunter with correspondence from Prince Edward County’s Bylaw department. (Jason Parks/Gazette Staff)
A couple whose complaint last fall about receiving a $2000 fine for a long defunct STA listing — and then not being invited to the appeal meeting — sparked a review of Bylaw Department procedures is still being told to pay up.
This fall, the Gazette reported that a Picton couple, Knowlton Hunter and Jennifer Warr, were contesting a $2000 STA Bylaw penalty. The couple had rented out their home on the AirBnB website for just a few weeks nearly a decade ago, well before any STA bylaw was in place. The long defunct listing had appeared in a Bylaw Department data scrape. They had not realized the home was still on the website.
The fine applied even though the home was not available to rent.
Hunter and Warr tried to appeal, but say they did not receive an appeal hearing notice in the mail, and missed the meeting. The appeal was quashed in their absence.
It turns out that missed letter was everything.
– County Spokesperson Mark Kerr
“Council cannot waive the fine or
direct municipal staff to waive the fine.
The municipality understands the frustration and
disappointment Mr. Hunter and Ms. Warr have experienced.
We are working to update the by-law
to avoid a similar situation
in the future.”
In November, the Committee of the Whole considered a motion to improve the County’s penalty system. Director of Corporate and Legislative Services Sarah Viau didn’t mention the Hunter/Warr matter directly, but noted “an issue” arose that sparked a review of the system.
Her office proposed updating the Administrative Monetary Penalty bylaws with better case management, like using both email and registered mail to send notices.
She also suggested the appointment of screening and hearing officers to ensure those receiving fines are afforded an opportunity for a review.
“Currently, there is no discretion for a screening officer or the director who administers the bylaw to address the situation where, through no fault of their own, a person does not receive a hearing or notice to attend,” Ms. Viau said. “Ultimately this update supports the intended objective of an AMP system to provide a fair and expeditious manner of adjudicating bylaw infractions.”
New rules would allow department directors to cancel Penalty Notices issued in error and to set aside review decisions in appropriate circumstances.
Council voted to defer the changes while asking staff for more information. The motion returns to Committee in February.
But that’s too late for Mr. Knowlton and Ms. Warr. They’ve been ordered, again, to pay their $2000 fine or it will be added to their annual tax bill.
In Committee, Councillor Brad Nieman asked about the case which sparked the review of the penalty system. At that point, Ms. Viau said an update would only address future penalties, but indicated a resolution to the Knowlton/Barr case was in the works.
Mr. Hunter and Ms. Warr were invited by the County’s Bylaw office to a Zoom meeting January 8. A hearing officer would hear their evidence. The couple prepared their documents and receipts.
But, hours prior, they were contacted again. After examining the case and the current bylaw, the officer had determined there was no jurisdiction to hear an appeal and that there were no other options on the books for staff to consider.
The hearing scheduled for January 8 was cancelled with no recourse.
County spokesperson Mark Kerr confirmed there was no jurisdiction to proceed with the hearing, and said that the decision is final.
“As the by-law is currently written, Council cannot waive the fine or direct municipal staff to waive the fine,” said Mr. Kerr. “The municipality understands the frustration and disappointment Mr. Hunter and Ms. Warr have experienced. Municipal staff are working to update the by-law to avoid a similar situation in the future.”
In a letter to Mr. Hunter, Ms. Viau said Council has yet to approve changes to the bylaw, and in any event, these would not be retroactive.
Mr. Hunter said the fiasco traces back to the original screening officer’s dismissal of the appeal without any consideration of evidence because the bylaw assumes a failure to appear is an admission of guilt.
“The fact that we did not receive any notice of that initial hearing is the crux of the matter.”
The case still cannot even be heard, never mind fixed.
Mr. Hunter is reviewing his legal options.
See it in the newspaper
-9° Light Snowshower
