published on the CEU website this week<\/a>.<\/p>\nAccording to the decision, the company is the registered owner of a mixed-use commercial property in Vancouver with retail space on the ground floor and office space on upper floors.<\/p>\n
The specific address of the property is redacted from the document.<\/p>\n
In mid-2025, the City of Vancouver\u2019s Development, Building and Licensing Division became concerned about the building\u2019s \u201cconfiguration and use,\u201d and conducted inspections.<\/p>\n
\u201cDuring these inspections, (the city) documented that portions of the second and third floors had been reconfigured into partitioned rooms consistent with single room accommodation (SRA) units,\u201d the CEU decision reads.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe inspection records indicate that, at the time, individuals were residing in these areas notwithstanding that the space had not been approved for residential occupancy.\u201d<\/p>\n
The city issued \u201cnot safe to occupy\u201d orders on Aug. 18, 2025, and did so again on Oct. 9 and Nov. 20 of that year, according to the decision.<\/p>\n
Around the same time, Vancouver Fire Rescue Services was also conducting inspections of the property and identified \u201ca number of fire and life safety concerns.\u201d VFRS eventually issued its own \u201cdo not occupy\u201d and fire watch orders on Nov. 18, 2025.<\/p>\n
\u201cDespite the issuance of these orders, occupancy at the rental property continued,\u201d the decision reads. <\/p>\n
The CEU commenced its own investigation into the property on Nov. 28, 2025, at the request of the city.<\/p>\n
The decision indicates that the building remained tenanted, without the required permits to allow such a use, until \u201cat least April 13, 2026,\u201d the date on which the CEU\u2019s investigation report recommending the administrative penalties was filed.<\/p>\n
Landlords respond<\/p>\n
In their defence, Nawaz, Khan and their company argued that penalties should not be imposed because they were co-operating with regulators and working to achieve compliance.<\/p>\n
They told the CEU they had retained a structural engineering firm, fire protection and code consultants and mechanical and electrical professionals to help them address the issues raised by the city and VFRS.<\/p>\n
They rejected the suggestion that they had been ignoring regulatory concerns, claiming instead that they were working to address the issues incrementally, \u201cwhile maintaining housing for existing occupants.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThe respondents describe their overall approach as one focused on achieving compliance while also considering the impact that immediate displacement would have on individuals residing at the rental property,\u201d the decision reads.<\/p>\n
Due diligence lacking<\/p>\n
Scott McGregor, the CEU\u2019s director and the author of the decision, considered the landlords\u2019 submissions, but ultimately determined monetary penalties were necessary.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhile I acknowledge that tenant displacement can have significant consequences for affected occupants, I am not persuaded that this explanation meaningfully mitigates the conduct at issue in this matter,\u201d McGregor\u2019s decision reads. <\/p>\n
He noted that Nawaz, Khan and their company converted the property and commenced the tenancies \u201cwithout obtaining the necessary permissions or approvals before occupancy.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThe fire, life safety, and occupancy concerns that ultimately gave rise to municipal enforcement action were not unforeseen events that emerged after tenants had been housed,\u201d the decision reads. <\/p>\n
\u201cRather, they arose from the respondents\u2019 decision to undertake and operate an unauthorized residential conversion without first ensuring compliance with applicable safety, building, and occupancy requirements.\u201d<\/p>\n
Elsewhere in the decision, McGregor notes that it is a \u201creasonable inference\u201d that the landlords received rental income from the 11 tenancies at their non-compliant property.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn these circumstances, the respondents\u2019 reliance on the potential hardship associated with tenant displacement carries limited weight,\u201d the decision reads. <\/p>\n
\u201cHad appropriate due diligence been undertaken and the necessary approvals obtained before commencing the occupancy of the premises, the circumstances giving rise to the subsequent enforcement actions may have been avoided altogether. I therefore find that the respondents\u2019 submissions do not adequately explain or justify the prolonged non-compliance that followed repeated notices, orders, and opportunities to bring the rental property into compliance.\u201d<\/p>\n
$57,100 in penalties<\/p>\n
McGregor concluded that Nawaz, Khan and their company contravened B.C.\u2019s Residential Tenancy Act by converting the commercial building to residential use without authorization, failing to complete remediation work required by the city and VFRS in a timely manner, and failing to comply with orders prohibiting the occupation of the building.<\/p>\n
He also found that they had violated the act by failing to maintain the building\u2019s electrical system \u201cin a condition that complies with the health, safety, and housing standards required by law.\u201d<\/p>\n
McGregor found the numbered company liable for the violations because it is the owner of the building, while Nawaz and Khan were liable as directors of the company, who necessarily \u201cpermitted or acquiesced in the contraventions.\u201d<\/p>\n
A third individual, Tayyaba Butt, was found not to have sufficient control over the company to be held liable for the penalties.<\/p>\n
The electrical violation was considered on a building-wide basis, according to the decision. The other violations applied across the 11 different tenancy agreements the landlords entered.<\/p>\n
McGregor imposed a $5,000 penalty per tenancy for those violations, plus a $2,100 penalty for the building-wide electrical violation.<\/p>\n
In all, Nawaz, Khan and the company are collectively liable for $57,100 in administrative monetary penalties, which must be paid to B.C.\u2019s Finance Ministry by Sept. 14.<\/p>\n
Related Stories<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Two men and a numbered company have been ordered to pay more than $57,000 in penalties for their…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":841172,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[194298],"tags":[49,48,55],"class_list":["post-841171","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-vancouver","tag-ca","tag-canada","tag-vancouver"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/841171","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=841171"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/841171\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/841172"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=841171"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=841171"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=841171"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}