Illegal $80K addition costs taxpayers $500K, family paid $200K legal fees in 6 years

[elmst200]

The family would like to dish out 3 times more money than to demolish an illegal addition. And it has costed the taxpayers $500K. The irony is the owner of the house is the daughter, who is a lawyer. The family is still fighting after 6 years; this time citing medical (psychiatric) conditions of the elderly couple.

The Star's July 27 report



Battle with Brunswick Ave. family cost city about $500,000, councillor says
Published on Thursday July 26, 2012

http://i.thestar.com/images/d9/d1/c9d96e534c2d8c70d364cdd733ce.jpg
CARLOS OSORIO/TORONTO STAR An $80,000 addition built onto the Tseng family home without a permit and in contravention of other rules has been the focus of a drawn-out legal battle that a councillor revealed has cost the city about $500,000.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/1232483--battle-with-brunswick-ave-family-cost-city-about-500-000-councillor-says
Daniel Dale
Urban Affairs Reporter

Councillor Adam Vaughan says the city has been forced to spend about $500,000 battling with a Brunswick Ave. family that fought unsuccessfully for six years to get belated approval for an $80,000 home addition built without a permit.

The addition was rejected Wednesday by the committee of adjustment, for the second time. The Tsengs now have five months to demolish the addition unless they file another appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board.

The Tsengs’ chances appear slim: the OMB rejected their first appeal in 2008. If they lose again, they can again try to appeal to the courts, but they lost there the first time as well. They have also made a plea to the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

The family has spent at least $250,000. Councillor Adam Vaughan, who opposes the addition, said city officials told him Thursday that the process has cost taxpayers about twice that. Officials could not be reached for comment.

Retired realtor Shih Tseng, 76, who said he has had two strokes, lives in the home with his wife Yang Tseng, a 70-year-old with serious mobility problems who also suffers from mental illness. The property is owned by their daughter Pauline Tseng, a lawyer who does not want her parents to have to move.

Shih Tseng said he is not yet sure if they will return to the OMB. He said he no longer has faith that the system will be “fair.”

“Nobody can help. This is only a joke. The meeting, the hearing yesterday, is a joke,” he said.

Vaughan had thought Wednesday’s hearing was the Tsengs’ last hope. But a January court judgment gives them the right to go back to the OMB and then to seek leave to appeal to the courts.

“If there was even one judgment that had gone against the city, you might be able to justify pursuing this course of action,” Vaughan said. “But the fact that every single tribunal, every single court of law, has supported the city’s position on this — I think it’s fairly clear where the law stands. So it’s time to resolve this.”


The Star's July 25, 2012 report



Elderly couple’s illegal $80,000 addition likely to be demolished
Published on Wednesday July 25, 2012

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/1231835--elderly-couple-s-illegal-80-000-addition-likely-to-be-demolished

http://i.thestar.com/images/fa/47/c4e1e10a467db39af73acad25c83.jpg
http://i.thestar.com/images/21/81/49b2daa64ff68e9f02fd17764967.jpg

The Tseng family's $80,000 home addition was built without permits and in violation of size limits. They have spent $200,000 and hired star lawyer Clayton Ruby to try to save it, but after six years it seems likely to be demolished.

Daniel Dale
Urban Affairs Reporter

After a six-year battle that included appeals to the courts, the Ontario Municipal Board and even the United Nations, an elderly Brunswick Ave. couple will probably now be forced to demolish a two-storey backyard addition built without a permit.

A committee-of-adjustment panel voted Wednesday to reject the couple’s last-ditch plea to retroactively legalize the $80,000 structure. It was unswayed by renowned lawyer Clayton Ruby, who argued that dismissing the request would amount to discrimination against the disabled — and noted that other members of 70-year-old Yang Tseng’s family have committed suicide.

“No justice,” Shih Tseng, her 76-year-old husband, said in an interview after the decision. “My lawyer mentioned my wife’s family had suicide history. They don’t care. They don’t care. They totally disregard our health.”

Councillor Adam Vaughan, who opposed the addition along with a group of local residents, said Ruby’s human rights arguments were irrelevant to the question at hand.

“This is not a human rights issue. It’s a planning issue. The addition was too big, and it was built without permission,” Vaughan said in an interview.

“It’s unfortunate. But the lesson here is a very clear one: Do not build without permission, because there are consequences. And the consequences become very expensive if you choose to fight rather than cooperate.”

Rory “Gus” Sinclair, a former Harbord Village Residents’ Association president who spoke against the proposal, said the Tsengs are now supposed to have 30 days to demolish the addition. A city spokesperson was not able to confirm.

The property is owned by the couple’s daughter, lawyer Pauline Tseng, who was heavily involved in the legal battle. As of last spring, when the Star first wrote about the case, the family had spent more than $200,000 on lawyers and other professionals in an attempt to save the addition.

The Tsengs’ two other children bought them the home near Kensington Market for $718,000 in 2006. They soon tore down the existing addition, a rotting wooden structure, and hired a contractor to build a new brick addition of about half a metre longer.

They did not get a permit. And their addition extended about 10 metres farther than allowed under today’s rules.

“At that time, we don’t know permits. When we found out, we tried,” Shih Tseng said.

Ruby cited a psychiatrist’s belief that Yang Tseng’s “significant psychiatric disorder” is directly attributable to the battle over her home and that demolishing the addition would cause an “adverse and serious impact” on her health.

Both Yang Tseng and Shih Tseng have been diagnosed with depression. Shih Tseng said he has heart problems and has had two strokes; Yang Tseng suffers from osteoporosis, anxiety, sleep apnea, and a Parkinson’s-like brain disorder that causes balance problems.

The Tsengs live on the bottom floor of the addition and the original house, Shih Tseng said. Because of his wife’s difficulties sleeping and walking up and down stairs, they could not live in the original house itself, he said.

“The whole purpose of this addition is to get her living on one floor. And because of the psychiatric problems, there was huge fear and terror of moving from this house,” Ruby told the committee. “The daughter owns it; she wants them to remain there for the few years they have left. And the demolition, really, under the circumstances, is going to produce a very serious adverse effect on these two people who find themselves disabled.”

Sinclair told the committee: “I am so sad and sorry, I mean this sincerely, for the plight of the Tseng family — the elders. It is no fun to be in that condition; it is no fun growing old. But that is not, ladies and gentlemen, a consideration about land use. Sorry, it just isn’t. It can’t be.”

[elmst200]

The Star's May 18, 2011 report


Elderly couple ‘living in fear’ over court order to demolish home addition
Published Sunday May 08, 2011

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/987718--elderly-couple-living-in-fear-over-court-order-to-demolish-home-addition?bn=1

http://i.thestar.com/images/47/a5/efe7d85341909d16b9fad62a2962.jpeg
http://i.thestar.com/images/68/09/a85bd25747c7ba33ac05d8c5f092.jpeg
http://i.thestar.com/images/0e/6b/0905c2524bb5a67663a13b5767ae.jpeg
http://i.thestar.com/images/f8/73/963d38d04e438d91e0f40dd44b56.jpeg

DALE BRAZAO/TORONTO STAR
Dale Brazao
Staff Reporter

A two-storey backyard addition built without permits has cost an elderly couple more than $200,000 in legal and other fees, their health and now possible eviction and demolition of the offending structure.

During a five-year fight with city hall, Shih Tseng, 74, has suffered a heart attack and a stroke. His wife, Yang Tseng, 68, who has osteoporosis and mobility problems, is under a doctor's care for severe stress.

The couple's contractor built the brick addition 45 centimetres deeper into the backyard than the former termite-infested, rotting wooden structure, which was built before new bylaws were enacted.

The Tsengs didn't obtain permits, and the city says the new structure makes the total allowable depth of the house almost twice as long as what is allowed under today's rules.

The family's anxiety is about to grow exponentially.

The city has applied for a court order to demolish — at the Tsengs' expense — the $80,000 addition on their semi-detached Victorian-style home on Brunswick Ave., just north of College St. near Kensington Market.

“We are living in fear,” Shih Tseng said of the endless fight to legalize and maintain the addition, which now includes a desperate last-minute appeal to the United Nations Human Rights Committee in Geneva to stop the demolition.

“We can't sleep, we can't eat,” said a tearful Shih Tseng. He and his wife live on the ground floor and rent two upstairs apartments to university students.

“The stress is killing us,” Shih Tseng continued. “We feel terrorized.”

Inspectors have been to the house at least 26 times, he said. Two senior lawyers have “prosecuted them” in court for more than 16 months, leaving the family questioning the “excessive zeal” with which the city is pursuing this particular case.

According to their daughter, Pauline Tseng, the family has paid more than $200,000 in professional fees to local zoning lawyers, planners, architects, engineers and surveyors from Sept. 2006 to March 2011 to try and save the 14- by 12-foot addition.

“We believe the city's endless litigation against us is unprecedented for the minor nature of the infraction involved,” said Pauline Tseng, a New York-based lawyer who holds a certificate in conflict resolution from Harvard University. “Defence counsel told us the severity of the offence (construction without a building permit) is like a parking ticket.”

The ordeal began in May 2006 when the couple's two other children, Peter and Vanessa, purchased the large red brick house as a retirement home for their parents.

Since there were multiple offers the family submitted a “clean offer,” meaning it didn't have the contingency clause for a home inspection. The house sold for $718,000.

The sellers did not disclose previous fire damage to the home. After the closing, a home inspector and an engineer recommended that the rotting two-storey structure at the rear, which was sinking and tearing away from the main house, be torn down and rebuilt on solid footings.

Pauline Tseng said she, her father, brother and sister were out of the country at the time. Their mother was in Toronto, but hardly equipped to oversee any building project, so they handed the keys to a contractor to make the repairs recommended by their architect.

The family argues the addition is only 45 centimetres — a mere foot and a half — deeper than the footprint of the clapboard structure they tore down. And there are other houses on the street that go back farther on the lot than theirs.

The city says what the Tsengs constructed, without any building or electrical permits, “leaves little open space, blocks sunlight and views from adjacent properties.”

The Tsengs point to committee of adjustment documents that show houses nearby on Brunswick received minor variances — one for an addition and another for a staircase — that brought their overall depth to twice what is allowed under current bylaws. Both of those houses are deeper than the addition the Tseng family built.

The attached neighbour to the north of the couple has no objection, neither does the neighbour to the south, the owner of an 11-unit rooming house that received committee of adjustment approval in 1980 to pave over the backyard to allow for six-car parking.

Those arguments have had no effect on a group of 20 neighbours who signed a petition opposing the Tsengs.

“This extension is large and bulky ... and has the potential to limit the backyard enjoyment of existing neighbours and all future neighbours since it permanently changes the character of these backyards,” the petition reads. “The addition ... sets a dangerous precedent for backyard overdevelopment.”

The Tsengs countered with a petition with 39 names in support. But Ingrid McKhool, co-owner of a nearby home on Brunswick, said the Tsengs were not completely truthful when they canvassed neighbours.

“She (Pauline Tseng) misrepresented herself. She didn't disclose that the addition had already been built, that it was illegally constructed or that it was longer than the one that was previously there,” said McKhool, adding she was glad when the committee of adjustment ruled the variance was not minor, and not in keeping with the character of the area.

Councillor Adam Vaughan (Trinity-Spadina) also sided with the Harbord Village Residents Association's position that the addition must come down.

“There are consequences to building first and getting permits later,” said Vaughan. “This addition is too deep, too high, and too wide,” he said.

Vaughan compared the Tsengs' predicament to someone who decides to do their own income tax, takes shortcuts, is whacked by the auditor, then blames the taxman for his problems. He says he has a hard time believing that the Tsengs, with a lawyer in the family, didn't know a building permit is needed to construct an addition of that size.

The family appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board. Their hired planner was on vacation the day of the hearing, but the city's planner was there. In a scathing report, the board questioned whether the Tsengs are “intent on continuing a pattern of behaviours which results in a waste of time and resources of the board and the city.”

Pauline Tseng, acting for her parents, sought to appeal the OMB decision in Divisional Court, and then to the Ontario Court of Appeal. She lost both times while the city was awarded $17,500 in costs.

Meanwhile, Toronto began prosecuting the Tsengs under the Ontario Building Code Act for failure to comply with the order to obtain a building permit. After six court dates were adjourned (most requested by the city, the family claims), all charges were withdrawn.

“We thought it was over,” Pauline Tseng said. Days later, they received notice the city was going back to court seeking an order to evict the tenants and demolish the addition.

Star


The family would like to dish out 3 times more money than to demolish an illegal addition. The irony is the owner of the house is the daughter, who is a lawyer. The family is still fighting after 6 years; this time citing medical (phychiatric) conditions of the elderly couple.

The Star's July 25, 2012 report

[JAC]

Good.

[Xiaohaibao]

Sorry but the law is the law, exceptions can't be made otherwise everyone will think of a reason they deserve an exception.


“At that time, we don’t know permits. When we found out, we tried,” Shih Tseng said.
So their daughter is a lawyer and didn't tell them they need a permit? :facepalm: They should blame their lawyer daughter who should of advised them better.

[elmst200]

the owner of the house is the lawyer daughter. The lawyer didn't know building an addition needs a permit.


Sorry but the law is the law, exceptions can't be made otherwise everyone will think of a reason they deserve an exception.


So their daughter is a lawyer and didn't tell them they need a permit? :facepalm: They should blame their lawyer daughter who should of advised them better.

[arclite]

The lawyer didn't know building an addition needs a permit.

:facepalm:

[wilsonlam97]

I don't know what to say.


"Sorry its the law?"

[dragon_drift]

She's a lawyer? What a fail.

[t3359]

Oh boy... Can't believe they were trying the human rights and discrimination card on this one.

bjl

[gizmo8]

BS...I seen rich developers getting permits for renovations that was some how passed by the OMB because of their ability to afford good lawyers that knows how to play the system while a poor couple who trusted the builder to get proper permits is forced out of their house because of small variances...the house looks pretty nice and not a eyesore...the neighbors are a holes for forcing this issue....

[ovechkin1]

the owner of the house is the lawyer daughter. The lawyer didn't know building an addition needs a permit.

could of saved on some legal fees by using her.

[manixc]

maybe they should sue the contractor?

Seriously, if they spend $200k on lawyer, maybe they could have used that money to tear down the illegal building, apply for a proper permit and build a legal building.

Also, why didn't they use their daughter?

[Mars2012]

I can't see how a legitimate contractor would have built the addition without a permit.

What a crazy story about some crazy people. I used to sing that Rolling Stones song to my daughter when she was little..."You can't always get what you want...." Drove her nuts, but it's a lesson everyone needs to learn sometime.

[jaysfan4life]

You need a Permit for additions... No discrimation the law is the law

[sylpherware]

How the f did they put "depression" and "suicidal" up as defense?? If they were physically disabled and the new addition is to help them get around better, then I'd petition for leniency in this case.
Sorry, but "I may kill myself if it doesn't go my way" is a facepalm, not a defense.

[ItechJester]

the law is the law. but really, all this over half a metre?

would rather see the family fined the cost of tear down, and rebuild (with the money going to the city), vs tearing it down and rebuilding it (where no one except the contractors win).

[Frankie3s]

With all this money spent you would've thought that they would have gotten a damn permit. Maybe were afraid they'd have to pay more property taxes when completed? Spend a dollar to save ten cents.

[nalababe]

the law is the law. but really, all this over half a metre?

would rather see the family fined the cost of tear down, and rebuild (with the money going to the city), vs tearing it down and rebuilding it (where no one except the contractors win).

Didn't it say 10m based on current by laws?

As someone who lives in an area where people are always trying to push the limits, allowing it sets a precedent which can be used by others to circumvent the bylaw. When we sat through 20 plus hearings, precedent was used many times. Many people would gladly pay a fee...even 100k plus to circumvent rules, especially when a house us worth a million plus and addictions can easily reach astronomical costs.

[Maelle1]

It's unfortunate that some people don't think they have to follow rules. This is fundamental problem in society. The pictures of this couples addition is a complete eyesore for any of the neighbours in their backyard. You can't just build whatever you want where you want. You would have to live under a rock in another planet to use the excuse you did not know you needed a permit. That's like saying I did not know I had to pay income tax. It seems that whenever someone that does not follow the rules and they get caught they have an excuse. Using a Health condition is a good example of that. This family is really digging deep for excuses and trying to have people feel sorry for them. The reasoning from the Toronto Star that one of the family members has a sleeping disorder, depression and can't go up and down stairs.... like move to a different house. What about the neighbours? What about following the rules and processes that everyone else is expected to follow? No, this couple (being elderly should have nothing to do with it) did not want to follow the rules and disregarded everyone else and will likely appeal again and cost the City of Toronto tax payers even more money because they think they are "special" and don't want to follow rules.

[jp06]

I seriously hope they lose the legal battle AND pay for wasting the court system's time. Geez, they are 100% at fault here and they still try to put up a fight by pulling all sorts of excuses. Dumbass lawyer daughter too. Whoever is suggesting a fine and allowing them to keep it is out of their mind. I agree with the demolition because otherwise everyone will view the fine as an extra fee to build over limits. But in this case, they had no permit to begin with, so they have no say.

[sherman51]

I remember this story from way back. No sympathy then, no sympathy now. Whether its an $80K addition or a simple fence, we all know there is government beauracracy to deal with (whether we like it or not), a simple day of chasing the right people at city hall to find out if you need permits for a fence, or putting in a request for an addition should never be overlooked. I see people fencing their whole yard starting wars with neighbours and never bothering to find out what they can or can't do because they believe its their property and they can do what they want.
I'm glad these people have to tear this down, they played the Liberal society sympathy card hoping people would feel sorry for them and they'd get to keep it and they lost big time.

[steve-0101]

No sympathy for these people.

* mental note: don't hire Pauline Tseng

[gizmo8]

all the righteous people here...you know how much illegal renovations are being done in the city every year...millions upon millions of dollars are spent by homeowners that doing renovation without proper permits.I seen homes that been underpinned without permits,I seen homes that put balconies and little sunrooms in on top of the houses without permits.Yes they made a mistake and was taken advantage by those doing renovations,they didnt intentionally go out and break the law,the builders did.In this city if you have the money and skilled lawyers that knows the system you can get anything pass the OMB and COA..

[steve-0101]

all the righteous people here...you know how much illegal renovations are being done in the city every year...millions upon millions of dollars are spent by homeowners that doing renovation without proper permits.I seen homes that been underpinned without permits,I seen homes that put balconies and little sunrooms in on top of the houses without permits.Yes they made a mistake and was taken advantage by those doing renovations,they didnt intentionally go out and break the law,the builders did.In this city if you have the money and skilled lawyers that knows the system you can get anything pass the OMB and COA..

Sure they did. They didn't want the tax hike.

And even if they didn't, ignorance is not a defense. Neither is suicide. These people deserve everything that's coming their way.

[googoo]

How the f did they put "depression" and "suicidal" up as defense??

Just like the chicks that can't go "back home" because they have a newborn and the hardships that would have if they were forced to go home....even when they were told they were to be deported BEFORE they got pregnant.....kinda the same thing.

They "don't know permits"....sure they don't!

Brent

[Dina_E]

adam vaughn is normally a twit, but hey even a broken clock can be right once

[BluePhirePB]

Perhaps they're running an illegal mah-jong gambling front disguised as a jin-sing store in the new addition and the money they make from that out weighs the legal costs?

[LaserEnvy]

First world problems. Try not to kill yourself over them.

[chickenbones]

Probably a chinese cash special. You have no one to sue.



maybe they should sue the contractor?

Seriously, if they spend $200k on lawyer, maybe they could have used that money to tear down the illegal building, apply for a proper permit and build a legal building.

Also, why didn't they use their daughter?

[mjl_toronto]

BS...I seen rich developers getting permits for renovations that was some how passed by the OMB because of their ability to afford good lawyers that knows how to play the system while a poor couple who trusted the builder to get proper permits is forced out of their house because of small variances...the house looks pretty nice and not a eyesore...the neighbors are a holes for forcing this issue....

So because others get away with it everyone else should too? Right. Good logic there.
btw, the 'poor couple' aren't that poor when their two (excluding Pauline Tseng, the lawyer) children bought the home for over $700k and paid for $80k in renos and now over $200k in legal fees. I wish I was that poor to spend money like that.


I can't see how a legitimate contractor would have built the addition without a permit.

What a crazy story about some crazy people. I used to sing that Rolling Stones song to my daughter when she was little..."You can't always get what you want...." Drove her nuts, but it's a lesson everyone needs to learn sometime.

Why do you assume they used a legitimate contractor?

Pauline Tseng should be disallowed from practicing law for such a frivolous case. The fact is she was too ignorant/lazy/corrupt to renovate the proper way and she got burned. That puts her integrity into question. Furthermore, she's wasting the time and resources of the United Nations Human Rights who have much more pressing issues to deal with than a stupid permit for an elderly couple suffering from multiple health issues that are likely completely unrelated to this case. This alone angers me the most. How can a lawyer in her best judgement think that the UN Human Rights office should fight on the behalf of her elderly parents over a permit issue she f'd up on?

The parents and the other 2 siblings should sue Pauline Tseng for being an idiot.

[elmst200]

Pauline Tseng (the lawyer daughter) is the legal owner of the house. She uses her aged parents as a subterfuge.


Pauline Tseng should be disallowed from practicing law for such a frivolous case. The fact is she was too ignorant/lazy/corrupt to renovate the proper way and she got burned. That puts her integrity into question. Furthermore, she's wasting the time and resources of the United Nations Human Rights who have much more pressing issues to deal with than a stupid permit for an elderly couple suffering from multiple health issues that are likely completely unrelated to this case. This alone angers me the most. How can a lawyer in her best judgement think that the UN Human Rights office should fight on the behalf of her elderly parents over a permit issue she f'd up on?

The parents and the other 2 siblings should sue Pauline Tseng for being an idiot.

[Sylvestre]

One of the key aspects of any legal case is cost control i.e. is the cost of the challenge worth the value if won or lost. Someone wasn't doing their job if they have sunk 200K into this case.

[arclite]

Pauline Tseng should be disallowed from practicing law for such a frivolous case.

The parents and the other 2 siblings should sue Pauline Tseng for being an idiot.

I'm sure her reputation is being tarnished for such a failure.

[flashy_mcflash]

Doesn't the permit for this kind of work have to be clearly displayed? Surely an addition like this took time to build and equipment moving on/off the property - who is in charge of ensuring that this work is being done with a permit DURING the construction?

I mean, what if someone was hurt or killed in the process of building this?

[_Allan_]

BS...I seen rich developers getting permits for renovations that was some how passed by the OMB because of their ability to afford good lawyers that knows how to play the system while a poor couple who trusted the builder to get proper permits is forced out of their house because of small variances...the house looks pretty nice and not a eyesore...the neighbors are a holes for forcing this issue....
Permits are required under Toronto ByLaws, Ontario Building Codes, Electrical Seftey Authority Codes, Ministry of Labour OSHA, Plumbing, HVAC, and Fire Safety. I am 99% sure the daughter knew they were in the wrong, and probably hired unlicensed family friends to do the work, purposely without permits.
I for one, am glad the addition will be torn down - there probably isn't anything done right or legal in it!

[trucanuck]

Tear it down. Should penalize the daughter as well since she is a lawyer.

[iEyeCaptain]

Just because your daughter is a lawyer, doesn't mean you can do whatever the fact you want.

[at1212b]

BS...I seen rich developers getting permits for renovations that was some how passed by the OMB because of their ability to afford good lawyers that knows how to play the system while a poor couple who trusted the builder to get proper permits is forced out of their house because of small variances...the house looks pretty nice and not a eyesore...the neighbors are a holes for forcing this issue....

It says in the article that they hired a well known lawyer
hired star lawyer Clayton Ruby to try to save it. That didn't work so sorry, they tried to game the system and it didn't work.

You do not live there so you are not in a position to state what the neighbors feel. Alot of them have said the petition they signed was misrepresented so obviously they're even more pissed and bent on teaching this Tseng family a lesson.

So they made the renovations with the dimensions that were allowed at the time. The stupid thing they did was to not get a permit. If they had gotten a permit, it would likely be allowed today since it would have likely been grandfathered in. My guess is they did it with a cash job: cheaper and less paperwork, formal approval required.

Basic renos such as kitchen, bathroom, roofing, windows, gutter, etc are common "under-the-table" cash jobs, but not structural or really material jobs.

The daughter specifically believed from the advice of their lawyer, and the family specifically followed course that they thought they could game the system, that a violation was like a parking ticket and they would get away with it with a fine. But sorry, this isn't like some countries where you can bribe your way through.

[manmanny]

As in Post #2 it is old story. WHy Star is repeating it again? Dale doesn't have any other stories about Mayor?

Law is the Law.

[manmanny]

Permits are required under Toronto ByLaws, Ontario Building Codes, Electrical Seftey Authority Codes, Ministry of Labour OSHA, Plumbing, HVAC, and Fire Safety. I am 99% sure the daughter knew they were in the wrong, and probably hired unlicensed family friends to do the work, purposely without permits.
I for one, am glad the addition will be torn down - there probably isn't anything done right or legal in it!

Unlicensed and Cash payment?

[Phat_cow]

How the f did they put "depression" and "suicidal" up as defense?? If they were physically disabled and the new addition is to help them get around better, then I'd petition for leniency in this case.
Sorry, but "I may kill myself if it doesn't go my way" is a facepalm, not a defense.

It's more like they are trying to black mail the city. Don't give me what I want then I might just kill myself.

[nalababe]

all the righteous people here...you know how much illegal renovations are being done in the city every year...millions upon millions of dollars are spent by homeowners that doing renovation without proper permits.I seen homes that been underpinned without permits,I seen homes that put balconies and little sunrooms in on top of the houses without permits.Yes they made a mistake and was taken advantage by those doing renovations,they didnt intentionally go out and break the law,the builders did.In this city if you have the money and skilled lawyers that knows the system you can get anything pass the OMB and COA..

We have stopped major developments several times, including attempts to go directly to OMB...

Also, getting to the OMB is not something that a typical home owner can do..

[manmanny]

"appeals to the courts, the Ontario Municipal Board and even the United Nations"

WTF? WHo goes to UN for illegal house improvement?
And UN listens to this crap?
May be every Torontoians with some house problems should call UN instead 311/911.

[manmanny]

all the righteous people here...you know how much illegal renovations are being done in the city every year...millions upon millions of dollars are spent by homeowners that doing renovation without proper permits.I seen homes that been underpinned without permits,I seen homes that put balconies and little sunrooms in on top of the houses without permits.Yes they made a mistake and was taken advantage by those doing renovations,they didnt intentionally go out and break the law,the builders did.In this city if you have the money and skilled lawyers that knows the system you can get anything pass the OMB and COA..

That says more about our City and City inspectors. Lazy bums. (Union Employees???)

[Xeros]

maybe they should sue the contractor?

Seriously, if they spend $200k on lawyer, maybe they could have used that money to tear down the illegal building, apply for a proper permit and build a legal building.

Also, why didn't they use their daughter?

You know, there are different kinds of lawyers.

[peanutz]

The pictures of this couples addition is a complete eyesore for any of the neighbours in their backyard.I agree. That is not an attractive building. Then again, the whole neighbourhood seems to be like that - kinda shoddy-looking houses with multiple units for tenants. Lots of cars parked all around with very little green.


You would have to live under a rock in another planet to use the excuse you did not know you needed a permit.I actually believe the older couple when they said that. About 15 years ago, my parents paved partly onto our lawn so that we could have a full driveway to park on (without a permit; they just didn't know.) They immigrated 30 years ago but they were new as homeowners. One of the neighbours must have complained but the inspector just made them get a retroactive permit since the project was already underway.

I believe in cases like this, the builders/contractors should be partially liable if a project is done without a permit. That way, they have a disincentive to take advantage of people who do not necessarily know the laws too well--and there are many people who don't--who hire them to do a job.


That's like saying I did not know I had to pay income tax. It seems that whenever someone that does not follow the rules and they get caught they have an excuse. Using a Health condition is a good example of that. This family is really digging deep for excuses and trying to have people feel sorry for them. The reasoning from the Toronto Star that one of the family members has a sleeping disorder, depression and can't go up and down stairs.... like move to a different house. What about the neighbours? What about following the rules and processes that everyone else is expected to follow? No, this couple (being elderly should have nothing to do with it) did not want to follow the rules and disregarded everyone else and will likely appeal again and cost the City of Toronto tax payers even more money because they think they are "special" and don't want to follow rules.Actually, I do feel bad for the couple and I suspect most of this is being instigated by Pauline, their lawyer daughter.

On the other hand, tenants were mentioned and it seems like either the couple and/or Pauline want the income from them rather than using the upstairs space. Even people who have difficulty walking (such as the elderly wife) can have motorized attachments inside the home to help them up/down the stairs.

So, I'm siding with the neighbourhood in this case but I still feel sorry for the elderly couple.

[anyasok]

I really dont understand what's the big deal is. Just give them the permit retroactively since its an elderly couple too and the building looks fine. The neighbors are just a-holes and should be fined to cover all the expenses collectively.

[manmanny]

I agree. That is not an attractive building. Then again, the whole neighbourhood seems to be like that - kinda shoddy-looking houses with multiple units for tenants. Lots of cars parked all around with very little green.

I actually believe the older couple when they said that. About 15 years ago, my parents paved partly onto our lawn so that we could have a full driveway to park on (without a permit; they just didn't know.) They immigrated 30 years ago but they were new as homeowners. One of the neighbours must have complained but the inspector just made them get a retroactive permit since the project was already underway.

I believe in cases like this, the builders/contractors should be partially liable if a project is done without a permit. That way, they have a disincentive to take advantage of people who do not necessarily know the laws too well--and there are many people who don't--who hire them to do a job.

Actually, I do feel bad for the couple and I suspect most of this is being instigated by Pauline, their lawyer daughter.

On the other hand, tenants were mentioned and it seems like either the couple and/or Pauline want the income from them rather than using the upstairs space. Even people who have difficulty walking (such as the elderly wife) can have motorized attachments inside the home to help them up/down the stairs.

So, I'm siding with the neighbourhood in this case but I still feel sorry for the elderly couple.

Well said.


I really dont understand what's the big deal is. Just give them the permit retroactively since its an elderly couple too and the building looks fine. The neighbors are just a-holes and should be fined to cover all the expenses collectively.


You are just trying to stir the pot as usual. I cant say trolling as mods on steroids will it.
Why not say going with the law is always better.

[Wilmega]

They could of just tore the addition down - avoided the legal fees and get a permit to build a new one. Incurring Lawyer fees of up to $200k....just crazy

[flashy_mcflash]

I agree. That is not an attractive building. Then again, the whole neighbourhood seems to be like that - kinda shoddy-looking houses with multiple units for tenants. Lots of cars parked all around with very little green.


Brunswick Ave is one of the oldest and most expensive areas in Toronto. There is a crapton of 'green' all around, and not just the smokeable kind (though U of T is nearby).

[sandikosh]

If you build it without a permit, they will come and break it down!

[manmanny]

If you build it without a permit, they will come and break it down!

LMAO. Good one.

[peanutz]

Brunswick Ave is one of the oldest and most expensive areas in Toronto. There is a crapton of 'green' all around, and not just the smokeable kind (though U of T is nearby).I suppose it depends on the part of the street. The front of the aforementioned building is ugly, and from the back - the neighbour's home is all concrete with 3 parked cars. Nothx.

I actually rented an apartment on Brunswick Ave. in my first year of university. :) It was a dusty multi-unit Victorian-style building and we'd have the lovely smell of the MJ wafting through the vents on occasional nights, heh. COINCIDENTALLY (this is crazy) - the owners of the house were the parents of a kid who was in my gifted class from grades 4-6! and who was then attending MIT. Allegedly that building is worth over $1 million.

The thing they have that my Toronto neighbourhood doesn't, and wish we had, is a snow-removing service in the winter. Otherwise, Brunswick Ave.'s green is nothing close to our green. In the summer it's like walking underneath a canopy.

ALSO very interesting tidbits:
http://itssoldyouremoving.blogspot.ca/2011/05/toronto-to-seek-demolition-of-illegal.html


The Missing Facts: As published on the website of The Ontario Municipal Board and canLii.ca for the Ontario Court of Appeal. I could find nothing on the City of Toronto's web site.

The zoning by-law was amended in 1998 and allowed for a depth of 14 meters.

The structure extended to 24.64 meters.

There were three infractions as to size that did not pass by-law, not just one.

Tsengs applied for a permit to build a fire escape which would have further extended the structure thereby decreasing the allowable space between it and the detached garage even further.

Tsengs appealed the city's order to demolish to the OMB. The initial hearing was granted a postponement as their expert was on vacation. The OMB ordered both parties to have all their documents prepared and submitted for the next. The second hearing proceeded with Pauline Tseng acting as agent (no attorney privileges here) to the owners who happen to be her siblings - not her parents, arguing that the city's documents be disallowed because of a dating matter. The OMB ruled otherwise. Failing this she argued that since a city expert was sick and unavailable to attend it be disallowed. The OMB ruled his evidence had no bearing on the case and that further, her expert also failed to appear because he is on vacation, just as he was on vacation at the first hearing. Failing this she then charged that an OMB panel member was biased and sought to overturn the order. Upon being denied this also she said she would leave and not present her case. The OMB advised her to take 15 minutes to reconsider this as the city was there to present their case, that they will hear it and can only rule based on what evidence is presented.

Tseng decided to leave.

In her appeal to the Court, Tseng argued for overturning the order based on her submission that the OMB was biased. The court ruled otherwise, noted that she was expressly advised that the case would proceed based on submitted evidence, that she opted to leave without presenting hers and that she cannot now reserve the right to appeal that which she chose not to hear. Further, it was ruled that upon her leaving, the OMB was no longer required to hear any evidence and could have just dismissed her appeal but instead opted to deliberate and then correctly determined their decision. Finally, the court admonished Tseng for attacking the character of the OMB member as behaviour not fitting a person of the courts.The blogger makes other very valid comments and her guesses at the outcomes turned out to be accurate.

[manmanny]

When I read about the story it remind me of this interview. Go to time-frame 4.12 in this clip.
"people don't like rules". And Mods its not words.

http://www.ctv.ca/ColbertReport.aspx#clip727732

CTV:The Colbert Report (Ep. 8126) July 24, 2012 Clip 3 of 4

http://s13.postimage.org/b759ecdn7/china1.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/b759ecdn7/)

[webdoctors]

I don't know the exact details of the case, but if the old addition was torn down and the new one was made to the exact size of the old one, would a permit really be needed? I guess probably to ensure its up to code.

I wonder if the new addition had been the same size as the old one if it would still have garnered this much attention since the permits probably would've been given since the old addition was grandfathered in.

About 30-40 years ago my parents added a whole new floor to their house in downtown Toronto. It went from being a 2 story house to a 3 story one! But I guess the rules weren't that strict in the 70s/80s (or maybe everyone was strung out on LSD). Definitely any major contractor would get permits, but I imagine if the job is small enough that you're doing it yourself (i.e. replacing a window frame, etc.) it probably doesn't need a permit.

I can see both sides of the coin, but an addition is pretty significant retrofitting, that obviously should get a permit. It changes the structural integrity of the house, square footage, taxable size, occupancy level, etc. Its also unfair to the folks that follow the rules, get permits and make sure their building is up to code. I imagine if the new structure was the same size as the old one, it would just need to be inspected by the inspector to make sure its up to code and fire safety standards and than a permit would've been given.

[manmanny]

I don't know the exact details of the case, but if the old addition was torn down and the new one was made to the exact size of the old one, would a permit really be needed? I guess probably to ensure its up to code.

I wonder if the new addition had been the same size as the old one if it would still have garnered this much attention since the permits probably would've been given since the old addition was grandfathered in.

About 30-40 years ago my parents added a whole new floor to their house in downtown Toronto. It went from being a 2 story house to a 3 story one! But I guess the rules weren't that strict in the 70s/80s (or maybe everyone was strung out on LSD). Definitely any major contractor would get permits, but I imagine if the job is small enough that you're doing it yourself (i.e. replacing a window frame, etc.) it probably doesn't need a permit.

I can see both sides of the coin, but an addition is pretty significant retrofitting, that obviously should get a permit. It changes the structural integrity of the house, square footage, taxable size, occupancy level, etc. Its also unfair to the folks that follow the rules, get permits and make sure their building is up to code. I imagine if the new structure was the same size as the old one, it would just need to be inspected by the inspector to make sure its up to code and fire safety standards and than a permit would've been given.

I hear you and agree with few ones.

[Manatus]

Given the daughter's penchant for not letting things go... I imagine there's going to be lots of appealing, lots more attempts at media coverage, and probably some retaliatory complaints against the neighbours who wanted it torn down. After all this, I wouldn't want to live there anymore even if I "won". I definitely wouldn't be one of the elderly people in the middle of this, hopefully they won't ever have to count on a neighbour's assistance because they probably won't be getting any.

[jacobe]

They sound like wealthy people since houses in that area cost so dang much.

It's too bad that the lawyer daughter didn't know any better. They should have played by the rules.

[Varos]

I bet the couple "diagnosed with depression" is also collecting disability pay - courtesy of the tax payer

[Simaahoy]

They're weatlhy if they spent 200K and years on this...

[BananaHunter]

I have to side with the law on this one. People can't be building ADDITIONS without permit. If you renovate or do whatever inside your house, that's fine. This has nothing to do with rights and all this "can't sleep" aspect is pretty much irrelevant. Picture how ridiculous it'd be if everyone can build additions that are in breach of city regulations and then cite "human" reasons to not demolish it. Most building regulations exist with good reason.

[Engi-Nir]

If the government doesn't give me a million dollars, i am going to suicide

[flyinggonzo]

No sympathy about having to tear down their house. This case is about as cut and dry as you can get.

My sympathies extend to the parents only because their Harvard educated daughter - who they most likely spent a good chunk of their retirement savings on her education - is dumb as a door knob.

[arclite]

How many appeals are typically allowed? Surely the city will eventually tell them off and disallow any more appeals.

[flyinggonzo]

I just read in an article today that their appeals have cost the city $500k to process, and that the father was a former realtor. How can a former realtor not understand the value of a home inspection, or that you need a permit to construct? This is ridiculous - the city should be putting a lien against the house to recover our legal bills.

[diggler649]

They should sell it to an unsuspecting new immigrant. Welcome to Canada mofos...

[gizmo8]

How many appeals are typically allowed? Surely the city will eventually tell them off and disallow any more appeals.

there is some one on our street he appealed 9 times to the COA and OMB and is still dragging it through the process..been almost 4 years........

[whampoa]

It says in the article that they hired a well known lawyer to try to save it. That didn't work so sorry, they tried to game the system and it didn't work.

The daughter specifically believed from the advice of their lawyer, and the family specifically followed course that they thought they could game the system, that a violation was like a parking ticket and they would get away with it with a fine. But sorry, this isn't like some countries where you can bribe your way through.

They didn't get away with it because they bribe the wrong people, the court system.

They should go straight to the top at city hall and bribe the councillors.

Developers and contractors do it all the time.

How in the world can you get away building sky high condo, with free falling windows in the middle of the city, without any parking space?

[elmst200]

Battle with Brunswick Ave. family cost city about $500,000, councillor says
Published on Thursday July 26, 2012

http://i.thestar.com/images/d9/d1/c9d96e534c2d8c70d364cdd733ce.jpg
CARLOS OSORIO/TORONTO STAR An $80,000 addition built onto the Tseng family home without a permit and in contravention of other rules has been the focus of a drawn-out legal battle that a councillor revealed has cost the city about $500,000.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/1232483--battle-with-brunswick-ave-family-cost-city-about-500-000-councillor-says
Daniel Dale
Urban Affairs Reporter

Councillor Adam Vaughan says the city has been forced to spend about $500,000 battling with a Brunswick Ave. family that fought unsuccessfully for six years to get belated approval for an $80,000 home addition built without a permit.

The addition was rejected Wednesday by the committee of adjustment, for the second time. The Tsengs now have five months to demolish the addition unless they file another appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board.

The Tsengs’ chances appear slim: the OMB rejected their first appeal in 2008. If they lose again, they can again try to appeal to the courts, but they lost there the first time as well. They have also made a plea to the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

The family has spent at least $250,000. Councillor Adam Vaughan, who opposes the addition, said city officials told him Thursday that the process has cost taxpayers about twice that. Officials could not be reached for comment.

Retired realtor Shih Tseng, 76, who said he has had two strokes, lives in the home with his wife Yang Tseng, a 70-year-old with serious mobility problems who also suffers from mental illness. The property is owned by their daughter Pauline Tseng, a lawyer who does not want her parents to have to move.

Shih Tseng said he is not yet sure if they will return to the OMB. He said he no longer has faith that the system will be “fair.”

“Nobody can help. This is only a joke. The meeting, the hearing yesterday, is a joke,” he said.

Vaughan had thought Wednesday’s hearing was the Tsengs’ last hope. But a January court judgment gives them the right to go back to the OMB and then to seek leave to appeal to the courts.

“If there was even one judgment that had gone against the city, you might be able to justify pursuing this course of action,” Vaughan said. “But the fact that every single tribunal, every single court of law, has supported the city’s position on this — I think it’s fairly clear where the law stands. So it’s time to resolve this.”

[jp06]

^ So not only is the daughter a dumbass lawyer, the father was a realtor so he should have known about the permit issue. LMAO, this has dragged on long enough. Nobody is forcing them to move. They just need to demolish the illegally built portion of the house. Stupid pricks dragging it on with baseless arguments.

I wonder if they know how embarrassing they are making themselves look. Pure stupidity. They're basically saying that if they lose the fight then it was an "unfair" and "unjust" decision.

Seriously, whoever here is a relative of the Tseng family, please tell them to STFU and stop wasting the court's time. There are other people with more serious issues and more deserving of a hearing.

[manmanny]

^ So not only is the daughter a dumbass lawyer, the father was a realtor so he should have known about the permit issue. LMAO, this has dragged on long enough. Nobody is forcing them to move. They just need to demolish the illegally built portion of the house. Stupid pricks dragging it on with baseless arguments.

I wonder if they know how embarrassing they are making themselves look. Pure stupidity. They're basically saying that if they lose the fight then it was an "unfair" and "unjust" decision.

Seriously, whoever here is a relative of the Tseng family, please tell them to STFU and stop wasting the court's time. There are other people with more serious issues and more deserving of a hearing.

And it is costing city almost $500,000 correct?
Tax payers should get back this money because the daughter and Parents tried to fight it all the way to UN.

[_Allan_]

Enough is enough! A full addition for $80,000 would be built with the cheapest materials and labour. Time for this to end. Toronto should appropriate the property, and sell it - with a demolish or fix it clause - to recoup the legal costs.
Better yet, turn it into a TCHC property, after the addition is removed.

[diggler649]

Enough is enough! A full addition for $80,000 would be built with the cheapest materials and labour. Time for this to end. Toronto should appropriate the property, and sell it - with a demolish or fix it clause - to recoup the legal costs.
Better yet, turn it into a TCHC property, after the addition is removed.

I agree. The addition is probably built out of Chinese newspapers, Haw flakes and durian rinds.

[manmanny]

Shih Tseng said he is not yet sure if they will return to the OMB. He said he no longer has faith that the system will be “fair.”

“Nobody can help. This is only a joke. The meeting, the hearing yesterday, is a joke,” he said.

Vaughan had thought Wednesday’s hearing was the Tsengs’ last hope. But a January court judgment gives them the right to go back to the OMB and then to seek leave to appeal to the courts.

“If there was even one judgment that had gone against the city, you might be able to justify pursuing this course of action,” Vaughan said. “But the fact that every single tribunal, every single court of law, has supported the city’s position on this — I think it’s fairly clear where the law stands. So it’s time to resolve this.”

http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/277003_160723207280093_1334280_n.jpg

[vero95]

Battle with Brunswick Ave. family cost city about $500,000, councillor says
Published on Thursday July 26, 2012

http://i.thestar.com/images/d9/d1/c9d96e534c2d8c70d364cdd733ce.jpg
CARLOS OSORIO/TORONTO STAR An $80,000 addition built onto the Tseng family home without a permit and in contravention of other rules has been the focus of a drawn-out legal battle that a councillor revealed has cost the city about $500,000.



wher eis that addition?
is it the front side? it looks nice and maintains the character of the building

[boblobob]

wher eis that addition?
is it the front side? it looks nice and maintains the character of the building

picture two and three in this article (http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/987718--elderly-couple-living-in-fear-over-court-order-to-demolish-home-addition), vero

also, in post #2 (http://forums.redflagdeals.com/illegal-80k-addition-costs-taxpayers-500k-family-paid-200k-legal-fees-6-years-1207102/#post15095362)

[vero95]

picture two and three in this article (http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/987718--elderly-couple-living-in-fear-over-court-order-to-demolish-home-addition), vero

also, in post #2 (http://forums.redflagdeals.com/illegal-80k-addition-costs-taxpayers-500k-family-paid-200k-legal-fees-6-years-1207102/#post15095362)

thanks
eew, looks ugly. is that a semi? the neighbour must be pissed off as well. it blocks lots of light

[boblobob]

these omb proceedings make for interesting reading

http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/e-decisions/pl071170-dec-10-2008.pdf

[Faemow]

these omb proceedings make for interesting reading

http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/e-decisions/pl071170-dec-10-2008.pdf

Who's Peter and Vanessa Tseng? I'm with the majority with everybody, but I rather not repeat what people have said about broken laws etc. The addition looks large enough to fit another four non-taxpaying families :facepalm:. Obviously, this family is in it for the money, otherwise they would of moved to a condo with elevators and wheelchair ramps etc. OR an old aged home like Yee Hong bc they have the money. The daughter is the puppeteer trying to gain sympathy from the likes of us to put her frail parents as the front cover. She's an idiot and she took advantage of her withered parents. "F their health! They're dead to me, I want to win this battle so I gain" (ok, i exaggerate, but I'm pissed off as the rest of you are).

Anyways, if they kept within the existing footprint then they would have less of a headaches and BS something like "the existing building was falling apart, so we renovated it". But building right to the lot lines is a MAJOR nono. If the house catches fire, there is no room for firefighters to set ladders up or move to the back, AND since fire spreads, both adjacent neighboring houses will catch fire too, THAT is why the city sets limiting distances.

To answer a prior reply, there are city inspectors but there is only one person for a large district, and even he cannot catch everything....they must of moved all the materials at night, so no trucks were visible from the front.

[Sea]

Peter and Vanessa are probably the other two children who bought the house for the parents, as mentioned in the article in the OP.

[stealth]

They're weatlhy if they spent 200K and years on this...



Based on everything Ive read about the daughter, shes probably just counting her own time as billable hours and inflating them. Im still confused as to who the rightful owner of the house is, some say the parents, some say the daughter.
everything about this family (or maybe its just the daughter manipulating them) is dodgy. greed seems to play into this a lot.

[manmanny]

Based on everything Ive read about the daughter, shes probably just counting her own time as billable hours and inflating them. Im still confused as to who the rightful owner of the house is, some say the parents, some say the daughter.
everything about this family (or maybe its just the daughter manipulating them) is dodgy. greed seems to play into this a lot.

looks like it. At least I have no doubt about it.

As said two posts above.

IN THE MATTER OF subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Peter & Vanessa Tseng
Subject: Minor Variance
Variance from By-law No.: 438-86
Property Address/Description: 38 Brunswick Avenue
Municipality: Toronto
OMB Case No.: PL071170
OMB File No.: PL071170
Municipal No. A0153/07TEY
A P P E A R A N C E S :
Parties Counsel*/Agent
Peter and Vanessa Tseng P. Tseng
City of Toronto T. Stroedel* R. Kallio*

[manixc]

picture two and three in this article (http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/987718--elderly-couple-living-in-fear-over-court-order-to-demolish-home-addition), vero

also, in post #2 (http://forums.redflagdeals.com/illegal-80k-addition-costs-taxpayers-500k-family-paid-200k-legal-fees-6-years-1207102/#post15095362)

Wow I was thinking it was some garden shed or something. They built that and not get a permit? Tough luck

They should pay back some of the $500000 too

[BluePhirePB]

Haha maybe they'll go to those Fa Lun guys for help.

[jp06]

I remember this story from last year. These Pieces of S**T claimed to be "living in fear" and overexaggerated something that was their fault. So basically they are living in that illegally built portion while the rest of the house is probably rented out. Those homes are capable of having like 10-12 rooms over like 4 floors, rented to immigrants for like $400/room. These are tiny rooms the size of a jail cell. It would be funny to see them get booted out of their own home when that back part gets torn down. The city should just come and tear it down, then bill the Tsengs for the demolition and removal of the scrap.

[gizmo8]

again everyone is assuming the same thing that these elderly owners were greedy homeowners..first the builder disappeared after they city found out,the contracts they wrote specify "permits provided"...yes they should have made sure the builder was bonded and the permits was submitted and approved.No doubt the addition has to be modify to current codes or torn down but posters here are some times dic*s thinking the worst of people saying they deserved it...either way they lost the last meeting and the addition has to go.....you think the next door rooming house with the all concrete backyard is more appealing than a addition that actually look good?...

[jp06]

again everyone is assuming the same thing that these elderly owners were greedy homeowners..first the builder disappeared after they city found out,the contracts they wrote specify "permits provided"...yes they should have made sure the builder was bonded and the permits was submitted and approved.No doubt the addition has to be modify to current codes or torn down but posters here are some times dic*s thinking the worst of people saying they deserved it...either way they lost the last meeting and the addition has to go.....you think the next door rooming house with the all concrete backyard is more appealing than a addition that actually look good?...

Honestly, I don't give a rats ***** if their story about a mysterious builder disappearing was true or not. That's probably another one of their "made up" excuses in their 6-year fight. I think they're running out of excuses and ideas that they resorted to blackmailing the city with suicide. Really? 76 and 70 year olds threatening suicide? THAT IS PATHETIC. In the end, the city is not at any fault here so why the F should they make an exception? Otherwise, everyone else will start using that "building disappearing" excuse if caught with illegal modifications without a permit.

[bullionaire]

Well the cockroches cost the city half a million for this non-sense and I bet that's more than what they have paid in property taxes to the city.


Shih Tseng said he is not yet sure if they will return to the OMB. He said he no longer has faith that the system will be “fair.”

“Nobody can help. This is only a joke. The meeting, the hearing yesterday, is a joke,” he said.

This joker is upset because he can't pay off city officials like they do in China.

[Heero01]

lol just another story of a rich chinese family trying to bribe the system.

Their daughter is a rich lawye rmaking atleast 6 figure income. Why not go after her for the cities court costs?

[rageking]

Waht I find funny is that the lawyer lady specialises in conflict resolution - yet the first thing she does is attack an OMB member when flashing her Harvard credentials and her years working in NY doesnt quite do the trick. Then she further damages her reputation by walking away from the meeting despite being warned of the consequences. To make herself look even worse, the family or herself, hires a local lawyer thus inferring that she doesnt have what it takes to obtain a successful verdict favorable to her family.

[RolandCouch]

Glad to see people are not supporting them. They could have avoided this by following the laws in place.

[boblobob]

committee of adjustment agenda for 38 brunswick

http://www.toronto.ca/planning/pdf/cofa_tey_agenda_25jul12.pdf

[boblobob]

the nru coverage of the coa hearing

http://www.nrupublishing.com/files/Law%20Reviews/081219NRTLR.pdf

[Simaahoy]

losers

[freeloader1969]

I guess this family never saw an episode of Holmes on Homes. Always get permits. I have no sympathy for their bad decisions and poor legal advice.

[mjl_toronto]

Looks like the family doesn't know when to stop. They're back at the OMB.
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/cityhallpolitics/article/1244179--brunswick-ave-family-appeals-again-to-omb-to-save-home-addition

[manixc]

Wow, the city should sue them for legal fee?
The article state the city used $500,000 to defend this.

[Toukolou]

This is one time I have to side with that putz Vaughan. I hope these deadbeats (especially the daughter) are on the hook for the city's legal fees. The new addition is 10m deeper? Wtf, that's 30ft! Were they hoping no one would notice?

[deltone]

I hate having to get a permit to do work around MY house that I pay taxes for. I don't know anyone who likes getting a permit but guess what? It's what you do. We did a reno to our garage 2 or 3 years back and we had a permit. Lucky for us because our neighbour across the street called to town to complain about our reno but joke was on them. We had a permit!! Anyhow, point is, you have to have a permit. PERIOD

Do I feel sorry for them? No, not at all. My mom is 80 and she's smart enough to know that you need a permit. Getting old doesn't mean you get stupid. Also, the daughter is a lawyer and if she didn't know that they needed a permit, she should sue her university for not teaching her the basics and then she should sue her parents for raising a dummy. I MIGHT have felt a wee bit sorry for the parents IF they hadn't brought the old "discrimination" card into the game. They lost me right there. I get so sick and tired of hearing that same old claim. I'm sure that's why they hired Clayton Ruby as it's his favourite mantra.

Follow the rules and USUALLY it will work out for you. Don't follow the rules and this is what happens. You don't have to like the rules but you might just as well follow them. It's just the way it is.

[rommelrommel]

"noting that daughter Pauline Tseng is a lawyer and that Shih Tseng himself is a retired realtor"

"Shih Tseng said they have also made a plea to the United Nations Human Rights Committee. "

"Said Tseng: “We cannot sleep, we cannot eat. We only drink water. It’s terrible. We are so frightened.”

What a bunch of clowns. I hope the city gets costs out of them and that they're barred from bringing this before the courts again.





Edit:

"The addition is about the same size as a rotting old addition the Tsengs tore down."

That is completely untrue. It's the same width and height, but it is three to four times as deep, hence 3-4 times the square footage and cubic volume. And while appearances can be decieving the part that they tore down did not look to be rotting or dilapetated.





And reading the proceedings gives me even less sympathy for these idiots. They make a string of ridiculous arguments that have no merit, and even if they had merit have nothing to do with the actual situation.

[wilsonlam97]

"noting that daughter Pauline Tseng is a lawyer and that Shih Tseng himself is a retired realtor"

"Shih Tseng said they have also made a plea to the United Nations Human Rights Committee. "

"Said Tseng: “We cannot sleep, we cannot eat. We only drink water. It’s terrible. We are so frightened.”

What a bunch of clowns. I hope the city gets costs out of them and that they're barred from bringing this before the courts again.

The irony of this family's professions.

[coolspot]

The irony of this family's professions.

So what the family is saying is that Pauline and Shih are both incompetent at their professions. Wow.


These people really don't know when to quit.

[Concrete5]

"The addition is about the same size as a rotting old addition the Tsengs tore down."

That is completely untrue. It's the same width and height, but it is three to four times as deep, hence 3-4 times the square footage and cubic volume. And while appearances can be decieving the part that they tore down did not look to be rotting or dilapetated.

Yeah, by looking at the pictures you can clearly see the addition goes deeper into their lot...very large! If they would have repaired & put new siding on their addition rather than tore it down completely, they probably could have gotten away without a building permit (but would have still needed one for electrical and what not)...

I find it odd how so many people think they don't need permits when doing work, or worse yet, think they don't have to meet minimum code requirement.

[rommelrommel]

I'm curious as to why in such a large house that this would be the make it/break it room for the old lady to be able to live there, wonder if much of it is rented out as has been speculated.

[elmst200]

I think the family will keep fighting. What a strong-minded family they are.

How could the city/law enforcement do if the family exhaustes all leagal means but refuses to tear down the illegal addition? I don't think the city/law enforcement would (forcefully) drag them out the house, demolish the addition and then request cost be reimbursed.

Brunswick Ave. family appeals again to OMB to save home addition
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/cityhallpolitics/article/1244179--brunswick-ave-family-appeals-again-to-omb-to-save-home-addition
Daniel Dale
Urban Affairs Reporter

The family that has fought for six years to prevent the demolition of an illegal backyard home addition has filed another appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board, which rejected the first appeal in 2008.

“We don’t hurt anybody. The neighbours, the city, speak out like we are very bad person. We are not bad person. We just want our addition allowed. We don’t have anywhere to go,” Shih Tseng said Monday.

Shih Tseng, 76, lives in the Brunswick Ave. house with his disabled wife, Yang Tseng, 70. Yang Tseng suffers from serious mobility problems, depression and anxiety, and a Parkinson’s-like brain disorder. Shih Tseng says they need the addition to allow Yang Tseng to live comfortably on one floor.

The Tsengs built the two-storey, $80,000 addition without permits in 2006. Their attempts to get it retroactively legalized have been dismissed by the city’s committee of adjustment, the OMB, and the courts.

Shih Tseng maintains the family did not know in 2006 that permits were necessary. Neighbourhood opponents are dubious, noting that daughter Pauline Tseng is a lawyer and that Shih Tseng himself is a retired realtor.

Shih Tseng says the family has spent about $300,000 on the legal battle. Councillor Adam Vaughan says city officials have told him the battle has cost the city about $500,000.

Pauline Tseng, who has been heavily involved in the legal proceedings, now owns the property. The new appeal was filed under her name.

City lawyers will attend the OMB hearing to oppose the new appeal because the previous council decided to have city lawyers oppose the original appeal, spokesperson Ellen Leesti said.

“This second appeal is in substance the same as the first appeal,” Leesti said.

Vaughan and Rory “Gus” Sinclair, former president of the Harbord Village Residents’ Association, have urged the Tsengs to give up their fight.

“The Tsengs will do what they will do — extraordinary as they may be for pursuing this yet again when they have lost at every turn already,” Sinclair said in a text message. “What I am unhappy with today is a process that has denied them at every stage and yet those proceedings are not just ‘un-final,’ all the work and all the time spent by lawyers, volunteers and tribunals is null.”

The addition is about the same size as a rotting old addition the Tsengs tore down. But it runs 10 metres deeper into the backyard than allowed under current bylaws, and the city says it blocks sunlight and views from adjacent properties.

At a committee of adjustment meeting in July, lawyer Clayton Ruby argued that requiring the Tsengs to demolish the addition would amount to discrimination against the disabled. He suggested that Yang Tseng might be at risk of committing suicide if she were forced to move.

The committee was unswayed by Ruby’s human rights arguments. But the Tsengs’ lawyers plan to raise them anew at the OMB, Ruby’s colleague Gerald Chan said Monday.

The Tsengs appealed to the courts after the OMB rejected their original appeal. They were unsuccessful, but a judge allowed them to try their luck once more at the committee.

Vaughan and Sinclair believed the committee meeting was the Tsengs’ last hope. The judge actually gave them the right to make a second appeal to the OMB.

If the OMB denies this appeal, the Tsengs can then ask the courts to hear a final appeal. Shih Tseng said they have also made a plea to the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

Said Tseng: “We cannot sleep, we cannot eat. We only drink water. It’s terrible. We are so frightened.”

Said Sinclair: “We will continue to oppose and look forward to another five years of this if that is what it takes.”

http://i.thestar.com/images/6c/88/e56a91274312bbebb4c79e4414a9.jpg
The Brunswick Ave. home features an addition that extends much farther into the backyard than city bylaws allow. CARLOS OSORIO/TORONTO STAR

http://i.thestar.com/images/48/1f/049d4a3e44bb9714af1fd27f0b7b.jpg
Shih Tseng, far left, and his wife Yang Tseng, in the foreground, leave a hearing with family members after losing yet another round of their battle to save an addition to their house built without proper permits and in violation of current bylaws. CARLOS OSORIO/TORONTO STAR


Looks like the family doesn't know when to stop. They're back at the OMB.
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/cityhallpolitics/article/1244179--brunswick-ave-family-appeals-again-to-omb-to-save-home-addition

[elmst200]

the Star article mentioned the family live in one storey of the house.


I'm curious as to why in such a large house that this would be the make it/break it room for the old lady to be able to live there, wonder if much of it is rented out as has been speculated.

[BluePhirePB]

the Star article mentioned the family live in one storey of the house.So is the rest rented to tenants then?

[elmst200]

the Star article didn't mention whether or not the other floors were rented out. It did mention that the family live "comfortably" on one floor.


Shih Tseng says they need the addition to allow Yang Tseng to live comfortably on one floor.


So is the rest rented to tenants then?

[manmanny]

There is something wrong with these people. If I was with that US lawyer firm I will advise the owners to fire this daughter/lawyer.



At a committee of adjustment meeting in July, lawyer Clayton Ruby argued that requiring the Tsengs to demolish the addition would amount to discrimination against the disabled. He suggested that Yang Tseng might be at risk of committing suicide if she were forced to move.

Wow.

[ShopperfiendTO]

What's being appealed here (the grounds of appeal)? The OMB already decided the case. No new arguments/facts, why need to re-hear them?

What's with the appeal to the UN Human Rights commission. Lot of work they're doing for the people in Syria right now [/sarcasm], who *actually* have human rights issues.

I wish the city lawyers will do a thorough line-by-line reading and counter-thrashing of their stupid arguments. So the mother has to move because of the removal of the addition? Because she can't live somewhere else in the same house?

Perhaps there should be a special exemption so that their immediate neighbours are simiilarly exempted and are given permission to build right up to the property edge to this family's property. That would be "fair", which is what the dad is looking for after all.

You can bet that if something happens, say the addition comes crashing down and perhaps injuring/killing people, that they will sue the city for not obeying its by-laws. OMFG. I hate these stories and hate papers that push the heart-strings drama aspects. You gambled, you lost, pay up.

[peanutz]

the Star article didn't mention whether or not the other floors were rented out. It did mention that the family live "comfortably" on one floor.
I thought I remembered one of the articles mentioning how the tenants were now being kicked out by the city as well.

Which confirms, yes, they do (did?) have tenants.

[rommelrommel]

I think the family will keep fighting. What a strong-minded family they are.

How could the city/law enforcement do if the family exhaustes all leagal means but refuses to tear down the illegal addition? I don't think the city/law enforcement would (forcefully) drag them out the house, demolish the addition and then request cost be reimbursed.



You might be surprised then. The city has a legal duty to resolve this and they have a variety of means at hand to do so, even if it just means levying fines until they can take the house.


the Star article didn't mention whether or not the other floors were rented out. It did mention that the family live "comfortably" on one floor.

Not quite, they said they needed it so the disabled mother could live on one floor, presumably to avoid stairs. Even the one floor if it was only for the famliy would be a lot more square footage than a lot of families live in.

[RolandCouch]

"Said Tseng: “We cannot sleep, we cannot eat. We only drink water. It’s terrible. We are so frightened.”


Pahhhhlease

I'm calling ***** here. If I'm wrong, they won't live long enough to fight this. They are saying they aren't eating too? Sure...we all believe you.

Also, saying "I didn't know" is not an excuse.

[wilsonlam97]

Pahhhhlease

I'm calling ***** here. If I'm wrong, they won't live long enough to fight this. They are saying they aren't eating too? Sure...we all believe you.

Also, saying "I didn't know" is not an excuse.

It's a cry for help that's for sure. The city will most likely allow the demolition to happen. Tough times.

[RolandCouch]

It's a cry for help that's for sure. The city will most likely allow the demolition to happen. Tough times.

Good.

Hope the family is on the hook for the legal bills too for the attempts to abuse (not follow) the system.

Rules are in place for a reason.

[divx]

is this thing over yet? what's the conclusion?

[happy4uall]

"lawyer Clayton Ruby argued that requiring the Tsengs to demolish the addition would amount to discrimination against the disabled"

Nothing to do with discrimination...just didn't get a legal building permit (getting caught, now trying to save face--not a good reason to abuse the law, elderly but juvenile clamour until get others to give them what they want)
Invalid reason--why did she need a 2 storey addition in the first place if she is disabled?!. Much larger house than an elderly couple can live and take care of, unless the original plan was to become an income property. Why didn't lawyer daughter or realtor dad know the law of obtaining building permit, in the first place? Obviously, they know the legal system to obtain one of the best lawyers in the country, Clayton Ruby?

[arclite]

Hopefully the city doesn't just give them an exemption to shut them up and save legal costs.

[googoo]

Gotta love the faith the parents have in their Daughter....they hire CLayton RUby:)

At this point the City won't back down, too much invested + the fact this would set a bad precedent.

What's even worse is they could have moved just North of the City and bought a nice bungalow.

I REALLY hope they lose and the City takes the house:) after months of them not paying the fines sure to levied against them.

[elmst200]

Any new development of this story? Has the family addition been demolished? Are there any new lawsuits the family filed against the city? Are there any United Nation ruling on this issue? Has the lawyer daughter been fired from her work for her lack of fundamental knowledge of laws? How is the elderly woman who have depression doing?

[elmst200]

I haven't heard any new development about this story.. I think the addition is still standing there. If the case drags on and on, the family is actually winning the game.

[licenced]

It was once more returned to the OMB. The hearing began Feb. 4th and is still open.

I've been following this case since the beginning - the quote provided by post#53's poster is from one of the pieces I wrote on the story, on my blog.

I haven't heard any new development about this story.. I think the addition is still standing there. If the case drags on and on, the family is actually winning the game.

[jp06]

I haven't heard any new development about this story.. I think the addition is still standing there. If the case drags on and on, the family is actually winning the game.

They built it based on stupidity and disregard of the law (avoiding registering a building permit) and they'll just keep manipulating the court system for as long as possible. I hate pricks like them who are persistent and will exhaust every fking option at the cost of taxpayer's money. I seriously hope the judge slaps them with a fine to recuperate all costs incurred because of their BS appeals.

[LostInTruth]

They built it based on stupidity and disregard of the law (avoiding registering a building permit) and they'll just keep manipulating the court system for as long as possible. I hate pricks like them who are persistent and will exhaust every fking option at the cost of taxpayer's money. I seriously hope the judge slaps them with a fine to recuperate all costs incurred because of their BS appeals.

+1

[UrbanPoet]

It was once more returned to the OMB. The hearing began Feb. 4th and is still open.
I've been following this case since the beginning - the quote provided by post#53's poster is from one of the pieces I wrote on the story, on my blog.

They built it based on stupidity and disregard of the law (avoiding registering a building permit) and they'll just keep manipulating the court system for as long as possible. I hate pricks like them who are persistent and will exhaust every fking option at the cost of taxpayer's money. I seriously hope the judge slaps them with a fine to recuperate all costs incurred because of their BS appeals.


I assume that based on everything thats happened... e.g. Them building it without a permit, trying to fly under the radar, trying to build it bigger then zoning by-laws allowed etc..
Its very unlikely they'd win this case.

What do you think is the reason they're doing this? DO they actually think they can win? Or are they just trying to drag this on hoping that they'll somehow keep the building? To save face? To F.U. the city for making them tear it down by making them waste court time and $$$?

[zerokarma]

Once this addition is finally torn down and it will be, the city should seriously attempt to recover all costs they have incurred fighting them, put the legal bill on their property tax bill, if they don't pay it then and a bailiff and repo it.

[licenced]

Hard to say what their motivation is at this point but I’m leaning toward a combination of saving face and recovering costs.

I can wholeheartedly understand the validity behind the first two attempts to overturn the city’s order because at that time expenses would have amounted to considerably less than the cost of the addition given that legal expenses were minimized with their daughter representing them. Had they torn down the addition after the last appeal they would have spent $300k in defense fees to save the $80k addition which in total is more than 50% of the property’s purchase price. So I wouldn’t doubt it’s now primarily their great hope to recover some or all of those costs. If they irrevocably fail this time their costs could be about 70% of the original purchase price and up to three times that if the city is awarded costs.


I assume that based on everything thats happened... e.g. Them building it without a permit, trying to fly under the radar, trying to build it bigger then zoning by-laws allowed etc..
Its very unlikely they'd win this case.

What do you think is the reason they're doing this? DO they actually think they can win? Or are they just trying to drag this on hoping that they'll somehow keep the building? To save face? To F.U. the city for making them tear it down by making them waste court time and $$$?

[gizmo8]

there is a ugly illegal addition on our street,the rich owners been fighting this for almost 5 years,hes going to the COA and OMB,hes cancelling meetings,hes not showing up,his lawyer is using all the tricks to delay taking down the addition.

[RolandCouch]

Once this addition is finally torn down and it will be, the city should seriously attempt to recover all costs they have incurred fighting them, put the legal bill on their property tax bill, if they don't pay it then and a bailiff and repo it.

If you ever run for council you have my vote

[jp06]

all it takes is for someone to just smash their car into their wall and they cannot do **** about it because technically the addition should not have existed there in the first place. That should solve the whole issue... No more addition, and no more court costs incurred.

[hagbard]

Stupid people must have thought they lived in a free country with property rights.

[king_george]

Stupid people must have thought they lived in a free country with property rights.

They do. Those rights are not unlimited though. All thy needed to do was follow the process and rule of law. They chose not to and now face the consequences.

Too *****ing bad for them.

[hagbard]

Either you have rights or you don't. Rights are only limited they the equal rights of others. What the cities are doing is an violation of those basic individual rights.

[rommelrommel]

What freetard movement did you get yourself hooked up with?

[RolandCouch]

Either you have rights or you don't. Rights are only limited they the equal rights of others. What the cities are doing is an violation of those basic individual rights.

I guess you'd be fine if I bought the lot beside you and created a landfill - after all, it's my property my right

[hagbard]

I guess you'd be fine if I bought the lot beside you and created a landfill - after all, it's my property my right

I'd live in an area with restrictive covenants.

[RolandCouch]

I'd live in an area with restrictive covenants.

:facepalm:

[king_george]

I'd live in an area with restrictive covenants.

But those covenants would violate his human rights.

[king_george]

Either you have rights or you don't. Rights are only limited they the equal rights of others. What the cities are doing is an violation of those basic individual rights.

In the real world, nothing is as black and white and simplistic as that. Everyone has the same property rights under the local laws. The cities are preventing irresponsible property owners from turning it into a 3rd world type of city.

Would you want to live in a place where anyone can do anything with their properties? Can you show somewhere where the right to do anything you want with a property is enshrined?

It's actually funny when people play the human rights card in order to violate long standing and perfectly legal statues and bylaws. :lol:

[hagbard]

But those covenants would violate his human rights.

Not at all.

[hagbard]

In the real world, nothing is as black and white and simplistic as that. Everyone has the same property rights under the local laws. The cities are preventing irresponsible property owners from turning it into a 3rd world type of city.

Would you want to live in a place where anyone can do anything with their properties? Can you show somewhere where the right to do anything you want with a property is enshrined?

It's actually funny when people play the human rights card in order to violate long standing and perfectly legal statues and bylaws. :lol:

I don't play the human rights card, I defend individual rights. You have the right to do with your property what you want so long as it doesn't violate the rights of others to the enjoyment of their property.

[king_george]

I don't play the human rights card, I defend individual rights. You have the right to do with your property what you want so long as it doesn't violate the rights of others to the enjoyment of their property.

Nope. You can think what you want. If you live in a community with bylaws you must follow them or face the consequences. Individual rights are meaningless in this context unless the property owner can strike down those bylaws in court. Individual rights do not trump community law unless the courts say so. These losers in the OP have decided they are above the law and are about to get a very large boot up their collective butts.

I was speaking of the owners in the OP playing the human rights card though, not you.

[Shaner]

I don't play the human rights card, I defend individual rights. You have the right to do with your property what you want so long as it doesn't violate the rights of others to the enjoyment of their property.

No, you don't have the rights to do with your property whatever you want. Just because you think that doesn't make it true.

[aviador]

A realtor (father) and a lawyer (daughter) didn't know they needed a valid permit and probably neighbors' consent to build an annex or modify their property? BS! They must be fined and in addition ordered to pay court costs.

[squadz]

If only people cared this much about the other ways our tax money is spent.

[king_george]

No, you don't have the rights to do with your property whatever you want. Just because you think that doesn't make it true.

This case makes me remember a course I had in college where we had to decide between:

A property owner has a very large extended family and needs to add a giant extension. Another homeowner who doesn't have a family doesn't want that in their neighborhood because it will take away his enjoyment of his property. So, assuming that only individual rights are considered, whose right trumps? The homeowner who needs to house his large family or the neighbor who doesn't want him to ruin his property enjoyment? What would the "human rights" advocates say since both parties are invoking their human rights?

It's very similar to the OP here except that we never took local bylaws into consideration. It was an interesting class.

[JAC]

A property owner has a very large extended family and needs to add a giant extension. Another homeowner who doesn't have a family doesn't want that in their neighborhood because it will take away his enjoyment of his property. So, assuming that only individual rights are considered, whose right trumps?

Local bylaws, of course, and the decision of whatever governing body presides over such disputes. Human rights have nothing to do with property laws.

[hagbard]

No, you don't have the rights to do with your property whatever you want. Just because you think that doesn't make it true.

See....I was right about calling the cops when a neighbor makes too much noise.

[BryceS]

In the real world, nothing is as black and white and simplistic as that. Everyone has the same property rights under the local laws. The cities are preventing irresponsible property owners from turning it into a 3rd world type of city.

Would you want to live in a place where anyone can do anything with their properties? Can you show somewhere where the right to do anything you want with a property is enshrined?

It's actually funny when people play the human rights card in order to violate long standing and perfectly legal statues and bylaws. :lol:
I recall that Houston has no property bylaws and you can do whatever you want.

[king_george]

Local bylaws, of course, and the decision of whatever governing body presides over such disputes. Human rights have nothing to do with property laws.

Of course. This was an exercise in thinking though where in that fictitous world, only human rights arguments were to be considered.

The human rights argument is used extensively by the freeman types and the sovereign citizen nutjobs. We were trying to extend the argument to the real world.

[king_george]

I recall that Houston has no property bylaws and you can do whatever you want.

Interesting. Got a cite for that?

[JAC]

Of course. This was an exercise in thinking though where in that fictitous world, only human rights arguments were to be considered.
The human rights argument is used extensively by the freeman types and the sovereign citizen nutjobs. We were trying to extend the argument to the real world.

"Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins." - Zechariah Chafee

[hagbard]

Interesting. Got a cite for that?

They have no zoning laws, I suspect they do have other by-laws.

[random pattern]

"Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins." - Zechariah Chafee

Great quote.

“...your right to swing your arm leaves off where my right not to have my nose struck begins.” John B. Finch