Mayor Chow is complicit in Lawbreaking by posing Safety/Life Risks to the general Public knowingly and wilfully

Question for Mayor Chow’s AMA that she is yet to answer…

“What authorizes the Mayor or the City of Toronto the right to violate multiple safety laws and posing life risks to the general public?“

Mayor Chow condones Law Violation that compromised Safety of the general Public knowingly and wilfully

By E. Tan, Double Victim of Mayor Chow Regime

Cheer for Mayor Chow if you believe in normalizing Law Violation to the extend your loved ones will be victimized with Life Risks…

Mayor Chow Is Posing Safety Risks To Folks Perpetually

Yes. Mayor Chow condones victimization of Toronto residents with Life Risks by facilitating building of Unlawful & Unsafe Safety Hazards.

How so?

Mayor Chow didn’t even bother to response, never ever… zero, zip, zilch, nada, despite numerous appeals for her help to stop the City of Toronto from posing Safety Risks to the general public openly, repeatedly, and lawlessly.

Self-explanatory correspondences between a resident and Mayor Chow below refers:-

=====================

An Appeal Letter was sent to Mayor Chow after her Committee of Adjustment Director Kyle Knoeck COULDN’T answer even a question as simple as:

“What authorizes him or the City of Toronto the right to violate multiple safety laws and posing life risks to the general public?“

---

Date: Tue, Apr 16, 2024
To: Mayor Chow and her ilk
Subject: Outstanding Public Safety Concerns — 33 Randolph Road & 15 Rutherglen Road

Dear Mayor Chow,

I am compelled to seek help from you as my family is being VICTIMIZED by the City with Safety Risks for the Second Time!

After failing to answer the Ombudsmen on the Public Safety Risks posed by an unlawful garage at 15 Rutherglen Road in 2017, the process was disrupted by Toronto Police with frivolous charges and the unlawful garage remains an unfinished derelict (see below). And after years of unspeakable suffering and before I could even restart a normal life, the Committee of Adjustment again approved an egregious project last week to erect a 2-Storey Garden Suite next to my FRONT YARD (with literally NO setback on all directions) at 33 Randolph Road (File Number: A0079/24NY), which is also in violation of dozens of Public Safety rules and regulations (just like 15 Rutherglen Road below)!

Mayor Chow allowed Illegal Hazards to be erected right next to my front yard on BOTH Left and Right!

Illegal Unsafe Garage constructed using an Unlawful CARPORT PERMIT right on the border and about 10ft or so in front of my house on the right side (a Fire Hazard by definition under Building Code)…

And followed by an Unlawful Garden Suite just about 10ft or so in front of my house on the left side… And can you believe it, the City Planner actually acknowledged this building is UNLAWFUL!

Huge opposition to the application of 33 Randolph Road was conveyed to the Committee with 20 letters and 25 petition signatures, as well as a letter from Councilor Jaye Robinson and the Leaside Residents Association ie. the biggest objection ever in the neighbourhood. Yet residents who attended the hearing in person weren’t given enough time to present their argument, and weren’t even allowed to ask any question before/after the decision was announced.  Instead, we were being yelled at by the Chair that: “We’re the Committee! We’re the Decision” with no explanation as to why our request to improve the design (in light of the public safety risks) was not considered, which is in fact a condition for approving Minor Variances:-

Planning Act, RSO 1990, c P.13

PART I

PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION

Provincial interest

1. The Minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board and the Tribunal, in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest such as,

(o) the protection of public health and safety;

(r) the promotion of built form that,

NB: (2.(r)(i)(ii)(iii)) —  The proposed build is basically “2 stacked Cargo Containers” that’s posing Fire/Sighlight Obstruction Risks to the contrary of the “Leaside Character Preservation Guidelines” developed by the City.

That said, we respectfully appeal to the Mayor to do the right thing ie. the City is obligated to ensure No Posing of Safety Risks to the general public (§ 219 & 220), as well as to ensure the house is built in accordance to the Planning Act (2.(o)(r)) above .

“Two wrongs don’t make one right”

And this notification shall also serve as a cordial reminder to the relevant departments of the municipality who are obligated to ensure public safety.

Please find details of the objection here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w4hALm9ge5yD38_u-uikxwQ8wkM6mvKR/view?usp=sharing, including the public safety risks of File Number: A0079/24NY Property Address: 33 Randolph Road, whereby case of 15 Rutherglen Road remains unresolved till this day.

Many thanks in advance.

Respectfully,

E. Tan

---

NB: The Appeal Letter above was written as a result of failure to answer (“What EXEMPTED the City of Toronto from complying with the Safety related rules and regulations?“) by every single relevant officials of the City Administration including Paul Johnson (City Manager), Kamal Gogna (Chief Building Official), Kerri Voumvakis (Chief Planner), Barbara Gray (Transportation Services), Carleton Grant (Municipal Standard & Licensing), Kyle Knoeck (Committee of Adjustment), Wendy Walberg (Chief Solicitor), Councillor Jaye Robinson, etc.

---

Brief details appended below for your perusal:-

Leaside Residents Victimized with Life Risks by the City Of Toronto

The neighbourhood is being VICTIMIZED by the City with Safety Risks for the Second Time!

Public Safety/Life Risks

Safety Hazards Posing Life Risks to the General Public involving 2 corner lots,

1. 15 Rutherglen Road
2. 33 Randolph Road

• Unsafe Buildings right next to my front yard (left and right side).
• (Right) Garage 2013 — Remain Unlawful till this day, (Left) House + Garden Suite — just approved
• Both properties posing the same life risks ie. Fire and Sightline Obstruction, plus Electrocution @ 33 Randolph Road (Power Pole):-

A. SIGHTLINE OBSTRUCTION VIOLATIONS

i) Traffic/Pedestrian Hazards at 33 Randolph Road

(Egressing Vehicle from the garage located next to Crosswalk is a very clear LIFE RISK posed to the general public, particular school children/parents in 33 Randolph case).

whereby vehicles/pedestrians coming from Randolph Road (especially those turning into Rutherglen Road) wouldn’t be able to see vehicles reversing out from the proposed garage. And they’re mostly school children/parents from Rolph Road Public School within a stone throw away. Similarly, driver’s visibility of the egressing vehicle is also impeded by the elevated grade/retaining wall. 

ii) Sightline Obstruction by the Garden Suite at 33 Randolph

The 2-Storey Garden Suite is blocking street view of the adjacent neighbour unlawfully (by more than 100% on both height as well as street view angle versus the required Minimum 500m of Unobstructed Visibility for safety reason)

iii) Traffic/Pedestrian Hazards at 15 Rutherglen Road

Safe Distance & Sightline Obstruction

The municipality enacted bylaws to safeguard pedestrians on the sidewalk as below: –

• Chapter 743 – No Fence, No Hedges above 0.3m within the radius of 70m of an Intersection
• Chapter 447 – No Sightline Obstruction. Minimum 2.4m setback from the Property Lot Line wherever there is a Driveway within 2.4m
• Chapter 950 – Minimal distance between sidewalk and garage to prevent car from landing on sidewalk without first stopping fully.

Bylaw §447 – Minimum 2.4m Setback from the Property Lot Line wherever there is a Driveway within 2.4m (see Siteplan B & C below)

“One of the fundamental aims is to ensure that sight lines are not obstructed so as to create hazards for both pedestrian and vehicular traffic.”

• 447 reference by Jim Hart, Executive Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards

B. FIRE HAZARDS

(Setbacks of both properties are less than 1m = Fire Hazard)

Building Code/Fire Code (O. Reg. 332/12: BUILDING CODE under Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992,

23) dictates all building wall less than 1.0m/1.2m (with opening) from the border is a Fire Hazard.

i) 33 Randoplh Road — All Approved Buildings Setbacks Are Non-Compliant to Fire Safety (less than 1.0m)

The proposed Garden Suite has deficient setbacks of 0.61m (North), 0.63m (South), and 0.96m (East) – which requires 4.8m due to existence of a Power Pole. Not to mention the main Dwelling (with same violations on Fire Safety).

ii)  15 Rutherglen— GarageSetback = 0.27m (Unlawful – No Minor Variance ever requested on the setback)

In fact, the whole property has been illegally extended all the way to the border (with zero setback).

Siteplan A: 8 Illegal Extensions/Fire Hazards

(The illegal structure on the south side has ZERO setback from the fence.)

As if the place isn’t dangerous enough, vehicles are often parked on slope completely blocking the sightline of the adjacent neighbor (and posing life risks to traffic/pedestrians).

Cars Dangerously Parked on City Property with rear protruding to sidewalk at 15 Rutherglen despite repeated complaints for years now

This is precisely why the City imposed a condition that NO GARAGE is allowed to be erected in the property when the developer sought massive variances to build the house. However, the condition was violated and no reason was ever provided.

After failing to answer the Ombudsman on the Public Safety Risks posed by an unlawful garage at 15 Rutherglen Road in 2017, the process was disrupted by Toronto Police and the unlawful garage remains an Unfinished Derelict till this day in violation of municipal bylaws (see below):-

1. Electrocution/Fire Hazards

(Power Line Pole located in the rear yard requires 4.8m Setback to comply with rules and regulation, according to Hydro One).

That said, we have written to the Mayor and senior management of the municipality seeking to eliminate public safety risks (no response so far), which is ironically in contrary to the very law that the municipality relies on to approve building applications ie. the Planning Act:-

Planning Act, RSO 1990, c P.13

PART I

PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION

Provincial interest

2. The Minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board and the Tribunal, in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest such as,

(o) the protection of public health and safety;

(iii) provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant;

The City is obligated to ensure No Posing of Safety Risks to the general public (Criminal Code § 219 & 220), as well as to ensure the house is built in accordance with the Planning Act (2.(o)(r)(iii)) above.

The violation were brought to Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) as the higher authority for adjudication:-

The City of Toronto Disrespected Decision by Ontario Municipal Board (OMB)

OMB Decision on the illegal Garage at 15 Rutherglen Rd

In defiance of OMB’s ruling that nobody can exempt Public Safety requirements whereby Jerry V. DeMarco, Chair of OMB (# PL131330) ordered a new permit to be fully compliant with ALL in-force law including but not limited to Zoning Bylaw and Applicable Law (ie. Building Code, Municipal Bylaw, Criminal Code, etc), the municipality got emboldened and simply ignored the order after seeing no one is able to hold them accountable.

Jerry V. DeMarco, Chair of OMB confirmed the minor variance is approved with CONDITIONS – OMB ordered the permit application to be fully compliant with ALL in-force law including but not limited to Zoning Bylaw and Applicable Law (Building Code, Municipal Bylaw etc).

OMB approved only one single variance ie. Lot Coverage with CONDITIONS. And staffs at OMB acknowledged there are outstanding zoning deficiencies (variances). This is why OMB ordered the application to be fully compliant with ALL in-force law including but not limited to Zoning Bylaw and Applicable Law

In another word, no building can be erected without first seeking further approval for more variances as well as safety violations. Which are responsibilities directly under the jurisdiction of the City. Neither review nor new application was ever submitted.

OMB # PL131330 ordered a NEW building permit application to comply with all currently in-force law (including municipal code)
–  There is no new application and there is no compliance with all currently in-force law eg. Zoning Bylaw 569-2013 10.20.40.70.(3) & 10.5.60.20 (3)(C)(i) & (ii), (6)(B)

In early 2014, the carport-turned-garage was inspected and determined it is indeed a pedestrian and vehicular safety hazard by both the Traffic Police and Transportation Services & Public-Right-Of-Way.

The safety hazard was ordered to be removed with immediate effect. However, the orders were ignored even though Toronto Building has quietly issued a notice to the owner confirming the proposed garage is a fire hazard under the Building Code and court precedent.

LAW VIOLATIONS

1. OMB Can Never Approve Erection Building That Is Unsafe Or Unlawful

This is confirmed by Jerry V. DeMarco, Chair of Ontario Municipal Board.

Staffs at OMB acknowledged there are known deficiencies/violations.

2. Garage Violated The Ontario Building Code

Legal Fact: All public safety related law are applicable law. Full compliance is mandatory and unless the law has been repealed/nullified, no exemption is possible regardless of jurisdiction. Violation of any applicable law is violation of the Ontario Building Code,

A. PUBLIC SAFETY LAW VIOLATIONS

Among others, the garage is an irrefutable public safety hazard in violation of Municipal Code §447, §743 and §950. On a related note, §629-8. and §632-2. also established “the highest standard to protect the health, safety and welfare of the general public prevails”.

And violation of any applicable law automatically contravenes the Ontario Building Code,

Interpretation
10. (2)  A building is unsafe if the building is,
(b) in a condition that could be hazardous to the health or safety of persons in the normal use of the building, persons outside the building or persons whose access to the building has not been reasonably prevented. 2002, c. 9, s. 26.

B. ONTARIO BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS

(And other Law Violations appended hereunder)

Unlawfully Building Garage with Carport Building Permit

Another interesting fact is the garage was erected illegally using a carport building permit, which is obviously unlawful as no Carport Permit can be used to build a Garage which is distinctively different buildings by definition under the Building Code.

Initial Application Siteplan (Notice it was labeled a “Carport”)

Deficient 0.27m Setback between GARAGE wall and property line make it a FIRED HAZARD under the Building Code.

---

As mentioned, despite concrete evidence of lawbreaking resulting in posing of Safety/Life Risks to general public openly, repeatedly, and lawlessly, Mayor Chow didn’t even bother to response, never ever… zero, zip, zilch, nada…

Here’s the last letter to Mayor Chow on record that she never or couldn’t refute at all:-

On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 E. Tan wrote:

Dear Mayor Chow,We urge you to take a serious look at the prevailing Lawlessness plaguing the city, as the scandalous phenomenon openly demonstrated by representatives of the City will affect your mayorship negatively. Saved for crooks and criminals, we imagine no one will endorse a “Lawless Regime” to run the City:-

Exhibits of recent “Lawlessness” conducted by representatives of the City of Toronto:-

1. Toronto Building’s Adam Stina openly bragged about how he committed IMPERSONATION (on behalf of the City)

Adam Stina: “Toronto Building has made a referral to Toronto Hydro on your behalf.” (by using my identity & contact information and impersonating himself as “Eddie Tan”… See response from Toronto Hydro hereunder)

and,

Re: 403 (1) of the Criminal Code states that identity fraud involves impersonating someone to gain some benefit or to evade justice. Those found guilty of identity theft face up to five years in prison, with that maximum penalty doubled for identity fraud.

Adam’s action is literally no different from saying: “So what the City of Toronto is committing crime (with impunity) against voters/taxpayers? Inaction on the City’s part proves that there is nothing folks can do about it, we’re Above the Law.”?

On a related note, the City of Toronto also exhibited utter contempt for the safety law on power line/pole by the hydro authority:-2. Hydro One — Building near power lines

“A setback is the horizontal allowable distance that any building or structure, including balconies and overhangs, must maintain from a Hydro One overhead power line. Everyone must comply with setback requirements. To ensure compliance with all applicable standards and regulations, a minimum 4.8m setback is required.”

Fact: The City allows building to be erected next to the power pole/line (to pose danger to the residents).Similarly, the City has also reached the Tree Protection Law as below:-

3. TPZ Destroyed, Tree Injured

Against the mandatory requirement for a 4.2m Tree Protection Zone (TPZ), the City allows the entire tree protection law to be breached — TPZ dismantled, Roots of matured tree has been ruthlessly Excavated less than 2ft from the border, and the designated TPZ is now used to store materials and house a Potty!

That makes us wonder why do we need law in the first place?

“Rules for thee, not for me”

Why did the Chief Building Official insist my family must observe the 1.2M Fire Safety Setback, but not our neighbours (twice)?

4. Blatant Lie by Adam Stina: “Toronto Building has determined that your concerns have been adequately addressed”

FACT: Not one single issue has been addressed so far, especially on the Public Safety/Life Risks directly created by the municipality.

a) 33 Randolph Rd: “Building Permit Issuance Is A Must, Even Unlawful?”
Fact: Outstanding Public Safety Risks
i. Traffic/Pedestrian Hazards (posed by Garage located next to Crosswalk…)
ii. Fire Hazards (Approved Setback 0.61m vs Min. Fire-Safety Setbacks 1m/1.2m…)
iii. Electrocution/Fire Hazards (Power Line Pole requires 4.8m Safety Setback…)
(See “Reference…. Fire/Sightline Obstruction Related Law Violations” in the prior emails.)

b) Garage at 15 Rutherglen Rd remain UNLAWFUL (Wrong Permit, No Setback Applied, Building Non-Compliant & Violated Dozens of Laws, Safety in particular. See email appended below for further details).

c) City Refused to inspect “Cars dangerously parked on City property with rear protruding to sidewalk” (Request # 05657769 since Sep 17, 2024)
— The Safety Risks remain in place to haunt folks perpetually.

Not only it’s the right thing to do, it’s also in your interest to show some respect and professional decency to the taxpayers/residents. No one can accept brazen bullying by the very “regime” funded by their tax dollars.

After all, you couldn’t even answer a question as simple as,

“May we taxpayers ask what EXEMPTED the esteemed City of Toronto from complying with the Safety related rules and regulations?”

That said, we’d take the inaction as the City of Toronto willfully violated the law, most important of all safety rules & regulations, and knowingly the safety of the general public will be compromised as a result.

Respectfully,

E. Tan

---

So, the Mayor did nothing even it’s a crime posing safety/life risks to the folks?

Apparently Mayor Chow is only interested in Cosplaying… And we asked around, no one thinks the job of a Mayor is Cosplaying in lewd scantily clad Woke Garb?

@muchToronto Mayor Olivia Chow participated in the festivities of Caribana this weekend [🎥: IG/6ixbuzztv]♬ original sound – MuchMusic

---

Reference

Fire/Sightline Obstruction Related Law Violations

A. Transportation Services Related Violations

1. SIGHTLINE OBSTRUCTION VIOLATIONS

Bylaw Chapter 447, Chapter 743 & Chapter 950 enacted to safeguard pedestrians on the sidewalk as below: –

– § 447-2 C.(1)C.1 – MLS: “One of the fundamental aims is to ensure that sight lines are not obstructed so as to create hazards for both pedestrian and vehicular traffic.”
– § 950-200.A.
– § 743-31.A.(1) & (2)
– § 743-34.(2)(a)[1] & [2]
– § 743-36.I.
– § 743-38.B.
– § 743-43.A.
– § 743-44. D.
– § 743-44B & C.
– § 743-51.A. & B.
– § 743-52.
– APPENDIX A.6. & 21.

2. Sidewalk/Sideyard Pedestrian Slip & Fall Injury Risks

Unsafe and unlawful drainage of water directly discharged into the sidewalk/sideyard. The water will freeze up during the colder days, posing injury risks to the pedestrian and vehicular traffics – Public safety hazard violated numerous safety laws under the purview of Transportation Services, and MLS, and Toronto Building.

B. MLS Related Violations

Main violations – Fire Hazard [Building Code 9.10.14.4.(2)] & Sightline Obstruction (§447, §950 & numberous Zoning Bylaws).

– § 629-12
– § 629-13
– § 629-16.A.(3)
– § 629-18.A., B. & C.
– § 629-27.A. & B.
– § 629-40.A
– § 447
– § 950
– § 629-8. & § 632-2.
– § 629-10.A. & B.
– § 629-23.
– § 629-6.D. & G.
– § 629-4.A.
– § 629-5.A.
– § 629-6.A., D., & G.
– § 629-20
– § 629-11.A.1. (2) & F. (1), (2) & (3)
– § 629-11
– § 629-23.H.

C. Building Code Related Violations

Building Code Act, 1992

– CHAPTER 23 10.(2), (b) & 10.(1)
– Chapter 363 Article V
– Ontario Regulation 332/12
– Chapter 950
– Division C, Part 1, Subsection 1.3.3.
– Application H. iii) & iv)

Ontario Building Code Act

– Section 8(2)(a)

Building Code: –

– 3.1.18.1.
– 9.14.6.1.(1)
– 9.26.18.2.(1)
– 2.2.1.1. Objectives (1) Category: Safety Number: OS Objective & Category: Safety — Safety in Use Number: OS3 Objective

D. Zoning Bylaw Related Violations

Bylaw 569-2013 

– 10.20.40.70.(3)
– 10.5.60.20 (3)(C)(i) & (ii), (6)(B)

Leaside Zoning Bylaw 1916: –
– 5.5
– 5.13.2
– 6.1.1 (1)
– 6.1.1(4)
– 6.3.3 Side Yard Setback
– 6.3.3 Rear Yard Setback
– 6.3.3 Side Yard Setback Between Dwellings
– 6.7.4

E. Other Applicable Law Violation

– Planning Act – PART I, PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION, Provincial interest, Section 2.(h), (o)
– Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) – 3.0 Protecting Public Health and Safety.
– No Zoning Certificate or Preliminary Project Review (PPR) for extended Zoning & Plan Review
–  City of Toronto Act, 2001, Chap. Pr13 (Bill Pr20) False Declarations (TPZ Tree Trunk Dimensions)

=====================

QUESTIONS

Okay, not only law violations, it sounds like CRIME has been committed… Why wouldn’t victims seek help from law enforcement ie. Police?

“Rules for thee, not for me”

The reality is there is nothing one can do for as long as the Power-That-Be refused to take action.

For example Toronto Police, not only the Police won’t do anything about crime committed by City Officials ie. Chief Building Official in this case, the Police may even lay frivolous charges such as “Criminal Defamation” should you demand law enforcement.

For real?

Absolutely. Toronto Police charged the victim (E. Tan) in this case with “Criminal Defamation” just to silent and deny justice for his family… And after wasting years going in and out of courtrooms as well as bankrupting them along the process. The charge was eventually dropped years later.

What about OPP or RCMP?

Their standard answer is: “They have no jurisdiction over the City of Toronto”. Period.

Fun Fact: Not Even Lawyer Can Do Anything If The Criminal Is The Power-That-Be

In fact, TWO of the victims are actually professional Lawyers in this case.

Why not?

Despite what most people think, Lawyers actually Do Not have the power to Prosecute any crime.

Basically only Police is authorized to do that, but they won’t do it because the City is their Boss. It’s as simple as that.

What you may not expect is Lawyer are also Not Qualified to even just filing for Civil Claims ie. seeking financial damages, because they’re Not Recognized as “Experts”. As absurd as it is, only “opinions” by recognized professional are accepted and in such cases, basically only City Planner and Building Professionals. However, you won’t be able find or hire anyone who’s willing to risk their career to help out because the City is their ultimate “Employer”, so to speak.

Other than good Samaritan publication such as this website, even media wouldn’t dare to expose wrongdoing committed by the crook and criminal of the City of Toronto. The reason is essentially the same: financial in particular.

In short, there is simply no “professional” help for as long as it’s going against the power-that-be, the City of Toronto or perhaps also provincial institution under the “Ford Nation”.?

So far, there is nothing we can do except to ask Olivia Chow “Where is her conscience”? Guess he got NONE… zero, zip, zilch, nada?

---

More UPDATE coming soon…

NB: The author informed more details will be provided ASAP. He has been very ill as a result of the brazen lawbreaking and blatant bullying by the corrupt municipal regime of the City of Toronto.

Meanwhile, you may contact the author directly at leasideletters [at] gmail [dot] com

Related Scandal: 😡💢🤬 Doug Ford condones Law Violation that compromised Safety of the general Public knowingly and willfully