Business Licence Hearing
May 12, 2026 · 09:30 am
Summary
- The panel heard the appeal of Mahmoud Karimi, whose 2026 application for a short-term rental business licence at Unit 606, 1060 Alberni Street was refused by the Chief Licence Inspector.
- City staff outlined a history dating to 2019 of licence suspensions, failed audits, multiple bylaw violation notices for operating without a licence, and at least 142 recorded stays through the provincial portal while unlicensed, with the most recent in June 2025.
- The key legal basis for refusal was Section 4.3 of the City's Licence By-law, which requires the Chief Licence Inspector to refuse an application if the applicant was found guilty of a related bylaw offence within the preceding five years; Karimi triggered this by paying a bylaw violation notice in January 2024, constituting an admission of guilt.
- Karimi and his ex-wife Persia Mohebtash spoke to personal hardships including depression, divorce, a disabled child, and the recent death of Karimi's father, asking the panel for a second chance and acknowledging past mistakes.
- Panel members expressed sympathy for the personal circumstances but noted the pattern of non-compliance appeared deliberate, including repeated address changes coinciding with audit notices and continued unlicensed operation despite years of enforcement efforts.
- The panel upheld the Chief Licence Inspector's refusal unanimously.
Motions
Uphold Business Licence Cancellation
606-1060 Alberni Street Carried Details
- Proposed to uphold the Chief Licence Inspector's decision to refuse the 2026 short-term rental business licence application for 606-1060 Alberni Street.
- City counsel argued the refusal was mandatory under Section 4.3 of the Licence By-law and that the five-year ineligibility period serves as a deliberate "cooling-off" to encourage future compliance.
- Panel members noted the non-compliance appeared to be a sustained pattern, not an isolated error, pointing to multiple address changes timed to audits, partial ownership transfers, and continued unlicensed operation after repeated warnings.
- Both councillors acknowledged the applicant's difficult personal circumstances but concluded those circumstances could not override the bylaw requirements or the need to protect the integrity of the short-term rental licensing regime.