Councillor Meiszner in the chair. Councillor Montague.

Councillor Maloney. You have quorum, Chair Meisner.

The hearing before the panel this morning is an appeal by the applicant. of the Deputy Chief License Inspector's decision to decline the issuance of the short-term rental business license for the 2026 year for the provision of short-term rentals at 6165 Main Street in Vancouver. A copy of the letter effectively indicating non-support the issuance of the license was circulated to a council panel this morning by way as an addendum to the evidence book that's been provided it was omitted in error but it's before the panel now and a copy has been provided to to the applicant in these circumstances the applicant had previously been authorized with 2024 and 2025 business licenses provides short-term accommodation at the premises located at 6167 Main Street, that being the upper main floors of the single-family residence that contain both addresses 6167 and 6165. Copies of those licenses are in the evidence book at pages 9 and 10, respectively. And those licenses existed until such time that it was discovered by the short-term rental office that, in fact, the short-term rental accommodations... provided for in the single-family home were actually taking place in the downstairs secondary suite at 6165 Main Street. The decision and the basis for the Deputy Chief License Inspector's decision is set out in the notice of hearing of May 25, 2026. That's located at page 2 of the evidence book. And I will just note that at page 2, the notice indicates that the regulations were pursuant to section 25.1 sub 3. That was noted in error. It actually is section 28.1 sub 3 of the Vancouver's license bylaw. And that's noted in the letter from the deputy chief license inspector that indicates the non-support for the license application. I'll just read the reasons for that non-support. That's a paragraph two of the addendum letter from the deputy chief license inspector. In that case, the city has determined that in consideration of the totality of information, including documentation provided during your application review, information from your previous audit, the compliance inspection and information from the meeting. The information does not support 6165 Main Street is your principal residence. As per License By-law 4450, Section 28.1 Sub 3, no person shall carry on business as a short-term rental accommodation operator unless the short-term rental accommodation being provided for is the principal residence unit of that person.

In short, the basis for the deputy chief's license inspector's decision was a failure of the licensee to satisfy the principal residency requirement in the application. Again, that's under Section 28.1 of 3 of the License By-law. The city's witness today in the hearing is the Deputy Chief License Inspector, Alina Olu, who will take the panel through the materials in the evidence book and explain how she arrived at the decision to decline the issuance of the license. What the panel can expect to hear is that following an audit of the licensee for his business licenses at 6167 Main Street, the city's business license office determined that for two years, 2024 and 2025, Mr. Lamb was providing short-term rental accommodations. an unoccupied secondary suite at 80% of the calendar year despite the fact that the license was was not issued for that particular secondary suite The Deputy Chief License Inspector does not support the issuance of the license. Her decision to decline issuance of the license in the first instance was entirely reasonable in light of the circumstances in the background. We submit that this panel should give deference to that decision, but of course the licensee has an opportunity today to persuade this panel otherwise. Just before reviewing the evidence with Ms. Urley, there are a couple of legal and procedural issues to note. This panel's power to review a business license application is set out in Section 275 of the Vancouver Charter. That reads, the granting or refusing of a license to an applicant, therefore, and the revocation or suspension of a license which has been granted shall be deemed to be... in the discretion of council and the council may grant refuse revoke or suspend the license without stating any reasons therefore save in respect of a licensee where reasonable efforts cannot be found council shall not revoke a license without giving the holder thereof an opportunity to occur under that section you have broad powers to um to issue or decline to issue the business license This is an administrative proceeding. Rules of natural justice do apply. The applicant is entitled to hear the allegations against him. He may respond to those allegations. He may make... may ask questions of the witnesses, may make submissions on his own behalf. And if you see fit to uphold the decision of the Deputy Chief License Inspector, overturn it or overturn it by issuing the license with conditions, you should provide an explanation for the reasons in doing so. Those are the opening remarks. And I see Ms. Orlio standing at the podium. We can move on to her evidence.

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. O'Leary, I understand that you were the individual who made the decision with respect to Mr. Lamb's business license application for the provision of short-term rental accommodation at 6165 Main Street. Is that right? Yes, that's correct. And the letter that we have... circulated as an addendum to the evidence book. That was a decision made by you and signed by you and sent to Mr. Lamb, is that right? Yes, that's correct. I've indicated that in that letter, there's a communication to Mr. Lamb to the effect that he was unable to satisfy the principal residency requirement with respect to the property at 6165, and that was the basis for your decision? Yes. In the materials... I understand that there is a timeline of the background with respect to this application and previous licenses that had been issued for property at 6167 Main Street. Is that right? That's correct. I'm going to ask you to indicate in the timeline, just starting at the top of the timeline, and I have that at page...

Five of the evidence book. Yes. If you could use this timeline as a means of taking us chronologically through the history of the short-term rental accommodation at the premises for both addresses and the steps that were taken by the short-term rental office in terms of the... the audits and the investigations and ultimately what you relied on in coming to your decision under the letter. Okay. I'll just start off with just a little bit of context on the property itself. 6165 Main Street is a legal secondary suite that has two bedrooms, and it's located on the southwest portion of the first story at 6167 Main Street, which is a two-story single-family dwelling. Mr. Wayne Lamb, he is one of the owners of the property. He owns the property with his mother, who also lives at the main dwelling, 6167 Main Street. Our records indicate that the secondary suite was actually legalized in 2013, and that the secondary suite was actually assigned a distinct address of 6165. main street at that time and that mr lamb was the owner listed on the development and building permit at the time and that information is actually included on pages 200 to 205. i'm gonna give everyone a little bit of time to get there

Maybe I'll just interrupt with a question at this point. The fact that development and building permits assigned an address to the secondary suite being 6165, does that indicate that it's considered a separate dwelling unit for the City of Vancouver? It's considered a separate legal address.

Just moving on to 2019. In 2019, Mr. Lam was issued a long-term rental license for the secondary suite at 6165 Main Street. And that license was actually renewed in 2020. Both licenses for 2019 and 2020 indicate that it is for the secondary suite only, which is a separate address from the main dwelling. And those licenses are included on page 196 and 197.

On sort of mid-page on the right-hand side, we have a section which is typically for terms and conditions of the license, and you can see that one of the conditions clearly states that the license is for rental of the secondary suite only with the separate address of 6165 Main Street. And that license was issued to Mr. Wayne Lamb, as well as the other two owners at that time.

Just taking a closer look at these, I note that it's a license for a location indicated or located at 6167 Main Street, that being the principal address of the residence? That was the principal residence of the... But the license itself... STIPULATED THAT THE RENTAL LICENSE WAS ONLY FOR THE DOWNSTAIR SECONDARY. THAT'S CORRECT.

On July 29th of 2024, Mr. Lam applied for a short-term rental business license at 6167 Main Street, license 24-258576. That was automatically issued and subsequently renewed for 2025 on December 26th of 2024, and it's included on page 9.

On August 28th of 2025, our office initiated an audit for license 25-158576 under case file 2025-008382.

The notice of the audit is included on page 11. And why is it that this particular license was flagged for audit on August 28th? The audit was triggered by a very high number of stays, and we initiated an audit. We have an audit program, and we typically look for high stays based on the portal data, provincial portal data, and our records indicated the information that we... We gathered indicated 80% stay rate for 2025 and 87% rate for 2024. And a summary of that. Right, when you see numbers that high, is that an indication to you that- It is. Realistically nobody's living in- That's correct. Yeah. Therefore no satisfaction with the principal residency. That's correct. It's typically a very strong indicator that that is not the principal residence of the operator. And we've included a summary of that on pages 198 and 199 for both years 2025 and 2024. The listings also advertised... THE SECONDARY SUITE AS AN APARTMENT, AS A SELF-CONTAINED APARTMENT, INSTEAD OF WHAT WE WOULD HAVE ASSUMED MR. LEMTU ADVERTISED HIS OWN PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE AT 6167 MAIN STREET. AND WE HAVE A SCREENSHOT OF ONE OF THE LISTINGS, THE VRVO LISTINGS, AND THAT'S INCLUDED ON PAGE 84, WHICH WAS TAKEN ON SEPTEMBER 1ST OF 2025.

An inspection was completed on November 21st of 2025 of both the main dwelling, 6167 Main Street, as well as the legal secondary suite, 6167 Main Street. And the inspection further confirmed that Mr. Lamb was illegally short-term renting the secondary suite. We have included the photos of that inspection, and they start on page 32.

Anything to note in terms of the observations of the property use inspector? It's important to note that the secondary suite has no...

There is... It's outfitted as a short-term rental. There is no food, no personal belongings. It doesn't look like it's lived in. It was definitely, it was being used for short-term rental accommodations while the main dwelling is fully lived in.

I'm looking at, for instance, Page 148. Here's to be a photograph of a kitchen. This is actually the upstairs address, 6167. That's correct. Yeah. Whereas we see a bare kitchen in other photographs for the downstairs unit at 6165, and 6165 is where the short-term rental units were.

On November 24th of 2025, our staff asked Mr. Lem to remove all listings advertising the secondary suite at 6165 Main Street.

We checked again on November 30th to see if the listing had been removed, and it hadn't. And we have a screenshot of that on page 91.

that was taken on November 30th. On November 26th, it's important to note that we did email Mr. Lam VanMap's data to confirm 6167 Main Street, as well as 6165 Main Street as distinct legal addresses.

On December 22nd of 2025, we checked again to see if the listing had been removed and it had not. The following day, our staff spoke to Mr. Lamb over the phone and advised him that it is not permitted to short-term rent the secondary suite as it is not his principal residence. And at that time, Mr. Lamb decided to close his account and delisted the unit, the short-term rental. Any of the records in the evidence book indicate the ongoing provision of short-term rental accommodations at the premises after he was first advised to remove all listings and advertising in November 24, 2025? IT CONTINUED TO REMAIN UP THROUGHOUT NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER. AND IF I CAN.

YOU'D INDICATED EARLIER THERE WERE SOME TABLES. YES. MAYBE YOU CAN TAKE US BACK THERE. YEAH. PAGE 198.

AS YOU CAN SEE.

ARE WHEN WE THE PORTAL DATA THE BC PORTAL NIGHT STATE SHOW 22 DAYS FOR NOVEMBER OF 2025 SO AND BASED ON THE REPORTED BOOKINGS BY MR. LAM There were also 13 days in December that the unit was short-term rented. So notwithstanding, it was communicated to him to effectively cease providing the unit for short-term rental accommodations he carried on with whatever bookings he had.

Mr. Lamb continued the operation until December 23rd.

Right. So that takes us to the end of the first page of the timeline at page five. Starting shortly thereafter in January 2026. I understand the city received a fresh application from Mr. Lamb for the provision of short-term rental accommodations now in the secondary suite at 6165 Main Street. Is that right? That's correct. Why don't we pick it up on page 6 off of the timeline. Yes. So on January 20th of 2026, Mr. Lam applied as a renter for the short-term rental business license at 6165 Main Street. What do you mean applied as a renter?

So in service now, there are options to apply as an owner or to apply as a renter. Mr. Lam chose to apply as a renter and provided a letter that was signed by his mother agreeing that he could rent a secondary suite. So maybe I'll just take you to page 101 of the evidence book.

there? Yes. I understand that this is a snapshot in the Amanda licensing system that's kept by the city with respect to the January 2026 application for the business license by Mr. Lamb. Is that right? Yes. It's actually a snapshot of ServiceNow, the application process in ServiceNow. And then at page 102... There's an indication that Mr. Lamb reported that you would be renting the secondary suite in the main house, and then do you own or rent the home? He indicated he rented 6165. That's correct. Notwithstanding the fact that he was the owner of 6165. That's correct. And the letter from his mother, is that at page 105? It is on page 105.

I see here a confirmation that Mr. Lamb is a tenant of the secondary suite at 6165, has approval from, I suppose, Ms. Lamb being the other owner, to sublet the unit or rooms for short-term rental.

And I understand you tried to get some sort of explanation from Mr. Lamb about that in a later interview, so maybe I'll ask you to return to that when we get to that point. That's, yes. If you could then just carry on next entry in the timeline, page six. One of the things that I did want to draw a little bit of attention to is on page 99, where Mr. Lam indicated that he had canceled his short-term rental business license at 6167 Main Street the previous year because he was told that there was a secondary suite downstairs at 6165 Main Street. Main Street that he was not aware of, which is contrary to all our records so far. The records being the earlier long-term rental licenses stipulating provision of long-term rentals at 6165 for years. That's correct. As well as the approval process of legalizing the secondary suite and the assignment of a distinct address. YOU READING THAT, YOU DIDN'T FEEL THAT WAS A TRUTHFUL STATEMENT?

ALL RIGHT. I THINK THAT UNLESS THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO GO TO, WE'RE AT JANUARY 27th ENTRY ON THE TIMELINE, PAGE 6.

YES. On January 27th, our staff requested some further documents from Mr. Lam, including two supporting documents and an operational summary to indicate what had changed since the previous business operation. On January 30th, our office received documents from Mr. Lam. In the operational summary, he indicated that he had moved downstairs in the legal secondary suite to make room for his mother's caregiver who visits twice daily. And he further indicated that he'd be heading to South Africa and may be delayed in responding. and that information is part of the ServiceNow application process, and it's included on page 99. On February 3rd, our staff requested the two supporting documents, which were still missing, and the communication is on page 98. On February 9th, our office received documents from Mr. Lam, and he indicated that he had moved into the suite on December 31st of 2025, which later on we will find that he contradicts himself during the audit. He also indicated that he was still out of the country. On February 13th, staff requested one supporting document from Mr. Lam, which was provided by him on February 23rd. And the following day, our staff referred the file to our property inspection team for inspection under case file 2026-001682. The inspection was completed on March 5th of 2026 for both the main dwelling, 6167 Main Street, as well as the secondary suite, 6165 Main Street. And the photos are included starting page 116. Again, the photos show little to no food, clothing, or personal effects in the secondary suite.

On March 12th of 2026, our office notified Mr. Lam of an audit meeting request, and that's included on page 11.

And on March 19th, our staff completed the audit meeting with Mr. Lam, and the transcript of that is included starting at page 170. You've indicated that some information was divulged by Mr. Lam in the course of that audit interview. Do you want to figure out how to point that out? I'll point out a few things. So during the audit meeting, our staff asked Mr. Lam why he had applied as a renter when he is the registered owner. And Mr. Lam was unable to provide a clear answer that was satisfactory to us. Our staff also asked Mr. Lam to confirm that his property had indeed two addresses, and Mr. Lam confirmed that he owns one house that just has two addresses on it. And that's, I believe that's on page 178, where he makes that statement. He also confirmed that he knew his secondary suite was legal, but denied that it had a different address, knowing that it had a different address. He stated that he was not notified that it had a different address and that the long-term rental business license he previously held was under 6165 Main Street. And that is contradictory to our records. The business license that was issued to Mr. Lamb clearly indicates that it was for the legal secondary suite located at 6165 Main Street.

WHEN MR. LEMM WAS ASKED WHEN HE HAD MOVED INTO THE SECONDARY SUITE, HE STATED THAT HE DIDN'T KNOW THE EXACT DATE, PROBABLY IN FEBRUARY OR END OF JANUARY. SO THAT WAS CONTRADICTORY TO THE APPLICATION SUBMISSION PROCESS WHICH CLEARLY IN WHICH HE CLEARLY STATED THAT HE HAD MOVED ON DECEMBER 31ST OF 2025. December 31st being mere days after. Mere days, exactly. With respect to the provision of short-term rentals.

When asked why the unit had little to no food, clothing, or personal effects, Mr. Lamb indicated that he mostly eats out, and then he stores his clothing upstairs in one of the bedrooms that used to be his father's who had passed away. Our staff also asked Mr. Lamb to explain the high number of stays for his previous short-term rental operation during 2024 and 2025. And Mr. Lamb stated that it was just a misunderstanding because his license was for 6167 Main Street, which is the entire house, and that he was just short-term renting the unit within. Our staff further asked Mr. Lam what would be different than his previous operation and how the booking would be controlled. And Mr. Lam stated that he doesn't control how many people or when people book the unit and that his friend Kevin deals with the bookings and that he... would let his friend Kevin know when he was out of the country so that both bedrooms can be booked. He also stated that he would stay in the bigger room of the unit when he was in the country and that he would share the space with guests and that the guests would be staying in the smaller room, which is currently outfitted with bunk beds.

So based on all the information that we gathered, including the documentation provided by Mr. Lamb during the application review process, all the information we had collected from the previous audit review, our own city records related to prior permitting and licensing at the address, compliance inspection and the information from the most recent audit meeting. I did not feel that Mr. Lem, I did not believe that Mr. Lem lives or uses 6165 as his principal address and that the requirements of the bylaw were not being met.

The principal residence requirement wasn't being met. So that was the basis for the decision to refuse his 2026 application. I'm going to revisit something that you mentioned that came out in the interview, the audit interview. My understanding is that Mr. Lamb was questioned as to his use of the upstairs portion of the property at 6167, and there was an indication that he kept personal effects up there? That's correct, yeah. And that was in a bedroom that used to be occupied by his father? He indicated that he was using that bedroom as a storage unit for his personal, in fact, personal belongings. Was there any other information that was shared with Mr. Lamb about his use of the premises upstairs at 6167? No. For instance, was he questioned about where he ate his meals, given that the kitchen downstairs was quite bare? He indicated that he took his meal like he ate out a lot.

Is there anything else you'd like to share with the panel this morning? Not at this time.

Yeah, just a couple of quick ones.

Why would someone do that rather than just keeping it as a basement suite?

Unfortunately, I'm unable to answer what's the basis for actually issuing a distinct address. I would imagine that it has something to do with zoning and development bylaw. There's probably requirements that have to be met there. I'm not.

2004, I believe.

That's correct.

There were three owners listed at that point in time. Mr. Lamb was one of them and his parents. His father had passed away, so there was a change of title to basically list only himself, Mr. Lamb, and his mother as owners of the property.

Yes.

I'm just going to intervene for a minute. I don't believe that this gentleman is the applicant. So if he's not, perhaps we can have him introduce himself. Yes. in what capacity he's involved with this hearing. Sorry, I... A reminder to...

I thought that was the case, but I don't... Yeah.

If Mr. Lee is asking the gentleman to assist, I don't take issue with that. Okay.

permit that was issued in 2013 which indicates the addition of the and of the secondary suite and legalization of that suite and also the assignment of an address I do not have records beyond that to I do know that VAMAPS indicates both addresses, and that was provided to Mr. Lam by our staff.

Fortunately, I can't really speak to that process. I'm not familiar enough with the zoning and development process to, yeah, to... Yeah, just to provide an answer as to why that is.

I think that since the submissions were made by Mr. Lamb, with respect to some circumstances, it's open to the panel. Questions to him?

Not seeing anyone.

This panel has sat on these matters before and is well aware of the purpose of short-term rental regulations in the city's license bylaw is intended to provide long-term housing stock as a constant in the city, as opposed to full-time short-term rental accommodations. And to that end, there is a principal residence requirement. Principal residence unit, as that term is used in the in the license bylaw is defined, and it's defined as a principal residence unit means the usual dwelling unit where an individual lives, makes their home, and conducts their daily affairs, including without limitation paying bills and receiving mail, and is generally the dwelling unit with the residential address used on documentation related to billing, identification, taxes, and insurance purposes, including without limitation income tax returns, medical services plans, documentation, driver's licenses, personal identification vehicle registration and utility bill and for the purposes of this bylaw a person may only have one principal residence unit I think that the panel needs to be cognizant of the fact that the onus in terms of establishing that a property that's subject to a short-term rental license application is on the person making the application And to that end, Ms. Worley, who found after a very lengthy and detailed audit of the background of the history of this particular property in terms of the long-term rental in 2019-2020, as well as the... use of the property in 2024 and 2025 exclusively for short-term rental purposes that she was not satisfied on Mr. Lam's representations that he was now using it for his principal residence in 2026. That is effectively based on the fact that there was some evasiveness in terms of the information that was provided by Mr. Lamb, but also in terms of the timing. It was only on December 23, 2025, that Mr. Lamb had in, or that it was indicated to Mr. Lamb that all, final warning, that all rental advertisements needed to come down and he needed to stop using the unit exclusively for short-term rental purposes. And then very shortly thereafter, we have an indication from Mr. Lamb that he moved in full-time to that unit. notwithstanding the fact that we've now discovered that he use personal effects upstairs and obviously has his mother who he cares for upstairs as well and doesn't appear to eat any meals in the downstairs in the downstairs reality is is that we have no indication

from Mr. Lamb that anything's going to change with respect to the ongoing provision of short-term rental accommodations at the downstairs address. We have no indication that... that these 80% or 87% occupancy rates are going to diminish. And in fact, it sounds like he needs some sort of revenue from that property in order to support expenses for his mother's health care. That is certainly something that I think that we should be aware of, but we also need to be aware of the fact that the idea is that this particular unit is preserved for long-term housing stock. Nothing is stopping Mr. Lamb from renting out the unit on a full-time basis to a long-term. On that basis, we would ask that the panel uphold Ms. Orleo's decision not to issue the 2016 law.

We'll now move on to closing submissions by the applicant.

That's correct. My understanding is that even if the suite is legalized and it's a self-contained unit within a main dwelling, even if it does not have a distinct address, it's still a legal secondary suite and the same rules would apply whether it has an address or not.

If it was illegal, that's correct, yes.

The provincial regulations allow for secondary suites to be short-term rented legally. However, we have a bylaw at the city which protects long-term housing. Okay. Yeah.

No, no opportunity.

This is on the motion from Councillor Montague.

Okay, that passes unanimously.