← Business Licence Hearing September 9, 2026
Good morning, Vanessa. Are you able to hear me okay?
Hi. Yes, I can hear you. Can you hear me? Amazing. Thank you. Hey, Cheryl, can I just do one more mic check?
Hi, Councillor Montague. Did you ask for my check? Yeah, I just have a small computer issue here. I think I seem to have worked it out. Oh, you sound perfect. Great, thank you. Thank you.
Hi, Veronica. If requested, are you able to turn on your camera?
I'm sorry, Vanessa.
Hi. Oh, perfect. Okay, great. Can you hear and see me okay? Yes, that's awesome. Thank you so much.
and then it's because they have that panel should be able to visit.
Okay, I've got it on. Is it working?
Should it be amplified? Red light's coming on, so I'm sure it's probably... Yeah, it's working. Okay, you can hear it.
I'm just going to go fill up my water. I'll be one minute.
Thank you.
Good morning, team.
Can I do a sound check, please?
Good morning, Councillor Kirby Young. Are you able to hear me? I can. You can hear me okay? Yes. Thank you so much. Thank you.
hey just making sure you can hear me okay online yeah thank you great thank you very much uh so good morning and welcome i will call to order this business license hearing to consider whether to grant or refuse a 2026 business license to vanessa louis the applicant for short-term rental accommodation at 768 East 11th Avenue. The chief license inspector does not support the issuance of the business license, which is required to carry on business pursuant to Section 28.1 of the License By-law No. 4450. Before we begin, I have some opening remarks. This hearing is being held in person and by electronic means. Panel members and the public may participate by either method. Any members joining electronically are reminded to enable video to confirm quorum. The hearing is being live streamed on the city's website. Hearing progress will be updated on X and threads at Van City Clerk. Though due to new posting limits, updates will only cover essential items such as vote results. In case of an emergency, Requiring evacuation, there are two exits located beyond the glass doors to the left. If the glass doors are blocked, please use one of the four additional exits within the chamber. Do not use the elevator. Use the stairs instead. And if you require assistance, remain where you are and security staff will guide you to a safe location. A defibrillator is available at the end of the hallway outside the chamber. We acknowledge that we are on the unceded homelands of the Musqueam, Squamish, and TTsleil-Waututh people. We thank them for having cared for this land. And we look forward to working with them in partnership as we continue to build this great city together. I would also like to recognize the immense contributions of the City of Vancouver staff who work hard every day to help make our city an incredible place to live, work, and play. Clerk, may we have the roll call?
Councillor Bligh, Chair. Councillor Kerri-Young. Councillor Montague. You have quorum, Chair Bligh.
Thank you very much. So we'll start by hearing opening remarks from Robert LeBlanc, counsel for the city of Vancouver. And over to you.
Thank you. Good morning to the members of the business license hearing panel. I am litigation counsel with the city's legal services department. And on the line, I believe we have the applicant, Vanessa Louie. Ms. Louie, are you there? You just introduced yourself to the panel, please. Hi, I'm Vanessa Louie. I'm the applicant. Nice to meet you all. The hearing before the panel this morning is a referral by the city's chief license inspector of the applicant's 2026 business license application to authorize the provision of short-term rental accommodation at 768 East 11th Avenue. The chief license inspector's decision to decline the issuance of the applicant's application... is set out in the letter of August 31st, 2026, which is located at page 370 of the materials that have been put before council for consideration. Page 370 is the letter, and I will just read the basis for the non-issuance of the license, starting at the second paragraph. The city has determined that in consideration of the totality of the information, including documentation provided during your application. The information does not support the 768 East 11th Avenue as 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 is the principal residence unit of that person. In short, the basis for the decision not to issue the license was the failure of the applicant to satisfy the principal residence requirement. And I will draw the panel's attention to page 382 of the materials, which is a copy of the bylaw that contains the definition of principal residence unit. It's the third last definition on page 382. 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 plan 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. The history here is that the applicant had previously been licensed to provide short-term accommodation at the premises for the 2022 to 2025 business years. An audit that was initiated by the short-term rental office in November of 2025 revealed high booking volumes and ongoing concurrent rentals of multiple listings at the property.
In particular, over the period of time, there were several months that had book stays in excess of the total number of days of the month. For instance, in August of 2025, it was revealed... that over 50 bookings were made in a calendar month that only contained 31 days. And there are other such months that we will draw your attention to. This ultimately led to the suspension of the applicant's 2025 business license in early 2020-26. The applicant then made a new application for the 2026 business license in March, which is the application that's now before this panel. The city's witness today is the Chief License Inspector, Sarah Hicks. 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. The chief license inspector does not support the issuance of the license. That decision was entirely reasonable in light of the applicant's booking volumes, the protracted noncompliance, the short-term rentals of the property in the years prior that you will hear about. and the uncertainty that that caused over the principal residency requirement. We submit that this panel should give deference to the Chief License Inspector's decision. Of course, the applicant has the opportunity today to persuade this panel otherwise. Before revealing the evidence, there are a couple of legal and procedural matters to note. First, this panel's power to review a business license is set out in Section 275 of the Vancouver Charter. It 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 counsel. And counsel may grant, refuse, revoke, or suspend a license without stating any reasons, therefore, save in respect of a licensee. who by reasonable efforts cannot be found, the council shall not revoke a license without giving the holder an opportunity to be heard. Under that section, this panel has broad powers to either grant or refuse the issuance of the business license that is being applied for. The other point that I'd make before we review the evidence is that this is an administrative proceeding and the rules of natural justice do apply. That means that the applicant is entitled to hear the allegations against them in the basis for the non-support, may respond to those allegations, they may question witnesses that are presented, and they may make submissions on their own behalf. If you see fit not to issue the business license or to grant it, some discussion and reasons should be stated, therefore, on the record. Those are the opening remarks.
Thank you very much. Thank you, Councillor LeBlanc. We're now going to hear from City of Vancouver witness testimony, Sarah Hicks, who's at the podium.
Thank you. Hello, Ms. Hicks. Good morning.
We have before the panel this morning a book of approximately 400 pages of documents. You've reviewed that package? I have. And you are familiar with this particular matter. You issued the decision not to support the 2026 business license application. I am familiar, and I did issue the notice of non-support. The package of materials at page three includes a timeline of events. Maybe I'll just pause there and let the council members turn to that.
This particular timeline of events, I understand it was produced by staff in the short-term rental office? It was. And that was after a full review of the documents that were in the file with respect to licenses issued for 768 East 11th Avenue to the applicant? Correct. Okay. Maybe we can just use this as a... as a bit of a guideline in terms of taking us through the history of this particular premises and the history with respect to the business licenses that were applied for and issued. And I see under the first point in background, April 2nd, 2022, there was a license applied for by Vanessa Louie and Christine Fung with respect to short-term rentals at the premises 768 East 11th. Is that right? Correct. So what was done when the city received that initial business license application? After the application was received and auto-issued through our online system, staff began a verification process to confirm appropriate documentation to indicate whether the individuals resided within those units. And what kind of property is located at 768 East 11th Avenue? 768 East 11th is a single-family dwelling. Does it have an authorized secondary suite? It does not.
Maybe you can just carry us through then what was discovered by the city with respect to the verification of the initial business license application. Certainly, as part of the verification process, staff were able to find a number of listings that were related to the location. You'll see those in April as well as May for two different Airbnb listings, and then later on page four, middle of the page, a VRBO listing. Those listings show one for the basement. It appears to be a secondary suite by the listing as it shows a full private kitchen. And then the other listings are either for just the upstairs or for a combination of the upstairs and downstairs.
Okay. And I see that the license number that was displayed on those listings... were all the same for all three of them. Was that license automatically issued and the verification process takes place while they're actually licensed? Correct. So we have three different listings, one being for a one-bedroom space that you described as a secondary suite, according to the photographs in the listings, and another also on Airbnb for a three-bedroom space. guest house hosted by Vanessa, and then a third listing on BRBO for a four-bedroom unit, all with the same license, all with the same address. Is that right? Correct. And I see here that there's a note under the May 27, 2022.
Like the other listings, Christine, the other license holder, is listed as the co-host. Correct. Do you know the relationship between Vanessa Louie and Christine Fung? We understand that Vanessa and Christine are partners. Are they co-owner of the property? They are a co-owner of the property.
Let's pick it up then on page four. I see June 21st, 2022. There was a property use inspection that was completed. That was part of the verification process? Correct. And what was discovered in the course of that inspection? That inspection showed that it was indeed a single-family home, that particularly when looking at the basement section of the home, that it appeared as though it could be set up as a secondary suite. There was a space for a stove in a little kitchenette area. The stove was not there. There was a shelving system there and a hot plate on top of it, but did lead us to concerns, but no immediate issues of violation.
And so June 29, 2022, the license verification was completed? It was. Was there any communication with the license holders in and around that time respecting any concerns with respect to the setup of the property? An email was sent from staff confirming that the verification process was complete and that because of the concerns that staff had, our experience tends to indicate when we see setups where there are is a space for a stove, looks like a kitchen, it tends to become a full kitchen later on down the road. So we included in the email confirmation to the applicant that no more than one booking at any one time could be taken, as that was one entire unit. So just to get this straight, the license authorized the short-term rental of a single-family dwelling, is that right?
The concern by staff was that there was a basement area that appeared to be easily converted into a secondary suite. Correct. The staff had discovered that there were two different listings, one looking like it was renting the secondary suite in the basement and one renting the rest of the upstairs. Correct. And there was concern that there was the opportunity that the owner may take advantage of to rent both concurrently. Correct. And that's why that warning was given in that email. It was, yes. Thank you. The license verification was then completed. The license was supported. And I see here December 2022, it was renewed for the 2023 business year. Is that right? Yes. Okay. You could pick it up then and just indicate what else occurred in the course of this particular matter. When we are continuing to look at page four, starting in May 2024, this is when the provincial regulations have come into full effect and when the city has data related to platforms being required to submit numbers of stays per listing. This is when we start to see that there does appear to be an indication of concurrent bookings where both upper and lower are starting to be booked. This is our first look at the data. So staff are just holding, we're going to monitor this over time. You'll see that we essentially monitor that until we initiate an audit in November of 2005, November 4th, 2005, when we do have a clear history of concurrent ongoing double bookings of the unit. Okay. And that history, that's obtained from the provincial portal, it triggers that license audit? It does. And in the course of that audit, you do things like ask for booking calendars to confirm that the information we're getting from the provincial portal effectively matches the booking that's being done on the host platforms? We do. We ask for a number of documents. We ask for all of the principal residency documents again to confirm that... individuals have maintained at least the documentation at their addresses, as well as the booking calendars, any other evidence that they're willing to provide us, travel documentations, as well as inspections of the property. Okay. At page 369 of the evidence package, I see a table here of the booking calendars. between May 2024 and June 2026. Can you just explain to the panel what we're looking at there? Certainly. So this is a table compiled by staff of the information provided from the applicant in terms of their booking rentals.
And to the far right of that table, you'll see BC Portal Night and Stade. The first number indicates the number of individual nights booked, and the second number indicates the number of different bookings that it took to get there. So, for instance, May 2024, we saw that there were 41 nights stayed over 12 different bookings. You'll see that the history of this home has a majority of months where both the upper and lower are booked because the numbers of bookings exceed the number of days in a month. Which is a clear indication that two sections of the home are being rented simultaneously. Correct.
Why does that cause concern for you? I mean, there are a number of concerns. One is certainly safety in terms of how the home is being used. The other is staff start to question, are we looking at illegal suites that the unit has been converted back to having a stove and appearing to be an independent unit, which would require... appropriate permits and separations within the city's bylaws. And the other is, of course, it is a violation of the bylaws, which were clearly indicated to this applicant. The reason for the non-support was that there's also some question with respect to the principal residency requirement. Does this excess booking factor into that determination? It does. It certainly leaves us with questions. You know, when looking at the home, it is not significantly... populated with personal materials. There were personal materials at both inspections. It wasn't a significant amount. When we're looking at the co-ownership of the home, looking at the other properties that are owned by Christine, when we're looking at this co-ownership, the different licenses, dog licenses at different properties, The number of bookings, the upper unit is booked at least 50% of the time. It leads us to question whether or not the individual truly does reside in the unit on a full-time basis as their principal residence.
Let's then pick it up back on page 5 of the timeline.
We left off with the notice. or November 4th 2025 the license audit was was initiated and I see here that the next entries on page 5 November 5th 2025 VRBO listing was removed and then on November 10th 2025 listing B was removed
Correct. Was there any direction to remove listings on the part of the city? There was not, no. So, effectively, the license holder was notified of the license audit and immediately, of their own volition, went to remove two listings, one of the VRBO listings and one of the Airbnb listings. Correct, and both of those listings are for the upper unit.
All right, if you could just let the council members know what you discovered in the course of the audit of the property. During the audit, in terms of the removal of the listings, the applicant advised us that they were removed for conducting some renovations. Receipts were provided for that. They weren't very substantial receipts. It was paint, a hinge, nothing large in terms of what we would anticipate listings being removed for. It took a little bit of back and forth between staff and the applicant to get the calendar listings for all of the listings populated. The upper units were a little bit delayed in terms of getting those submitted to staff. During that process, it was clear that Christine did not reside within the unit. Her ID did not indicate that she lived there. So through conversations with the applicant, Vanessa, Christine was removed from the license.
In addition to that, staff also conducted another physical inspection of the property to take photos. You know, the basement unit looked as it had during our first inspection. The stove space was still there with a bookshelf and a hot plate.
There is a stove in the garage that you can see in one of the photos. Whether that gets moved in and out, we aren't aware of that. Do any of the listings indicate that there was a stove in the property, in the basement suite? The initial listing of the basement suite had shown photos of the stove. Later photos had removed. And then it's not indicated within the listings whether or not a stove is specifically available.
Would some type of authorization or permit be required to permit the stove to be installed in the basement? It would.
By installing a stove, it essentially creates the space into a secondary suite, its own dwelling unit, which would require appropriate development permit and building permits. And that's not an authorized use of the single-family home that we're looking at? Not in this particular property.
Okay. What action did you decide to take with respect to the 2025 business license after the audit was conducted? After reviewing the information with staff, I made the decision to suspend the license or not support the renewal of the 2026 license in February of 2026. Okay, so we have here February 23, 2026.
That would be the indication of the license suspension for the 2025 business year? So February 11th, just up from that, was when the suspension or non-support for the 2026 renewal occurred. And then the Airbnb listing was removed shortly thereafter. Okay, and then we received a March 11, 2026 new license application for short-term rentals at the premises. We did. And documents were received. Was any new information shared with you or the short-term rental office by the applicant with respect to the conduct of the business at the location? Nothing significant, no, that would, you know, change my opinion of the decision I had made in February.
And so the decision was made and communicated to the applicant. on your letter of May 11, 2026, that you would not be issuing the business license and you would not be supporting the issuance of the business license. Correct. And the matter is now before this council for determination. It is. Is there anything else that you'd like to add with respect to this particular property, this particular license application that you'd like the council to know?
I think when we're looking at this particular file from the staff and city perspective, we've got an application where we have clearly indicated the rules to follow. We have, through portal data, through provincial portal data, over a year's worth of data showing that that rule has not been followed. it is likely that that rule had not been followed for the duration of the license since 2022, given that the bookings were available.
We are concerned about that noncompliance, ongoing noncompliance, and concerned that, you know, the information that we have available to us of...
Now this property holding a long-term rental license, that the co-owner holds a long-term rental license for their other property, and that there is a dog license in both property owners' names at a third property within the city, they all start to lead to questions of whether or not this is truly a principal residence. Okay, so let's just back that up for a second. There is currently a business license authorizing the long-term rental of this property? There is, yes. The applicant, Vanessa, applied for it this summer and was issued in August. And... And there are other licenses or properties that are co-held between the applicant and the other party? Not other properties co-held by the applicant. There are two property owners on this listing, Vanessa and Christine. Vanessa and Christine have a dog license in both their names to a third property, which is owned by a different individual. And Christine owns another property on East 10th, and that holds a long-term rental license as well.
So Christine owns another property with a business license for long-term rental. Correct. Vanessa is co-owner of this particular property, 768 East 11th. It too has a long-term license. Currently, yes. And there's a dog license that the city has issued for both parties at a different residence altogether.
which causes you some concern with respect to is the license holder actually living at this particular property?
Yes. Thank you. Anything else? No.
Thank you. Those are my questions.
Thank you very much. So we will now turn to our panel members. If you have any questions for the witness, please place yourself on the queue.
Council Montague.
Yeah, thanks. Excuse me. I'm just trying to confirm a couple of things. So because the one-bedroom basement suite doesn't have a kitchen in it, it's not considered a secondary suite. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. So according to the city bylaws, technically if... this individual could put both the three-bedroom upstairs unit and the one-bedroom basement unit up for short-term rental as long as they're not rented at the same time. Is that correct? Correct. Okay.
And do we know, I'm just looking online, and it appears as though this, am I correct in what I'm looking at? that the house was last sold in April of 2022?
That is what we understand, yes, from the information in the package in front of you.
So the licensed applicant here, the house was purchased and immediately put on short-term, and immediately a short-term rental application was requested. Is that right? Correct. Okay. For this particular license, it's the 2026 license that's being refused. Does a decision by this panel affect the ability to apply for a 2027 license if the applicant is compliant?
It does not.
Okay. Okay, I think those are my questions right now, Chair. Thank you very much. Does the applicant have any questions? The witness that would be calling on the applicant who's online. Hi, can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you.
Do I have questions for Sarah? Yes. Is that correct? That's correct.
One moment.
The decision was based off of the totality of information. It doesn't feel like enough evidence itself. Like, I do believe I am a permanent resident, and this is my primary residence, 7680 11th Avenue. I just don't feel like I have enough information proving that it is not my NPR.
I'm going to ask staff just to respond to that, perhaps if that didn't sound like a full question, but maybe there is a comment from Sarah Hicks.
In terms of the totality of the information, when we are making decisions on licenses, we are looking at the entire package of information that is available to us at a decision point. As I've described through the questioning, we have concerns. Both of the concurrent bookings, the ongoing nature of the concurrent bookings, you know, over 50% booked upstairs along with the additional rental downstairs. the additional licenses that we see within your name and your partner's name at separate addresses that lead me to question whether or not this unit is your principal residence. I recognize that documentation, paperwork... Does, you know, have your name connected to the address? We also know that that's not the only piece that we are looking at. Receiving paperwork with your name and address on it is a first step towards that. And then we look at the whole, how is the property conducted? How do we see you, you know, making that space, your primary residence, the place where you do your daily work? your home. So looking at it all, I have concerns that it may not be your principal residence along with the concurrent bookings, which is the totality of information that I'm speaking to.
I managed my bookings based off of the number of guests that could comfortably fit in the home, and I always had personal room to stay in. I had two rooms upstairs. I had offered also a fold-out, and I had a room downstairs as well, so I could in total technically support seven people without me having to leave the home, and I had a room for myself still. And yes, I had two listings, and even with the two listings, I would only usually host between four to six guests and I rarely had to leave the home. So that's like the only kind of main like explanation for like the 50 booking days that you did point out. And I also wanted to include that.
Yeah.
Applicant, I'll just clarify in the process, you will have a chance to make your remarks shortly here. So these are just questions to Sarah Hicks at this moment.
Okay. I would like clarity on the 2027 license statement. You said it impacts the 2027 license. Why and how will this impact?
Sorry, to clarify that, it will not impact your ability to apply for a 2027 license, whatever Council's decision is today.
You can apply in 2027 if Council supports my decision of not giving you a license this year.
Okay. Sorry, I misheard that.
I don't think I have any other questions for Sarah. Okay, thank you very much. I see Council Montague on the queue. Do you have questions, Council Montague? Yeah, I just wanted to follow up with a couple more questions for Ms. Six, if I could. Yes, go ahead.
Can you point to, you mentioned a couple of other addresses, including a dog license and another address, and I forget the context of the address. Are those in the package that we have? And if so, can you just point them out?
Unfortunately, those documents were missed in the package, but we do have them in PDF, which can be mailed to counselors. I have hard copies in chamber.
Okay. Are you able to just sort of give me a quick close notes version of what those are again?
Yeah, absolutely. One of the documents is a business license for this address issued this summer for a long-term rental license. That was applied for by Vanessa and is in both Vanessa and Christine's name. We have a, looking at Christine's other residence, which is indicated on her ID in the package, of 285 East 10th Avenue. There is a long-term rental license at that property and has been one since 2022. And the third document is a dog license in both Christine and Vanessa's name for 728 West 61st Avenue. That is for a dog license that was issued in 2019. And then in 2025, there was an indication that there was no longer a dog.
Okay, thanks. And then just one last question. I'm looking at... back on page 369, just the number of days in the BC portal.
So, and I'll have a follow-up question for the applicant later, but just to confirm, so...
I see June, July, August, and September are all dates over 45 days, which is basically, so is that telling you that both places are being rented for at least a 15-day or greater period during that month to get over that 45? So more than half a month, both of the units are being rented?
Yes. If you're looking at June 2025, it shows that there's 46 days, and then the second number is 15 different rentals. So over 15 different occurrences, 46 days were booked. I know through consolidating the calendars of each individual listing that there were, of that, there were 27 nights booked in the basement and 19 nights booked in the upper unit. Those listings, just to add, don't indicate that that is a shared space. It indicates that they are a full listing. The basement has changed over time to, say, a room within a space, but as Christine mentioned that she would stay in the home, we don't see an indication of that in the listings.
Okay, so for instance, in June, the 46 days would indicate that for 16 days, both of those units were being rented at the same time. Is that correct?
Well, at minimum 16 days, they were booked, yes, over top of each other.
Thank you very much. So we will now move on to hearing opening remarks from the applicant.
Sorry, I'm a little bit nervous.
I'm not used to public speaking. Can you hear me OK?
Yes, we can hear you just fine.
Good morning, and thank you for hearing my appeal. I am a bit nervous. because I'm not used to public speaking in forums like this, but I'm grateful for the opportunity to explain my position. I want to continue operating my short-term rental, and I want to do so in full compliance with the city's bylaws. With my most recent application, I submitted a new operational letter that follows the applicable bylaws and addresses the city's requirements. I also believe that I meet the principal residence requirements as set out in the city zone guidelines. I provided supporting evidence of this, including a statutory declaration from my neighbor, which the city has a physical copy of, confirming that I am his neighbor and I reside at 768 East 11th Avenue. I also submitted a secondary statutory declaration with supporting documentation showing my connection to and residence at the property. This included my ICBC address history, notices of assessment, home insurance policy, credit card statements, horse BC, gas records, geographical spending records, receipts, voter registration, and BC driver's license, all showing the address of 768 East 11th Avenue.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Oh, sorry. Continuing? That's all. Okay. Great. Thank you. So you are, this is your chance as an applicant to call any witnesses you'd like to call?
I don't have, like, I don't have any witnesses I'd like to call on.
but I would like the chance to speak to all of the comments, all of the things that Sarah brought up.
That is fine. As you're opening remarks, you're welcome to address anything that you've heard that you'd like to respond to. Okay.
Sorry.
Take your time. It's okay. I know that can be nerve-wracking.
Regarding the 50 bookings, I have two listings allowing me to host both small guests and small families. And I fully acknowledge and learned upon the 2025 audit that I have two different groups at the same time, and it was not allowed. I acknowledge I did not realize this was the bylaw requirement and was wrong in my prior operations. My stays in other Airbnbs when traveling gave me the incorrect assumptions that more than one group in one home was okay.
So based on personal traveling experience and seeing how other hosts kind of operate, that's kind of how I, you know, that's how I saw it. My ongoing operations will correct for this noncompliance. In talking to the city of Vancouver, there was a simple recommendation to sync the two calendars to not allow for concurrent bookings. I plan to do this.
This is easy for me to correct, so I will be doing this if granted. The two listings does give me flexibility to host varying sizes to occupy my vacant rooms, and I enjoy and want that flexibility. And I don't think that it breaks any bylaws by keeping it synced.
Because I had two listings, it has been calculated that I had more days hosted in certain calendar months. I have always managed my hosting by number of guests. Even in situations where I had two bookings concurrently, on average, I would host four to six guests.
And at a given time, this allowed me to stay in the home majority of the time. For Sarah made a concern about safety.
I have never had concerns about safety from my guests or for myself.
does like background checks and stuff like that. And I can read about the guests and stuff. So I do feel quite safe and the guests feel safe about me and reading my reviews. I have also been a super host for the entirety of my short-term rental license. I have never had external complaints about me being unsafe to the guests or to the neighbors.
Yeah. Regarding... Regarding the listing removals,
I stated to the city that this was unfortunately coincidental. I was always planning to renovate my kitchen. I'm a very hands-on person. And I had already stopped receiving reservations and accepting reservations as a result.
Renovations being completed by myself mostly. I started... planning for the reservations in autumn. And yeah, again, it was coincidental.
And I do feel like subjective purchases, substantial purchases is subjective. And it was still in the early stages of planning regarding the receipts that she was discussing of the things that I bought.
Take some water.
Regarding the stove, it existed with the prior owner. I did replace it with a hot plate. I never installed the stove ever again since 2022. It's an old and worn out thing that has been in the garage. I have even replaced and repurchased the hot plates when the previous one broke. I have receipts to prove this as well, and I can always dig that up and share that. I have also never converted it to a secondary suite with a full kitchen. Had I converted the basement to a kitchen, I would have no need to buy replacement hot plates. So, yeah. And again, the stove has sat idle in the garage since 2022. a single girl, then I cannot be bothered to move it up and down the stairs. It's incredibly heavy. And, you know, leaving the stove as garbage in the garage and I'm like not going to take it to a dump. So it's kind of just been sitting there. Okay. All right.
Regarding Christine, she is my business partner. We are co-owners of the property. We are long-term friends.
We both had a dream to own a home in Vancouver. But Christine's principal residence has been her own personal condo.
When we purchased the home... Christine did intend to live in the home. The two factors that caused her to live back into her condo was that she was going to sell it, but the market had fallen and interest rates had gone up. That was one reason. The other reason was her dog had become very ill. And he needed a wheelchair and he couldn't take the stairs up and down the stairs in my home. So for those reasons, she held off in moving in and stayed in her condo. And I don't know if this is TMI or anything, but her dog was diagnosed with a kidney disease and all these health issues at that time. So he was, yeah, very disabled. And he's also a large dog. So it was really hard to help him up and down the stairs.
Regarding the long-term license and Christine at her condo, I don't know about her business there. And regarding the dog license, I spent his entire life with him. I know him. But Christine is the dog owner. I also have my own family dog. Very unrelated.
Christine had applied for a dog license. I have never applied for a dog license for her dog. So I'm not very sure what's happening there. But I do have a close relationship with her dog. And I wouldn't be surprised if I was added more as an emergency contact. Again, yeah, that's pretty much my final remarks. Thank you.
Okay, thank you very much. Panel members, if you have any questions for the witness, please place yourself on the queue. And I see Council Montague is on the queue. I will remind panelists that this is the only opportunity to ask questions of the witness. Go ahead, Council Montague.
Yeah, thanks. And don't be nervous. We're just trying to sort of figure out what's going on here.
I guess, and I've made it quite clear over the course of many years that there's lots of things with the city of Vancouver short-term rental bylaw that I disagree with and would like to see changed. But I do have a couple of questions for you just to clarify so that I understand a little better. You have both of the suites rented out, both the three-bedroom upstairs and the one-bedroom downstairs. Where do you stay?
So, again, I could easily have two of them, like, booked at one time. But there was always a bedroom for me to stay. I, again, managed my bookings based off of the number of guests. So if I had... Two bedrooms being occupied upstairs and the fold-out, which I offered, and I had a bedroom downstairs. I could have seven people and me staying there comfortably, and there was never any issue of safety or anything.
Are you saying that there are times when you would have the one-bedroom basement rented and then, say, two of the three bedrooms upstairs rented and you would stay in the third bedroom?
That's correct, yeah.
And these are people that are unknown to you and strangers and they didn't mind having you staying in the unit?
No, and also like my daily life is very like I work a lot. I work many hours in my industry. I would like wake up in the morning, use the kitchen for mostly coffee, and I would be going to the studio to work. I work long hours and kind of odd hours. So, like, oftentimes the kitchen and living space, it's a shared space, but there was, like, little to no interaction with these guests, unless it was, like, unless they wanted it.
So in any of your correspondence, would you say to them that you'd be living in the same space and that they would be sharing bathrooms and kitchens with you?
The home is advertised as a shared space, so that basically tells enough, in my opinion. Yeah, the home is advertised as a shared space.
Okay. These other addresses that Sarah X brought up, the 285 East 10th, whose address is that?
That would be Christine's address.
So that's her permanent home address?
That is correct.
Okay. And 728 West 61st Avenue. What's that address?
As far as I'm aware, I believe that is her family's address, like her parents. Okay.
I think that's all I have, Chair. Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Montague. Over to Councillor Kirby-Young.
Yeah, thanks, Chair. I just have one question. You mentioned that you operated it, you were inspired to do this based on traveling or being in other cities, and you operated on the assumption of what you had seen in other cities. Did you review Vancouver's short-term rental regulations before listing your places?
I honestly thought I did, and I was abiding by the principles of the principal residents. And the definitions of what I could and could not do. I believe that I was doing it correctly. But after the audit, I learned I wasn't doing it correctly. And I plan to correct that moving forward.
Okay. So you did review them? I just want to be clear. Yes. I did review them. I thought I was abiding by them.
Okay. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Councillor Kirby-Young. Does the city's council have any questions for the witness?
Sorry, we can't hear the witness. Can you just check your microphone, please?
Did you hear my question? Sorry, what was your question? I didn't hear anything. Yeah, thanks. You indicated that you have your own family dog. This is a different dog than what was licensed to you and Christine? Yeah, indeed. I mean, yes, my family dog. Do you have a license for that family dog? I believe it was... Well, he passed away, but it would have been under my family's name.
I'm not sure who. When did that dog pass away? I'm sorry. Sadly, but shortly after Christine's dog, because they spent a lot of time together. And what address was that dog licensed at then?
Likely 828 West 52nd Avenue. And who lives at that premises? My parents.
You don't stay or live at that premises?
No, I do not.
You paused there. Do you sometimes stay there? Have you stayed there in the past for long periods of time? I have not stayed there for long periods of time. But on occasion, I have stayed there for a few nights. They are my parents. Yeah, I have stayed there for a few nights. Yes. And do you stay with your parents or have you ever stayed with your parents when the entirety of your premises is occupied by short-term renters?
There were times when I accepted, like, larger groups and I would leave all my belongings at my home. At 768, and I would stay for short periods of time at my parents, yes. Thank you. You indicated that Christine was your business partner, is that right? That's correct, and lifelong friend. And how long has Christine been your business partner? Basically, when we decided to buy, purchase the home, in 2022. Yeah. Okay. So is that the nature of your business is that you are co-owning this particular property and trying to generate business revenue out of it?
Yes. This is the only business and the only business I've ever had. I'm learning a lot.
Yeah.
Yes.
Have you ever turned down a booking because it would cause yourself to leave the premises?
Honestly, I don't recall. But if it didn't match my lifestyle or what I needed at the time, then I wouldn't be accepting the booking.
All right. Thank you. Those are my questions. thank you very much and we will now move to closing submissions by the City's Council thank you I'm just going to pick up on a comment that the applicant I mentioned in her opening statement which was that not clear to her what the evidence was that she was not principal resident of the the property and I'm going to remind the council effectively is that the onus is on the applicant to satisfy first the chief license inspector and then this council that she falls underneath the definition of the principal resident of the property which would qualify her to to hold the the business license And so when Ms. Hicks indicates the totality of the evidence means that she wasn't satisfied that the applicant had established that she was the principal resident, that's essentially the same question that this panel needs to determine. it's it's quite clear from both the applicants evidence today and the collated booking calendars that are at page 369 that this particular property is not a principal residence primarily for the applicant, but it is a commercial premises that I think could be described somewhat as somewhat of a rooming house over the years or a multiple unit Airbnb short-term rental. As Ms. Hicks has indicated, this type of situation and setup as concurrent bookings or multiple rooms being booked simultaneously is offside the license bylaw what we know it goes back to May 2024 is that at least since that time the premises has been occupied and being rented as a business in that fashion, looking at these numbers in terms of the concurrent bookings. We don't know if that goes beyond to 2022, when the license was first issued. But I will highlight that it was communicated to the license holders... In 2022, the concurrent bookings were not available under the business license, and that was specifically because a red flag was raised when the initial inspection of the property was done, that this was the perfect setup for the license holder to be renting two different parts of the property simultaneously. And lo and behold, that red flag was... well warranted by the time the audit was undertaken in and 2025 I do question the the communication with respect to the city undertaking the audit and the and the bookings or the host compliance listings or the host listings coming down the following day and the days afterwards especially given that the licensee or the licensee at the time had been notified that they weren't allowed to carry on the business in that way in 2022. Effectively, there's enough red flags here that should cause council to question... based on the history of the premises whether or not this is a principal residence of anyone notwithstanding the fact that the the applicant resides there sometimes on that basis I would suggest that the that the council should find that the applicant has not established that she is a principal resident of the premises under the 2026 license application. It could very well be that she's now renting the premises full-time. I don't know. I don't know why the license exists. We don't have... explanation for that but she is at liberty to reapply for a 2027 license if if there's no further issues with respect to the property again it would be up for the chief license inspector to initially determine whether that application should be I should be granted those are my submissions thank you very much you will now move to closing submissions by the applicant
Again, I want to acknowledge the bylaw noncompliance of multiple bookings, and it is not correct. I do think this is a very simple thing I can correct for. Aside from this, I feel the observations on my lifestyle and assumptions made here are judgments made, but not factual. And I do have a question. I'm not sure how else to prove that this is my principal residence. I have provided extensive amount of documentation, including my statutory declarations, supporting a lot of this. And I believe this is sufficient. I need help from the city. And how else I can prove this assumption? And to make sure that in 2027, if I am to apply again, how else I can move forward.
Okay, thank you very much. We will now move to discussion by the panel members. If you'd like to make any remarks, please put yourself on the queue.
Yeah, thanks, Chair. I'm going to send in a motion.
Of course, we're required to...
I can... Could I just ask... Oh, never mind. I think I can do it quicker here.
So I'm going to send an emotion. We're required to do that, obviously, either to uphold the decision of the chief license inspector or to overturn it. I have to admit, I have some concerns. And I say this at every business license hearing that I am a panel member for is that I honestly don't like a lot of the city of Vancouver's. Um, bylaw when it comes to short term rentals, there's a lot I'd like to see changed. Uh, that being said, I, I have to, I have to, um, have to deal with the bylaw that's in front of me. Um, I do have some red flags with regards to, uh, Everything from the purchase of the home and the immediate acquisition of a short-term rental license, the fact that for large chunks of time, many, many months in a row, that both units are being rented out simultaneously.
These are all issues that I have to...
that I'm not convinced that this is a principal resonance. That being said, and again, this is not a beyond a reasonable doubt type of situation here. This is a balance of probabilities. So to me, I don't think that the applicant has complied with the short-term rental bylaw. And for that reason, I have submitted a motion to uphold the decision of the chief license inspector. That being said, I mentioned earlier and confirmed that this is only for 2026. And I do think that the applicant can very easily comply with the city's short-term rental bylaw. by syncing calendars so that both the units aren't rented out. If the applicant rents out the three bedroom upstairs, she can live in the one bedroom suite downstairs. If she rents out the one bedroom suite downstairs, she can be living in the three bedrooms upstairs. I would suggest that the applicant get rid of the stove in the garage. She can easily either sell that to a used appliance place or they'll even come and pick it up or to a scrap metal for recycling. That's not a difficult task, and I think the applicant can very easily... comply with our bylaws, but I have sent in a motion to uphold the decision of the license inspector.
Okay, thank you. And just noting on your time, it did start at three minutes, so I let it go, and I'll just note that for the clerks to reset the clocks as we're on a new part of our proceeding here. So thank you, and I think we will need a seconder, and then I'll move to Councillor Kirby-Young.
Second.
Thank you, and over to you, Councillor Kirby-Young.
Yeah, thanks very much, Chair. As Councillor Montague said, it is up to Council to sort of judge the balance and the preponderance of the information that's in front of us. I may be speaking a little bit to intent here, but just referencing comments specifically from the applicant about the ability to afford a home in Vancouver, and I'm paraphrasing. I think that was stated. I understand that fully in terms of the fact it's a very expensive city to live in, and I can truly understand where this came from. I'm also weighing the fact that the applicant has very clearly stated that she has a business partnership with the other individual and the intention of that business is solely for commercialization of the property, which was listed shortly after it was purchased. So that is very clear. Regardless of opinion on the City of Vancouver's bylaw, As it stands currently, it is our job to enforce the bylaws that are in place at the present time. And the intention is that they are principal residences and that homes are encouraged for people to live in as opposed to being commercial ventures. And yet the bylaw attempts to provide the opportunity for people to generate additional income from their home as long as it is their primary residence. I think in weighing it is quite clear that this home is being utilized very fully. in terms of the commercialization piece versus the balance of home. And the concurrent listings has certainly been the issue. While it was confirmed by the applicant that they had read the bylaw, not understanding it, either ignorance or an understanding is not a defense for not being in compliance with it. I do appreciate Councillor Montague's question earlier with respects to the fact that any decision by this panel today will not preclude the applicant from pursuing a 2027 business license as long as they are in compliance with the bylaw and make any necessary changes, which the applicant has indicated that they are willing to do. So sort of on balance and looking at that information, I can understand the situation, but the job that the council and the panel has is to determine whether or not we feel that somebody genuinely has been compliant or non-compliant with the bylaws it stands. And I think that it's quite clear with the heavy utilization of the property, in particular the concurrent listings, that non-compliance has been, I think, in my mind, quite clearly outlined. So for that reason, I will uphold the motion that Counselor, or will support, I should say, the motion that Counselor Montague has brought forward. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Councillor Kirby-Young. So we will now, that was discussion of course. So the business license panel will now make a decision and that motion has been moved. So with that and seeing no one else on the queue, I too can just put myself on the queue to briefly echo the comments of my colleagues and analysts for this business license hearing. I think they spoke very well to the difficulty of some of the decisions we face and the variables that can be often be quite personal to the applicants. And while the bylaws are not perfect, I would also agree that upholding the business license recommendation for the balance of 2026 does make sense in this case, given all the facts that have been provided. And I do appreciate the applicant going through this process and hope that from this, they will be able to navigate a path forward. So with that, those are my comments.
And that voting screen is up. Thank you very much. And that motion does pass with unanimous support. Can I get adjournment, please?
Motion to adjourn. Thank you. Seconder? Thank you. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? And that carries. Thank you. That is our business for today.
Thank you for your time. Thank you very much.