‘It’s a death trap’

Montague council may bring unsightly property to Supreme Court

An unsightly property here could soon find its way in front of Canada’s highest court.

Council voted 4-1 vote last night to consider filing a Supreme Court application to have an order imposed for either the repair or, more likely, demolition of a house and detached garage at 9 Riverside Dr.

Councillors will vote during next month’s meeting on whether to officially file the application.

Chief administrative officer Andy Daggett, who filed the request, said the town has received multiple appeals from residents to have the property fixed under an unsightly premises bylaw.

While the grass has been mowed, the home is in a clear state of disrepair with major structural damage and openings through the eaves.

Residents have reported seeing rats inside the home, as well as droppings in the two buildings and many burrows underneath.

“It looks like a tornado went off in there,” said Daggett.

No one lives in the home, which still has electricity, water and sewer hooked up.

Resident David Miles, who also lives on the street, said the biggest concern is safety.

He said the property is easily accessible and located close to the junior high school. The trusses supporting the roof have become bowed and rotten.

“In our eyes, it’s a death trap,” said Miles, who has found dead rats in his yard twice during the past year. “I have grandchildren that play in the yard and these are big rats so I have a concern.”

Daggett said the application is the final option since the property owner has ignored the town’s previous requests.

“We’ve sent three notices… the last notice was basically ‘please call the CAO to discuss this situation’,” said Daggett, noting the town has also tried calling the owner. “We’ve had nothing, no reply.”

An information sheet provided by the province stated the town must make an application to the Supreme Court to remedy the situation.

Daggett said the cost of making an application could range from $2,000 to $10,000 depending on the complexity of the case and any resistance from the homeowner.

He said the court fees and costs of demolition would be recoverable through a lien against the property, although he noted the remedy would ultimately be up to the court to decide.

“I’d like to think the individual who owns the property will be responsible for whatever needs to be done,” said Daggett. “The good thing is, a court system saying ‘you have to do this’ carries a little more weight than a bylaw.”