An Upper Mission property owner feels there is 鈥渘o end to the harassment鈥� over his short-term rental operation.
Peter Drummond was back in front of council on Aug. 11 following the city鈥檚 refusal to grant him a business licence for his property at 381 Viewcrest Crescent.
After Drummond鈥檚 short-term licence was approved in 2022, it was cancelled in March 2025, following more than 50 complaints about the operation, according to city records. Drummond appealed to council, but it upheld the staff decision.
In April, Drummond applied for a new licence, which was refused by the city. Council voted unanimously to uphold that decision at its Aug. 11 meeting.
Councillors Maxine DeHart and Gord Lovegrove recused themselves from the discussion and the vote, citing a perceived conflict of interest, as they both own short-term rentals.
Staff pointed out that several more complaints were received after the licence was cancelled.
However, during his presentation to council, Drummond noted that only family and friends have been staying at the property over the past few months.
鈥淚 just want to point out that the number of complaints is up 20 per cent halfway through summer,鈥� he explained. 鈥淪o it's clearly not about the Airbnb鈥攊t's about my family living in the house.鈥�
Drummond reiterated previous claims that he and his family are being targeted by neighbours, adding he鈥檚 on a first-name basis with the bylaw officers who have visited his property.
鈥淎nd they say the thing they dread the most is having to call our neighbours and tell them to leave us alone,鈥� he said. 鈥淭hey actually recommended that we file a harassment suit with the RCMP, which we鈥檝e done.鈥�
Drummond said a recent complaint was 鈥渁bout us having too many friends and too much fun.鈥� He also said that complaints made before his licence was cancelled and then denied were unfounded, and he鈥檚 been fined for getting too many complaints.
鈥淭his doesn't seem like a fair process to me, when there's no evidence that we're doing anything wrong. When I do the Freedom of Information Act requests鈥rove that actually we're in the right and that we are being targeted.鈥�
A statement from the city provided to Black Press Media noted that during an investigation, it is not common practice for Bylaw Services to recommend or suggest any course of legal or retaliatory action when speaking with the subject of the complaint.
Regarding fines for multiple complaints, the city said it appears that the property owner is referencing the Good Neighbour Bylaw.
鈥淲here a bylaw enforcement officer or member of the RCMP are required to respond to real property for more than three nuisance service calls within any twelve (12) month period, the owner of the real property shall pay a Nuisance Abatement Fee for each nuisance service call in excess of three within any twelve (12) month period.鈥�
The statement also noted that Bylaw Services 鈥済enerally don't comment on or negotiate in the media about our enforcement activities or any active files.鈥�
