SOMBA K'E/YELLOWKNIFE - Delia Nitu showed up at Nova Plaza on Jan. 25 to inspect the building's first floor before deciding whether to recommend an occupancy permit.

Nova Builders is in territorial court this week over an accusation that it allowed the first floor of Nova Plaza to be occupied before an occupancy permit was issued in January. Nova Builders pleaded not guilty to the charge in August. - Terrence McEachern/NNSL photo

Nitu, a building inspector with the City of Yellowknife, expected to see the floor unoccupied. What she found was 28 people unpacking boxes, using computers and talking on the phones. Based on what she saw, she informed her supervisor she believed the developer was already allowing the premises to be occupied without a permit, she testified Dec. 1 in territorial court during the city's case against Nova Builders, the owner of the 52 Street building.

The city is alleging Nova Builders unlawfully occupied the premises from Jan. 25 to Feb. 17, 2010. If found guilty, the company could face a maximum fine of $10,000 a day for each of the violations. Nova Builders pleaded not guilty to the charge on Aug. 24, 2010.

Nitu had arranged to meet Milan Mrdjenovich, a part-owner and site supervisor with Nova Builders and the son of the company's principal owner Mike Mrdjenovich. But when Milan didn't show up, she entered the premises and began taking photographs to show Bill Fandrick, the city's building inspections manager, the "human activity" in the office space.

Defence attorney Sheldon Toner asked Nitu how she could tell whether the people in the office space were working or setting up the office for the Department of Education, Culture and Employment's Feb. 1 occupancy date. The department is leasing the premises for $29,900 a month. Toner explained she saw people setting up the computers and phones, adding she couldn't tell for certain.

Based on the photographs, Fandrick testified he agreed with Nitu's assessment, and that he saw "people engaged in normal work activity." He said city contacted Milan to update him on the situation, and later in the day, Milan stormed into Fandrick's office and a heated exchange began between the two men. "I don't care for unprofessional language," Fandrick told Loretta Bouwmeester, attorney for the City of Yellowknife.

On cross-examination, Toner asked Fandrick about an earlier incident between the city and Nova Builders over a two-metre high fence built on a School Draw Avenue property. The city took the case to court, alleging the fence built around the former Bartam Trailer Park was built without a development permit. The charges were stayed in May and the fence was allowed to stay after the city's development appeal board ruled in the developer's favour last August.

Fandrick said he remembered the incident, but accused Toner of "leading" his testimony. He said the city is not "out to get" or "picking on" Nova Builders. "It's not personal," he said. "We're not out to hammer Nova Builders." Fandrick reiterated that in this case "there's a process they failed to follow," he explained.

Fandrick testified that Nova Builder's occupancy permit was missing two critical documents - the verification reports for the floor's fire alarms and annunciator panels. Fandrick said a conditional occupancy permit couldn't have been issued because the verification was required for "life-safety" devices. This verification was completed on Feb. 17 by Fire Prevention Services Ltd.

Toner asked whether this verification was actually needed given that the third and fourth floor had been occupied since November 2009 - the concern being that fire travels "upwards." But Fandrick said the stairways and elevators were fire protected, so those occupants could escape safely in the case of a fire. Also, the fire alarms and annunciators had been installed on the first floor and verified in March 2009, but since then, the first floor underwent renovations and required the systems to be verified again.

Judge Christine Gagnon adjourned the matter for the day. At press time, it wasn't known when the parties would be back in court.

We welcome your opinions. Click here to e-mail a letter to the editor.