Thursday, April 5th, 2007 ::: Law: Threats Against Us

Welcome back to Ad Nauseam. Today, we present the story of the Stollery Signs. Titan Worldwide is operating six illegal billboards at 1 Bloor Street West, the intersection of Toronto’s two busiest streets. Now, they are in a multi-million dollar mess, and it’s all because of IllegalSigns.ca. These roof signs are Titan’s flagship signs, the signs Titan shows you on their homepage.

In fact, these signs are so valuable to Titan Outdoor, that we received this threatening letter from Titan’s junior solicitor, Cleo Kirkland, who attempted to enjoin us from publishing this blog post.

Click here to read the rest of our communications with Titan’s junior solicitor.

So, here it is, what Titan Outdoor doesn’t want you to know. In a nutshell:

• Titan obtained a permit, pursuant to this variance, for four backlit roof signs, two for 1st party use, two for 3rd party use, then erected five illegal tri-visions, all running 3rd party copy;
• Titan then applied for and obtained this additional variance for two additional 3rd party signs to be attached to the illegal tri-visions. This was done without legalizing the existing tri-visions. The Buildings Department was going to issue permits for these signs, but will now refuse because we brought to their attention the fact that the existing tri-visions are illegal. The new variances are predicated upon the new signs being attached to existing tri-visions - the variances are therefore null and void, unless Titan can go back to City Council and legalize the existing tri-visions;
• The building inspector inspected the illegal tri-visions and mistakenly cleared the permit despite major deviations from approved plan. The inspector then refused to re-open the file after we pointed out his errors;
• Michael Zalts, the engineer working for Titan on the roof signs, resigned from the project after backtracking on assurances he made to Toronto’s Chief Buildings Engineer;
• Titan pre-sold space on the illegal signs for 10 years to L’Oreal, one of the largest outdoor advertisers in the world;
• Titan is also illegally operating a large 3rd party fascia sign at 1 Bloor West, facing Yonge Street, on a permit that allows only 1st party signage, although it obtained a variance for 3rd party signage that it never used, a variance that has now lapsed;

Here, now, is the long story, of how IllegalSigns.ca cracked Titan Outdoor’s multi-million dollar illegal signs operation at Toronto’s busiest intersection and how Titan Outdoor came this close to getting away with it all.

The Building Inspector Screws Up Then Refuses to Correct it

On November 20, 2005, Building Inspector John Mignardi inspected the front-lit tri-vision signs at 1 Bloor West and wrongly concluded that they were built according to plan. Let’s take a look at the approved plan for these signs (click here to see it large.)

Look at the notation on the plan, which clearly notes that the signs are to be “backlit.” The zoning examiner made Jörg Cieslok of Titan Outdoor initial the notation about backlighting - that’s Cieslok’s signature between the notation and the Building Department’s stamp.

Inspector Mignardi inspected the signs on November 25, 2005. These are Inspector John Mignardi’s notes, in their entirety:

There is, of course, no such thing as a backlit tri-vision sign, and Mignardi signed off on clearly deviating front-lit tri-vision billboards. Four words are all he wrote: “Attended. All Work Complete.”

But not only were the tri-visions illegal, there were other deviations from plan that Mignardi missed.

Titan installed 5 signs rather than the 4 signs that the plan approves - Titan installed a small 5th tri-vision above the middle convex sign facing the intersection. Inspector Mignardi missed the fact that Titan slipped in an extra sign. On the approved plan, the area of the 5th sign was show to have no signage. Furthermore, the permit allows only two signs for 3rd party use, and Titan has been running 3rd party copy on all the signs. Mignardi missed that, too.

We know the signs were deviating on November 20, 2005 when Mignardi inspected the signs because the diagrams Titan submitted in 2003 to City Council showed a photograph of the deviating tri-visions. We also know from A-Tec Signs’ web site (go to Projects, then Cieslok), that the initial installation of the signs contained two illegal tri-visions. “There are also two tri-face signs which are externally lit by flood lights,” A-Tec boldly states.

And in L’Oreal’s November 8, 2002 press release, they speak of two tri-vision signs (or “panneau-trio” in French); Grant Sign Service’s web site (click Archives, then L’Oreal) notes that the initial installation of the signs contained two tri-visions including “Canada’s first curved tri-vision;” And here is the King of Illegal Signs himself, Grant Sign Service’s Kieth Edwards posing below the illegal tri-visions his company installed for a January 2003 article in Outdoor Advertising Magazine. Finally, Kramer Design’s November 8, 2002 press release also speaks of two tri-vision signs. These companies are telling everyone they can about the illegal signs they worked on.

We asked Inspector Mignardi to re-open his inspection of 1 Bloor Street West. He refused to do so, telling us that a closed permit is a closed permit. We appealed to senior Buildings Department officials who will re-open the file. We are also seeking enforcement under the signs by-law. After the permit is re-opened we will seek revocation of the permit under Section (10)(c) if construction does not substantially commence within one year.

Mignardi’s erroneous conclusion that the tri-visions were legal set the stage for Titan to get the permits for the additional signs. Until…

The Additional Roof Signs

… IllegalSigns.ca came along and asked the Buildings Department to ensure that Titan legalizes the existing tri-visions at City Council before getting the new permits.

So about those additional signs… Titan went to City Council in 2003 and obtained a variance to attach 2 additional roof signs on the Bloor Street frontage (Committee Room 1 smells of sulfur still today). Look at the diagram Jerry Kramer submitted to City Council:

As you can see, per the diagram of the existing signs in Jerry Kramer’s variance application, the new signs must be affixed to a series of existing signs - 2 backlights facing Bloor 1 tri-vision facing Yonge and to convex tri-visions facing the intersection.

Nowhere in this second variance application does Jerry Kramer apply to legalize the three illegal tri-visions listed as “existing signs.” We believe that Mr. Kramer invalidated the variance he obtained for Titan by including the illegal tri-visions as existing signs. Titan was in a bit of a jam mind you, likely not wanting to call attention to the fact that those two tri-visions were illegal. We don’t know that Titan would have been able to legalize the existing tri-visions if they applied to do so in 2003; but if they ever did have a chance, it was then, not now, because now they have to contend with the fact that times have changed at Toronto East York Community Council and that is what really has Titan in a jam at 1 Bloor West.

We have suggested to the Buildings Department that issuing a permit for a sign that must be affixed to illegal signs is akin to issuing a permit for a 4th floor addition when the 3rd floor is illegal. We are confident that Buildings isn’t going to be issuing these permits. Any by the way, because the second variance application did not specify tri-vision signs, under the slim chance that Titan is granted a permit for the additional signs, it will be for backlit signs.

Here’s a thought: if you’re going to go through the trouble of applying for and obtaining two variances from City Council, it sure takes a real piece of work to play your cards so ineptly that you have to go back for a third variance to just to keep what you already have.

The Engineering Story

Before a permit is granted for a billboard, the sign must pass a structural review under the Building Code Act. At 1 Bloor West, Titan had one hell of a time with the structural review. The first thing to remember is that the structural review and all of the engineering calculations for these signs were conducted with plans that did not include tri-vision panels and that tri-vision panels are heavier than backlit signs for which the permit was eventually granted. Here’s the storyline: On January 30, 2002, the applicant (likely Jörg Cieslok of Titan Outdoor, then known as Cieslok Media) met with Bob McKeown, the downtown district’s Chief Buildings Engineer regarding the signs. Here’s what McKeown advised him, according to McKeown’s notes:

And then on Feb 5, 2002, Titan’s engineer, Michael Zalts, P.Eng. 51852507, duly provided that letter of confirmation. Here it is:

So Zalts attested that the “existing building can accommodate the extra loads due to the proposed signs installation.”

But the Building Department’s Chief Engineer didn’t buy it. The most astounding thing about this file is that after speaking with McKeown on the phone, Michael Zalts backtracked on the assurance he gave to McKeown about the structural adequacy of the building. McKeown then fired off this letter to Zalts:

Zalts then recommended these extensive changes to the structure of the building to re-enforce the building:

With the strength of that diagram, McKeown finally approved the permit, although he wrote in his notes that only “minimal requirements” were met:

Then six months later, Michael Zalts resigned from the project, with this letter:

Poor Michael Zalts was under so much stress he spelled his name wrong.

Why so much stress? Why did he release himself from the commitment he made to conduct a Field Review? We can’t tell you why Zalts resigned from his commitment to conduct a Field Review, because Zalts, whose career is dedicated to doing signs engineering for the outdoor advertising industry, isn’t talking. But we can tell you that the signs that were eventually constructed at 1 Bloor West did not conform to the plans which Engineer Bob McKeown approved - and that a proper Field Review should have noticed this. And we can tell you that an engineer that signs off on a deviating billboard, especially a billboard that is heavier than plan, is an engineer that’s got serious problems, especially with IllegalSigns.ca asking questions.

Conclusion: Titan Outdoor received a permit for backlit signs, a structure which only met the minimal requirements of the Building Code Act according to Toronto’s Chief Buildings Engineer, then Titan erected heaver tri-vision signage, the same type of sign that almost killed a pedestrian further downtown.

We just don’t know if Titan’s tri-vision signs at 1 Bloor West are safe. Because they were erected without a permit, the tri-vision structures did not pass through the Building Code compliance process.

Oh, and get this: when Inspector Mignardi conducted his “inspection” in November 2005, he didn’t ask for a Field Review. We will be insisting that Field Review.

Inspector Mignardi explained to us that sometimes inspectors make mistakes and he “does 2000 permits a year.” 2000 permits? Is that supposed to make us feel better? Titan Outdoor would not have erected these illegal signs if it felt the Buildings Department was up to the job of enforcing the Building Code Act. Building inspectors just aren’t up to their job.

The Illegal Fascia Sign

Not content with operating 5 illegal roof signs, Titan outdoor is operating this illegal fascia sign on the easterly elevation of the property.

The uncommon thing about this illegal 3rd party fascia sign is that in September 1994, City Council granted a variance for this sign, for third party use, after adopting Bob Millward’s Staff Report.

Yet, when Cieslok Outdoor applied for a permit for the sign, for whatever reason, Mr. Cieslok only obtained a 1st party permit. Here’s the permit for the sign. As you can see, only 1st party use is permitted. Stollery’s is not a movie theatre but Titan always runs 3rd party movie ad copy on this sign. Because only a 1st party permit was obtained pursuant to the 3rd party variance, and because the Signs By-Law was since amended to prevent 3rd party fascia signs from facing a street, the variance granted to this sign in 1994 has lapsed - it is a null variance and Titan’s 3rd party fascia sign is illegal and can’t be legalized without a new variance from City Council.

This is not the only time Mr. Cieslok did not apply for a 3rd party fascia permit after obtaining a variance to do so. In the case of 333 Adelaide West, a 3rd party permit was not obtained in order to maintain a 60M separation requirement for a nearby ground sign installation. In the case of 1 Bloor West, we can’t quite figure out was Mr. Cieslok was thinking, though we are sure it was something creative.

What Now?

Titan is in for a huge fight at 1 Bloor West. Bottom line is this: Titan needs Councillor Rae on board to legalize their existing tri-visions and get them out of this mess. Will the affable Rae want to facilitate Titan’s shenanigans? We don’t think so, especially when you consider that Titan operates more illegal 3rd party vinyl wall signs in Toronto than any other company, 61 illegal signs last time we counted, 19 of which are in Councillor Rae’s Ward 27; that Titan has shown time and time again that it is a company that has no respect for our laws, a company which has repeatedly failed to comply with tens of Notices of Violation issued by our Officers against their signs.

And, incidentally, Titan is now seeking support for a variance application for larger signs in Dundas Square, as Titan’s existing Dundas Square signs, Titan’s only real legal money-makers, are getting crowded out.

IllegalSigns.ca calls on Councillor Rae to stand up for the Municipal Code and say no to this corporation which is unlawfully polluting our every main street with its vast portfolio of 61 illegal billboards; 61 illegal billboards that turn our unique neighbourhoods into monocultures; 61 illegal billboards that tell us to buy more crap, ad nauseam; 61 illegal billboards that Titan Outdoor had the audacity to publicly list on its own web site, along with each sign’s exact municipal address so IllegalSigns.ca could discover, in one convenient location, the full extent of this company’s illegal activities; 61 illegal billboards that we researched, from the comfort of our living room, after filing Freedom of Information Inquiries for all sign permits issued to each of the municipal addresses listed on Titanoutdoor.ca; research which resulted in 61 complaints that IllegalSigns.ca simultaneously filed against Titan Outdoor’s illegal signs in December 2006; complaints which resulted in the City taking enforcement action against those signs; enforcement action that caused Titan to remove all the signs from its web site but not from our streets.