Issues between social enterprise Highjinx and the City of Ottawa remain ongoing, even after a March 30 meeting between the property’s landlord and city representatives.
The landlord, “Jim” — who requested his last name not be used in this article — provided documentation to this newspaper outlining his concerns related to a notice of violation issued earlier this year for the building at 290 Kent St.
He said Somerset Coun. Ariel Troster offered during the March 30 meeting to help arrange for an architect to assess the property for safety and compliance with city standards — an evaluation Jim said he would welcome.
“I offered to pass on the name of an architect who had reached out to volunteer to help him and the women from Highjinx to figure out what needed to be done to bring the building up to code,” Troster confirmed in an email to Kitchissippi Times.
She also stated that the city’s chief inspector has agreed to meet with Jim, the owners of Highjinx and the volunteer architect to better assess the situation.
Representatives from the mayor’s office, city bylaw and Building Code Services were also expected to participate in discussions aimed at resolving the outstanding issues related to the notice of violation.
“It is now up to the building owner to move forward, as he sees fit,” Troster continued.
Troster previously told Kitchissippi Times that Jim had refused to speak with her to find a resolution, but the building owner said he was willing to speak with the Somerset representative “once public statements were corrected.”
Troster told Centretown Buzz she had no record of communication with Jim, “except for at one point he CCed us on some messages from Building Code Services with no clear request from me or my office.”
Jim, meanwhile, said he made repeated attempts in 2025 to arrange a meeting with the councillor’s office and received only an out-of-office reply.
Operators of Highjinx declined a request for comment for this article.
Complaints stretch back years
Jim provided bylaw complaints he obtained through freedom-of-information requests, some dating to before 2015, when Highjinx first moved into the building. He said all of the complaints originated from a single community member whom he alleges has a longstanding grievance against him and his family.
He added that a no-trespass order against the individual was issued roughly 10 to 12 years ago.
Complaints ranged from criticism of a mural painted on a sidewall — not visible from the street — that read “we can’t help everyone…but everyone can help someone,” to questions about the food Highjinx provides to community members through its drop-in centre, to concerns over the structural integrity of the building.
Jim said the complaints are largely about what Highjinx does as a social enterprise rather than legitimate bylaw or building-code issues.
He said he asked staff in 2014 to flag his file due to what he described as nuisance complaints. Even with that request, he says the property has continued to face repeated enforcement concerns over the past decade.
Building-code and property-standards enforcement decisions are made by the city through its Building Code Services branch regardless of who files complaints.
Jim said a 2015 city-issued permit confirmed the property met zoning requirements at the time, and he maintains that zoning rules have not changed since.
He also shared January 2025 emails from city zoning staff stating Highjinx qualifies as a community health and resource centre, allowing its operations throughout the property without floor restrictions.
On Feb. 12, Highjinx shared via Facebook that the city had issued a notice of violation to Jim and that the enforcement action followed “repeated complaints from a single source.”
Jim said he has filed a complaint with the Ontario Ombudsman alleging misconduct, harassment, abuse of authority and breach of confidentiality by the city’s Bylaw Services branch.
He plans to proceed with scheduled court dates related to the notice, arguing that documentation will demonstrate what he described as a pattern of harassment rather than legitimate code or permit violations.
An earlier hearing took place April 9, with the next court date now scheduled for June 11.