More than two months after the partial collapse of a downtown Dundas building, the City of Hamilton will apparently issue a property standards order asking the owner to remove an obstruction from the city's street and sidewalk.

The fence surrounding temporary bracing of 3 King St. E. has blocked pedestrians and vehicles since August 7, one day after the Sure Print & Copy roof caved in and two roofers scrambled to safety.

Meanwhile, the building's British Columbia based owner said he hasn't heard anything about a possible property standards order and that a building permit application is being prepared to repair the building.

The city created a temporary pedestrian pathway around the fence in the roadway using pylons and yellow warning tape in mid-August after pedestrian safety concerns were raised, but it's not clear the path is working or that it meets guidelines for pedestrian safety. And the obstruction may make the city liable for any damages caused by accidents there.

Steve Parton, who operates Avalon Music just down the street, said neighbours would be happier if they saw construction underway.

Without a property standards order in place, Burbaby, B.C., based owner Amin Walji can leave the building in its present condition indefinitely.

"And so we get to walk around the barrier," Mr. Parton said. "The problem there is that some people don't see the thoroughfare that has been set up, and so they walk out into traffic on the other side of the barrier. No accidents, yet."

As of Monday afternoon, there were still no signs directing pedestrians or warning of the obstruction that stretches across the sidewalk and into the right turn lane on King Street East.

But while neighbours and city staff are not aware of any decision on the building's future, Mr. Walji told the Dundas Star News Tuesday afternoon he plans to repair the building.

"The engineer is going to do building permit drawings. It's getting rebuilt. It's going to take a while," Mr. Walji said.

City spokesperson Debbie Spence said neither the property standards department nor the risk management department had reviewed or investigated the building, or blockage of the sidewalk and road, over the past two months.

After repeated inquiries by the Dundas Star News to several city departments, Ms. Spence said Monday afternoon the city was about to act.

"The city has now advised the owner, through their representative, that we are not prepared to allow for the ongoing encumbrance of the city-owned sidewalk and roadway, and therefore are going to proceed with enforcement under our property standards bylaw as a means to cause some action by the owner," Ms. Spence wrote in an email. "The property standards order will be issued as soon as possible. This usually takes a few days."

Ms. Spence said there will be a 14-day appeal period for the owner once an order is issued.

But Mr. Walji said Tuesday afternoon he had not received any message from the City of Hamilton.

Claire Wilkinson, a personal injury lawyer at Martin & Hillyer in Burlington believes a fenced off area that requires pedestrians to walk on the street poses a liability risk to the City of Hamilton.

"If a pedestrian was walking on the street and was struck by a car, if I was the lawyer for that pedestrian I would sue not only the driver of the car, but also the property owner and the city," Ms. Wilkinson said.

Ontario's Municipal Act states a municipality is responsible for maintaining its roads and sidewalks in a reasonable state of repair. Section 44(2) of the act states a municipality that defaults in that responsibility "is liable for all damages any person sustains because of the default."

Section 62 of the Municipal Act allows municipalities to apply for a court order requiring landowners to remove any object "that may obstruct vision of pedestrians or drivers." The city would not say if a court order would be pursued in the case of 3 King St. E.

The City of Hamilton's own street's bylaw states obstruction of any roadway or sidewalk is prohibited without a permit.

Chris van Berkel of the city's Traffic Engineering and Operations section said Monday no road occupancy permit had been issued for 3 King St. E.

Randy Kay, a former Dundas resident and staff member of Transportation for Liveable Communities, said reasonable and safe passage needs to be provided for pedestrians.

"It's not ok to pretend that nothing needs to be done. Pedestrians need to be a priority in a community that values the environment and health, and obstructions need to be addressed in a reasonable manner," Mr. Kay said.

It's not clear how pedestrians with walkers, scooters or wheelchairs could navigate the temporary pathway that leads from the sidewalk into the roadway around 3 King St. E., particularly with no signage indicating the obstruction exists.

The Transportation Association of Canada, an organization which the City of Hamilton is a member of, created the voluntary Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) which suggests where interference with traffic and pedestrians is unavoidable; their movements should be guided in a clear manner by adequate signs, markers, pedestrian markers, pavement markings or traffic control persons.

The MUTCD states pedestrian safety should be given special consideration, particularly where a construction area encroaches on a sidewalk. Protective barricades, fencing, handrails or specifically designed passageways should used, according to MUTCD, to separate pedestrians from traffic as well as the work area.

Ontario municipalities are not required to follow the MUTCD, but it was cited by a judge in a 2007 court case where the City of Hamilton was found liable for damages suffered by a pedestrian.

Also the Ontario Ministry of Transportation sets guidelines for traffic control to keep pedestrians separated from moving traffic when sidewalks are detoured onto a road, in the Ontario Traffic Manual. These are also guidelines and not requirements, but it's not clear if the detour at 3 King St. E. meets these guidelines.

The City of Hamilton's property standards bylaw sets rules for the protection of damaged buildings, with a minimum standard of covering any opening with boarding with at least half an inch of weatherproofed sheet plywood fastened securely to the building. It's not clear if this minimum standard had been met at 3 King St. E.

If the city does issue an order to Mr.Walji under the property standard's bylaw, he will apparently have a specific period of time to either repair or demolish the building.

If an owner fails to comply with a property standards order, the city can repair or demolish the building itself.