B. Kussner

The moving party, previously declared a vexatious litigant, sought leave to bring a motion declaring he had complied with a consent order requiring him to demolish and remove an existing structure on his property.

He had removed the wooden shell but left the cement foundations, arguing they were not a 'structure'.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the court was functus as the proceeding had been finally settled, the foundations clearly constituted a structure, and there was an inordinate and unexplained two-year delay in bringing the motion.

Following an application regarding the interpretation of a municipal zoning by-law, the court determined the costs of the proceeding.

The applicant argued it should not pay costs as a public interest litigant.

The court found the applicant failed to establish it was a public interest litigant, as the issues were predominantly local rather than of broad public interest.

Due to divided success on the issues, the court reduced the costs awarded to the respondent municipality.

The court declined to award separate costs to the added corporate respondent, finding its interests were adequately represented by the municipality.

The applicant was ordered to pay partial indemnity costs to the municipality.

The applicant appealed the Chief Building Official's decision to issue a building permit for a waste processing facility.

The applicant argued the facility was not a permitted 'Dry Industry' use and lacked required municipal service connections.

The Superior Court of Justice found the applicant had standing and upheld the CBO's reasonable determination that the facility was a permitted use.

However, the court modified the building permit to mandate that the facility be fully connected to municipal water and sewer services prior to occupancy, as required by the zoning by-law.