Brandon Klaus Duewel

The Chief Building Official of the City of Cambridge issued an emergency order for the immediate demolition of the designated heritage Preston Springs Hotel due to its unsafe structural condition and persistent trespassing.

The CBO applied to the court to confirm the reasonableness of this order and to recover demolition costs from the owner, Haastown Holdings (Preston) Inc., who consented to both orders.

The Architectural Conservancy of Ontario (ACO) intervened, challenging the reasonableness of the demolition order, arguing that the CBO failed to consider relevant factors (heritage status, appeal to CRB, alternative remediation options) and considered irrelevant factors (cost of remediation).

The court applied a reasonableness standard of review, finding that the CBO's decision was well-informed by expert reports and his own inspections, and that the building posed an immediate danger that necessitated demolition.

The court confirmed the emergency order and the recoverability of demolition costs from the owner, dismissing the ACO's challenge and alternate relief requests as moot or unsupported.

The Architectural Conservancy of Ontario, Heritage Cambridge (ACO-Cambridge), an unincorporated entity, sought leave to intervene in an application by the Chief Building Official of the City of Cambridge to confirm an Emergency Order for the demolition of the Preston Springs Hotel, a designated heritage property.

The court first addressed ACO-Cambridge's legal status, substituting the parent organization, Architectural Conservancy of Ontario (ACO), as the proper moving party under Rule 26.01.

The court then considered the Rule 13 test for intervention, finding that ACO had a sufficient public interest in the matter, which was deemed to be of public importance.

While granting leave to intervene, the court imposed strict limitations on ACO's participation, restricting its evidence and submissions to the sole issue of the reasonableness of the CBO's Emergency Order and limiting affidavits to two, to prevent undue delay and expansion of the proceeding.

The court also determined ACO to be a public interest litigant but deferred the decision on its liability for costs of the main application to the application judge.

This endorsement addresses costs following the dismissal of a motion for security for costs brought by Peel Condominium Corporation No. 507 (PCC 507) and supported by Larlyn Property Management Ltd. Precision Tree Care Ltd. (Precision), the successful party on the original motion, sought costs.

The court applied Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering factors such as the result, complexity, and the parties' conduct.

The court fixed costs at $10,000.00, payable by PCC 507 to Precision, noting that Precision was successful and the matter was moderately complex.

Larlyn was not awarded costs and was not ordered to pay costs, as it took no position on the original motion.

The court also admonished counsel for not adhering to page limits for submissions and for attempting to re-argue the underlying motion.