Charles A. Painter

The appellant appealed a decision of the Chief Building Official revoking a building permit for the construction of a two-family dwelling.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding it was barred by res judicata as the revocation order had been previously upheld.

On the merits, the court held that while the property had legal non-conforming use status, the appellant's proposed construction constituted an extraordinary intensification of use that required a zoning variation from the Committee of Adjustments, which falls outside the authority of the Chief Building Official.

The plaintiff, Valrose Taylor, brought an action for injuries sustained after falling on a City of Brampton bus due to sudden braking.

The parties agreed on damages, leaving only the question of liability.

The court examined the bus driver's standard of care, considering the sudden braking event caused by pedestrians running in front of the bus.

The court found the driver met the standard of care of a reasonable bus driver in the circumstances, as he had to brake immediately to avoid serious injury or death to the pedestrians.

The action was dismissed.

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident, arguing the plaintiff failed to provide written notice within 10 days as required by section 44(10) of the Municipal Act.

The plaintiff argued the notice provision was of no force and effect, that notice was not required after 10 days, and that the discoverability principle delayed the start of the notice period.

The court rejected these arguments, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a reasonable excuse for the want of notice under section 44(12).

The action against the municipality was dismissed.

The appellant brought a motion to reopen a final judgment based on fresh evidence, specifically a document ('exhibit H') purporting to show the correct zoning for his property, which would resolve a dispute over a revoked building permit.

The court found it had jurisdiction to reopen the case under Rule 59.06(2)(a) to prevent a miscarriage of justice, despite the appellant's lack of reasonable diligence in bringing the document forward.

However, after reviewing the evidence, the court concluded that exhibit H was not an authentic document.

The motion to alter the previous judgment was dismissed, and the original remediation timetable remained in effect.

The appellant appealed a stop work order and revocation of a building permit issued by a municipal chief building official under s. 25 of the Building Code Act relating to the construction of a duplex in Brampton.

The municipality determined that the project contravened the applicable zoning by-law and revoked the permit.

The court held that the municipality correctly identified the applicable by-law and that the permit was issued in error.

However, the revocation and cancellation of the legal non‑conforming use designation were found to be unfair and unreasonable in the circumstances, particularly given the appellant’s reliance on the municipality’s prior representations and the substantial expenditures already incurred.

The court stayed the revocation of the permit to allow the appellant an opportunity to remedy the by-law violations and held that damages could not be awarded on a statutory appeal under the Act.

Following a motion by the self-represented plaintiff to introduce new evidence and set aside an earlier order dismissing her action for lack of jurisdiction, the court addressed the issue of costs.

Although the motion was largely unsuccessful against the assessment-related defendants, it resulted in limited relief against the municipality permitting the filing of a fresh amended pleading restricted to a potential tort claim.

The court concluded that the assessment-related defendants were entitled to costs of the motion.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the Assessment Review Board, substantial indemnity costs to the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, and partial indemnity costs to the municipality after the plaintiff failed to deliver the contemplated fresh amended statement of claim.

Three municipal defendants brought a motion seeking to determine a question of law before trial and to strike the statement of claim without leave to amend for failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

During oral submissions the moving parties sought leave, without notice, to amend their defence to plead the Limitations Act.

The court granted leave to amend the pleadings and directed the applicants to file a more complete factum addressing the legal basis of their argument that no duty of care was owed to the plaintiff.

The motion itself was adjourned to permit further filings and responses.