Daniell F. Bartley

The appellant appealed an order striking his statement of claim and dismissing his action.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, agreeing that the pleaded facts did not establish a breach of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, nor did they provide a basis for a civil cause of action against the City.

The appeal on costs was also dismissed, with the Court finding the original costs order reasonable.

The appellant corporation sought to demolish a heritage-designated building it owned.

The City of Hamilton rejected the application and sent written notice of rejection to the sole director of the corporation at his residential address rather than to the corporation's registered address.

The appellant argued that the notice was improperly served under section 67(1)(b) of the Ontario Heritage Act, which requires service to the "last known address" of the person.

The appellant contended that the failure to serve at the registered address meant the municipality failed to comply with the statutory service requirement, triggering a deeming provision that would constitute deemed consent to the demolition application.

The application judge found that the city had taken positive steps to give notice and that the notice was actually received by the sole directing mind of the corporation.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision on the unique facts of the case.