David J. Potts

The appellants, landlords in Oshawa, appealed a judgment ordering them to cease using their properties as lodging houses.

They argued their properties operated as single dwelling establishments for groups of tenants, primarily students.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the properties were rented on a room-by-room, short-term basis, functioning as lodging houses rather than single housekeeping establishments.

The court also rejected the argument that s. 35(2) of the Planning Act precluded considering the relationship among renters.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their appeal of a No Permit Order issued by a municipal building inspector regarding the construction of a front deck.

The inspector had measured the deck mid-construction and found it exceeded the two-foot height exemption for building permits.

The Divisional Court allowed fresh evidence showing the completed deck met the height requirements.

The Court held that the appropriate time for inspection was upon completion of the project, not mid-construction, and found the lower court's decision unreasonable.

The appeal was allowed, the No Permit Order rescinded, and costs awarded to the appellants.

The appellants moved for directions to amend a previous order of the Court of Appeal to strike down a licensing fee provision in a municipal by-law.

The court had previously struck down provisions requiring the collection and transmission of personal information to police, rendering the fee issue moot.

The municipality subsequently re-enacted the fee under amended legislation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it would serve no purpose to address the fee under the former statutory provisions.

The appellants challenged a municipal by-law requiring second-hand goods dealers to collect detailed personal information from vendors and transmit it electronically to the police daily.

The Court of Appeal held that while the by-law was validly enacted under the municipality's consumer protection powers, the impugned provisions conflicted with section 28(2) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The municipality failed to demonstrate that the collection and transmission of such detailed personal information was necessary for the proper administration of the licensing scheme.

The appeal was allowed and the impugned provisions were declared of no force or effect.

The appellant municipality appealed a decision of the Fire Safety Commission, which had held that an appeal from an Ontario Fire Marshal Delegate was moot because the work outlined in the inspection order had been completed.

The Divisional Court found that the Commission committed a legal error by failing to deal with the issues raised and by applying an incorrect legal view of mootness.

The Court also found the Fire Marshal Delegate's decision to rescind the original inspection order to be patently unreasonable.

The appeal was allowed, and the original inspection order was altered and confirmed.