The appellants appealed a judgment restraining use of storm-damaged lakefront property for cottage purposes after rezoning to hazard lands.
The central issue was whether a legal non-conforming use survived where the prior owners ceased occupancy after severe storm damage and decided not to rebuild.
The court held that continuation under s. 34(9) of the Planning Act requires both intention to continue the use and continuation of actual use so far as possible in the circumstances.
The prior owners had abandoned the cottage use, breaking the chain of continuity.
The appeal was dismissed, with only a formal amendment removing the word 'interlocutory' from the injunction.
