Jennifer Meader

A residential condominium developer sought a declaration that communications from the Chief Building Official regarding parking requirements constituted appealable orders or decisions under the Building Code Act.

The developer argued that emails threatening permit revocation if occupancy permits were requested without adequate parking prevented it from applying for occupancy.

The court found that the emails were pre-emptive communications indicating the CBO's future intentions, not final decisions on actual occupancy permit applications.

As no formal decision refusing occupancy had been made, the court lacked jurisdiction to intervene.

However, the court maintained a temporary parking ratio of 1.1 spaces per unit pending the Ontario Land Tribunal's decision on the developer's parking variance appeal.

The appellant, 257 5950 Ontario Ltd., appealed a decision by the Property Standards Committee regarding a compliance deadline for repairs or demolition of a dilapidated heritage barn.

The appellant sought an extension of the compliance date from December 31, 2023, to August 31, 2024, citing safety risks and complications arising from a municipal notice of intention to designate the property as cultural heritage.

The court, exercising its broad appellate powers under the Building Code Act, found that while the appellant had been dilatory, the intervening heritage designation notice rendered the Committee's deadline unreasonable.

The appeal was allowed, and the compliance date was extended to August 31, 2024, with no costs awarded due to the split outcome and the appellant's prior inaction.