Konstantine John Stavrakos

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for failing to comply with a Property Standards Order under the Building Code Act.

At trial, the appellant attempted to argue that the underlying municipal by-law was vague and that his property enjoyed legal non-conforming use status.

The appeal court upheld the trial justice's finding that these arguments constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the order, as the appellant had failed to exhaust the statutory appeal mechanisms available to him.

The court also confirmed that the doctrine of legal non-conforming use does not apply to property standards by-laws.

The appeal against the conviction and the sentence of a $7,500 fine and one-year probation order was dismissed.

The appellant, Zaafir Ahmed Munir, appealed a decision upholding the Town of Milton’s short-term rental bylaw and related enforcement actions.

The Court of Appeal found that the Town had authority under the Municipal Act to enact the bylaw, that there was no conflict with the Residential Tenancies Act, and that the appellant’s Charter rights were not infringed.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

The applicant, a tenant, sought declarations that the Town of Milton's Short-Term Rental (STR) by-law was ultra vires and inapplicable to his property, and that its enforcement infringed his Charter rights (Sections 7 and 15).

He also sought substantial monetary damages for emotional distress and lost income from operating an STR.

The court dismissed the application in its entirety, finding no legal or factual basis for claims against the landlords, no conflict between the STR by-law and the Residential Tenancies Act, and no Charter breaches.

The court confirmed the Town's authority to regulate STRs and that the applicant's Airbnb operation constituted an STR business subject to the by-law and fire safety regulations.

Costs were awarded to the respondents.

This appeal concerned a property zoned agricultural, where the Estate Trustees sought a declaration for legal non-conforming use for commercial purposes, including outdoor storage of vehicles and equipment.

The application judge dismissed the declaration, finding the uses were not lawful under the relevant zoning by-law.

The appellants also sought leave to appeal the application judge's refusal to award them costs for a successful contempt motion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding the declaration, affirming that the commercial activities were not lawful non-conforming uses.

It also granted leave to appeal the costs issue but dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's discretionary decision on costs.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) regarding the applicable legislative and policy framework for a subdivision development proposal.

The LPAT had determined that the current policy regime applied, relying on the retroactive application of s. 22.1 of the Planning Act to establish the request date.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the LPAT's determination involved questions of mixed fact and law, and that the issues raised were not of sufficient general or public importance to warrant the court's attention.

The province issued a renewable energy approval to the respondent for a wind turbine project, which included the use of an unopened municipal road allowance.

The appellant city, opposing the project, passed a resolution refusing any request to use the road.

The Divisional Court quashed the resolution, finding it frustrated the legislative purpose of the provincial approval and was made in bad faith.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the city's appeal, confirming that the renewable energy approval was a positive entitlement and the city's resolution conflicted with it under section 14 of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Court also upheld the finding of bad faith.

The applicant obtained a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) to construct industrial wind turbines.

The respondent municipality, an 'unwilling host' to wind projects, passed a resolution refusing the applicant access to a municipal road necessary for the project.

The applicant sought judicial review.

The Divisional Court quashed the resolution, finding that it frustrated the purpose of the provincially-issued REA and was passed in bad faith for the improper purpose of stopping the project rather than legitimately regulating roadways.

The municipality was ordered to consider the applicant's road use and permit applications in good faith.