Kyle Gossen

The applicant sought a declaration that the proposed use of a property as a municipal shelter was not permitted under Toronto's zoning by-laws, arguing it was not a permitted use and that a proposed patio was prohibited.

The respondents asserted the matter should have been brought as an appeal under the Building Code Act, 1992, and that the intended use was permitted.

The court found the proceeding was properly an appeal of the chief building official's decision, not a Rule 14 application.

The court affirmed the chief building official's decision, finding no error in the determination that the shelter use was permitted and that the patio issue was premature as no final decision had been made on it.

The Chief Building Official of the City of Cambridge issued an emergency order for the immediate demolition of the designated heritage Preston Springs Hotel due to its unsafe structural condition and persistent trespassing.

The CBO applied to the court to confirm the reasonableness of this order and to recover demolition costs from the owner, Haastown Holdings (Preston) Inc., who consented to both orders.

The Architectural Conservancy of Ontario (ACO) intervened, challenging the reasonableness of the demolition order, arguing that the CBO failed to consider relevant factors (heritage status, appeal to CRB, alternative remediation options) and considered irrelevant factors (cost of remediation).

The court applied a reasonableness standard of review, finding that the CBO's decision was well-informed by expert reports and his own inspections, and that the building posed an immediate danger that necessitated demolition.

The court confirmed the emergency order and the recoverability of demolition costs from the owner, dismissing the ACO's challenge and alternate relief requests as moot or unsupported.

The Architectural Conservancy of Ontario, Heritage Cambridge (ACO-Cambridge), an unincorporated entity, sought leave to intervene in an application by the Chief Building Official of the City of Cambridge to confirm an Emergency Order for the demolition of the Preston Springs Hotel, a designated heritage property.

The court first addressed ACO-Cambridge's legal status, substituting the parent organization, Architectural Conservancy of Ontario (ACO), as the proper moving party under Rule 26.01.

The court then considered the Rule 13 test for intervention, finding that ACO had a sufficient public interest in the matter, which was deemed to be of public importance.

While granting leave to intervene, the court imposed strict limitations on ACO's participation, restricting its evidence and submissions to the sole issue of the reasonableness of the CBO's Emergency Order and limiting affidavits to two, to prevent undue delay and expansion of the proceeding.

The court also determined ACO to be a public interest litigant but deferred the decision on its liability for costs of the main application to the application judge.

The plaintiff sued his neighbours in nuisance and negligence, alleging that their home reconstruction altered drainage patterns and caused water to infiltrate his basement.

The defendants counterclaimed for trespass, nuisance, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process, alleging the plaintiff's own landscaping caused the water issues and that the plaintiff's wife maliciously sought a peace bond against them.

The court dismissed both the claim and the counterclaim.

The court found the defendants' construction was reasonable, approved by the city, and did not breach the standard of care.

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to prove causation, as expert evidence indicated the plaintiff's own landscaping likely caused the water accumulation.

The counterclaims were dismissed as trivial or lacking evidence of malice.

The applicant, the Town of Oakville, brought a motion to compel the respondents, Clublink Corporation ULC and Clublink Holdings Limited, to answer certain questions and produce documents refused during cross-examinations of their expert witnesses.

The motion concerned the interpretation of section 34 of the Ontario Heritage Act in the context of the Glen Abbey golf course redevelopment.

The court dismissed most of the applicant's requests, finding the documents irrelevant to the narrow issues or the expert's independence.

However, it ordered the production of any separate written retainer agreement for a heritage impact assessment, if such an agreement existed, deeming it marginally relevant to the expert's independence.

The court also addressed and admonished counsel for an improper ex parte communication made after the motion hearing concluded.

An appeal concerning the validity and location of an access easement reserved by CN when it sold property to Remicorp in 2002.

CN later transferred its easement rights to Metrolinx in 2010.

The application judge found the easement had been abandoned by implied release and by operation of law, and ordered it relocated from Part 5 to Part 1 of the property.

The Court of Appeal allowed Metrolinx's appeal, finding the application judge erred in concluding abandonment occurred.

The court held that non-use alone is insufficient to establish abandonment without evidence of intention to abandon, and that the three registrations on title (2002, 2003, and 2010) evidenced the absence of such intention.

The court also found the application judge erred in relocating the easement, as this deprived Metrolinx of its contractual rights under the easement agreement without proper application of the legal test under the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act and Land Titles Act.

The applicant, James Kritz, sought costs on a substantial or partial indemnity basis after successfully obtaining an order to rescind a City of Guelph building inspector's order.

The City of Guelph argued for no costs.

The court, applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found Kritz entitled to partial indemnity costs.

The court rejected the City's submission that success on two out of three arguments negated costs, affirming that costs follow the event of overall success.

The court fixed costs at $37,482.01, noting the City's own partial indemnity bill of costs was $29,367.33 and that Kritz's expert fees were reasonable and appropriate.

The request for substantial indemnity was denied as there was no finding of improper conduct by the City, the issue having been withdrawn by the applicant.

Gemterra Developments Corporation sought a refund of $408,400 from the City of Toronto, alleging overpayment of park levies.

The central issue was the interpretation of "development site" under the City's Park Levy By-law, specifically whether Gemterra's two-phase residential project on a 1.3-hectare parcel constituted one or two development sites.

The levy rate was 10% for sites less than one hectare and 15% for sites between one and five hectares.

Gemterra argued that each phase, for which separate building permits were issued, should be treated as a distinct site, qualifying for the lower 10% rate.

The City contended it was a single development site.

The court dismissed Gemterra's application, finding that "development site" is a fact-based determination, and in this case, the two phases comprised a single development site, irrespective of phased construction or separate building permits.

The applicant appealed an order to comply issued by a city building inspector requiring a building permit for interior renovations completed before the applicant purchased the property.

The court held that current owners are responsible for prior unpermitted construction and that the city's inspection was conducted with valid consent.

However, the court rescinded the order, finding that the minor interior renovations (adding non-load-bearing walls and basement laundry plumbing) did not constitute 'material alterations' requiring a building permit under the Building Code Act.

The applicant sought a declaration that four of his properties, rented to groups of university students, were not being used as 'Lodging House Type 1' under the municipality's zoning by-law.

The municipality argued that because the properties were rented to five or more individuals sharing kitchen and bathroom facilities, they constituted lodging houses.

The court found that the properties functioned as single housekeeping units rented to cohesive groups under single leases, rather than individual lodging units.

The court granted the declaration and further ordered the municipality to remove unsubstantiated references to the properties as 'Possible Lodging Houses' from its public website, criticizing the municipality's use of the website to pressure landowners.

Following a successful application confirming user in common rights on a subdivision plan, the applicants sought costs of $51,593.86.

The respondent landowners argued the amount was excessive for a one-day hearing.

The respondent municipality also sought costs against the respondent landowners.

The court awarded the applicants $45,000 in partial indemnity costs, finding the claimed amount excessive despite the complexity of the historical real estate issues.

The municipality was awarded $2,500 in costs for its helpful submissions, though its costs were reduced because it remained adverse in interest to the applicants until the morning of the hearing.

The applicant developer sought a provisional building permit for a townhouse development, which the City refused, demanding an off-site parkland dedication instead of cash in lieu of land.

The applicant appealed the refusal and applied for a declaration interpreting the municipal bylaw.

The court dismissed the appeal as premature because the applicant lacked final planning approval.

However, the court granted the application for a declaration, finding that under the plain language of the bylaw, the City cannot require an off-site parkland dedication without the developer's agreement.