Evan Barz

The Town of Ajax sought an order requiring the respondents to demolish and remove above-grade construction carried out without a building permit at 599 Kingston Road West, Ajax.

The respondents acknowledged the unpermitted construction but resisted demolition, arguing they should be allowed to continue obtaining the requisite Record of Site Condition (RSC).

The property had a history of soil contamination from its prior use as an automotive facility.

The respondents had entered into a Conditional Building Permit Agreement allowing only below-grade work pending RSC approval, but proceeded to construct above-grade elements without authorization.

Despite multiple warnings, stop work orders, and a mandatory injunction, construction continued.

The court found the respondents' conduct was a calculated decision by an experienced developer to circumvent regulatory requirements and ordered demolition as the only appropriate remedy to enforce building code compliance and protect public safety.

The defendants were charged with undertaking development in a wetland without a permit under the Conservation Authorities Act.

The prosecution brought a motion to preclude the defendants from challenging the TRCA's jurisdiction and the existence of a wetland, which the court dismissed as violating the presumption of innocence.

The defendants brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter alleging unreasonable delay.

The court found a net delay of 21.5 months, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial offences.

Finding no exceptional circumstances to justify the delay, which was exacerbated by a lack of judicial resources, the court stayed the charges.

Following a default judgment in favour of the plaintiffs, the court issued a supplementary endorsement addressing HST, pre-judgment interest, and costs.

The court clarified the application of HST to specific damage amounts and awarded pre-judgment interest at the contractual rate of 3% over prime for disposal and restoration costs, as these fell under the definition of 'Additional Rent' in the lease.

The plaintiffs were awarded costs of $31,385.41 on a substantial indemnity basis pursuant to the lease agreement.

The plaintiffs, commercial landlords, sought default judgment against the defendant tenant for breach of a commercial lease due to unpaid rent.

The defendant was noted in default.

The court granted partial damages for rental arrears, past and future lost rent for a re-let portion of the premises, and costs for property removal and leasehold improvements.

However, the court declined to award future lost rent for the un-relet portion of the premises, finding insufficient evidence regarding actual rental value and reasonable mitigation efforts.

The balance of the claim for future damages was directed to a separate assessment trial.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $25,000.