Kaush Parameswaran

The applicant purchased a property to operate a salvage yard and sought a declaration that its use was a lawful non-conforming use under s. 34(9)(a) of the Planning Act.

The respondent municipality argued that the previous owner had discontinued the salvage yard use, thereby losing the non-conforming status.

The court found that the previous owner had continuously conducted salvage operations as part of its business, maintaining the legal non-conforming use.

Furthermore, the court held that the applicant's more intensive salvage operation did not constitute a wholly different use that would extinguish the non-conforming status.

The application for a declaration was granted.

In a commercial tenancy dispute, the tenant moved for relief from forfeiture and related interlocutory relief based on an alleged oral lease, while the landlord brought a cross-motion for security for costs.

Before those motions were heard, the landlord orally sought to strike portions of the tenant’s reply affidavit as inadmissible opinion evidence, hearsay, irrelevant material, and improper reply.

The court struck paragraphs containing unsupported expert-style opinion, unsworn double hearsay, and conceded irrelevant allegations, relying on the Rules of Civil Procedure governing motion affidavits.

However, the court dismissed the objection that the remaining impugned material was improper reply evidence, emphasizing the contextual balancing approach to case-splitting and the landlord’s failure to move promptly before taking further procedural steps.