The defendant was charged with failing to comply with a Property Standards Order issued under the Building Code Act, 1992.
The defendant brought a motion for non-suit arguing that: (1) the enforcement officer failed to re-inspect the property before issuing the order; (2) the order was defective because it did not specify a final appeal date and lacked authority for the appeal fee; and (3) the order was not properly served.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that there was no legal requirement to re-inspect before issuing the order, that the order adequately indicated the appeal deadline, that the municipality had authority to impose the appeal fee, and that service by registered mail to the defendant's last known address was proper despite the defendant's deliberate refusal to accept delivery.
