Michael Gauthey

The City of Toronto charged Islington Lakeshore Mall Inc. and 1767734 Ontario Inc. with zoning bylaw violations under the Etobicoke Zoning Code and the Planning Act, specifically concerning outdoor storage of scrap metal, used parts, and inoperative/derelict vehicles exceeding 10% of the lot area at two properties.

The defendants argued that a newer city-wide bylaw applied and that they had a legal nonconforming use defence, citing ongoing cleanup efforts and personal hardships.

The court found the Etobicoke Zoning Code was still in effect, the actus reus of the offences was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and the defendants failed to establish a due diligence defence or a legal nonconforming use defence.

The defendants were found guilty on all counts.

The appellant appealed a Fire Marshal Review Decision confirming an Inspection Order for fire code violations at a rooming house.

The appellant did not dispute the violations but sought an extension of time to comply because he intended to demolish the building.

The Fire Safety Commission confirmed the order but granted a short extension of time for compliance, providing alternative options to reduce occupancy or demolish the building within the amended timeframes.

The appellant appealed a Review Decision of the Fire Marshal confirming an Inspection Order issued by Toronto Fire Services regarding his rooming house.

The Fire Safety Commission upheld the order, finding that the storage of personal items in the main floor public corridor contravened the Ontario Fire Code's prohibition on accumulating combustible materials.

The Commission also confirmed the building's classification under Section 9.5 of the Fire Code, requiring the installation of 20-minute fire-rated doors on three bedrooms and the protection of the basement exit stairway with a fire separation.

The appeal was dismissed, with amended compliance dates provided for the required work.

The appellant appealed a property standards order requiring him to remove hoarded items, waste, and debris from his front porch.

The appellant, who lives on his porch year-round, argued the City was harassing him and that his collected items were not garbage.

The Superior Court of Justice found the items violated the municipal by-law and created an unsafe and unsanitary hazard.

The court upheld the order but modified it to specify that only one small welcome mat, one chair, and one side table fabricated for outdoor use could remain on the porch.

The City of Toronto charged Hard Luck Inc., a live music venue, with multiple by-law infractions relating to noise disturbances and operating an entertainment establishment without the necessary licence.

The court found the testimony of the primary complainant and the investigating by-law officer credible, establishing that the noise was likely to disturb a reasonable person and that the venue operated as a nightclub rather than an eating establishment.

The defendant failed to establish a due diligence defence for four of the five counts.

Hard Luck Inc. was found guilty on four counts, while one count of operating without a licence was dismissed because the defendant reasonably believed its eating establishment licence was sufficient at the time.

Hard Luck Inc., operating as a live music venue bar, was charged with five provincial offences under the City of Toronto Municipal Code: operating an entertainment establishment without a licence (counts 1 and 3), causing noise likely to disturb residents (counts 2 and 5), and permitting sound from electronic devices to project beyond the property (count 4).

The prosecution relied on testimony from a resident living approximately one city block away who documented extensive noise complaints over several months, and a provincial offences officer who observed and heard noise emanating from the premises.

The defendant presented evidence of soundproofing efforts and expert acoustic testing suggesting minimal noise projection.

The court found the defendant guilty on counts 1, 2, 4, and 5, but acquitted on count 3 based on a due diligence defence.

The court rejected the defendant's acoustic expert evidence as having little probative value given the temporal gap between testing and the alleged offences, and found the resident's testimony credible and compelling.