Naomi Beverly Brown

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims for damages arising from construction on an adjacent property and a failed retaining wall, or alternatively, to transfer the action to Small Claims Court.

The plaintiffs claimed damages for interference with their home's use and enjoyment, including punitive and aggravated damages.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding that genuine issues requiring a trial existed, particularly concerning punitive damages and the complex nature of the crossclaims.

The court emphasized that partial summary judgment is a "rare procedure" and that the motion did not meet the objectives of proportionality, timeliness, and affordability as outlined in *Hryniak* and *Butera*.

The respondents brought a motion for a stay of execution of a prior judgment by Justice Akhtar, which ordered the removal of illegal construction at their properties due to flagrant violations of building codes and zoning bylaws.

The court dismissed the respondents' motion, finding their conduct to be a continuation of prior violations and their arguments specious.

The court applied a higher test for staying a final judgment, requiring proof that enforcement would be oppressive, vexatious, or an abuse of process, and would not cause injustice to the plaintiff.

The court found that the City's enforcement was not oppressive and that the public interest in safety outweighed the respondents' claims.

Costs were awarded to the City.

The City of Toronto and its Chief Building Official applied under s. 38 of the Building Code Act, 1992, for orders compelling Nikolaos Lambrinos and 1187310 Ontario Limited to remove unauthorized construction and comply with building and zoning by-laws at 102 and 104 Ulster Street.

The properties had a long history of unapproved additions and conversion into multiple dwelling units, deemed unsafe.

The respondents' defenses, including claims of non-receipt of orders and alleged permits, were rejected due to lack of credibility and evidence.

The court found flagrant and unjustified violations of the Building Code Act and Ontario Building Code, making retrospective approval impossible.