The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking to consolidate, or alternatively to have heard sequentially, their appeal of a property standards order under the Building Code Act, 1992 and a separate civil action against the municipality, neighbours, a supplier, and an engineering firm.
The plaintiffs argued that both proceedings arose from the same factual circumstances regarding retaining walls and responsibility for remediation work.
The court held that the appeal was narrowly limited to determining whether the property complied with applicable standards and whether the ordered repairs were required, while the civil action involved broader questions of liability and damages.
Consolidation or a stay would undermine the purpose of the property standards regime by delaying enforcement.
The motion was dismissed.
