Nicole D. Hall

The applicants sought to rescind a conditional foundation building permit issued by the City of London to the respondent numbered company and Mr. Lavie, arguing non-compliance with applicable law regarding site plan approval and zero-metre setbacks.

The court dismissed the application, finding that site plan approval was not a prerequisite for a conditional permit issued under s. 8(3) of the Building Code Act, unlike a regular permit under s. 8(2).

The court also determined that the zero-metre setback complied with the City's Downtown Area (DA) zoning bylaw, specifically for the DA2 zone.

The decision emphasized that a Chief Building Official's decision, when compliant with statutory requirements, is entitled to deference and should not be influenced by broader land use planning or public policy considerations.

Following dismissal of an application as abandoned, the respondent municipality sought partial indemnity costs fixed at $750.

The self‑represented applicant opposed costs, arguing that her former solicitor’s conduct caused the abandonment, raising concerns about the court’s earlier reasons, and asserting that she was a public interest litigant.

The court held that the challenges faced by self‑represented litigants are not a recognized basis to avoid cost consequences.

It further found that the applicant’s public interest litigant argument had already been determined and was res judicata.

As the applicant failed to persuade the court to relieve against the deemed dismissal under Rule 38.08(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, costs were ordered to follow the event.