Good v. Waterloo (City)
Indexed as: Good v. Waterloo (City)
72 O.R. (3d) 719
[2004] O.J. No. 3725
Docket: C40450
Court of Appeal for Ontario,
Labrosse, Goudge and Blair JJ.A.
September 14, 2004
Municipal law -- By-laws -- Licensing -- Lodging house -- Residential unit -- Dwelling rented to university students -- Dwelling not lodging house under municipal by-law -- Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.45, s. 207(63) -- Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, s. 150.
NOTE: The catchlines above relate to a decision of Gordon J. of the Superior Court of Justice, dated July 15, 2003 ONSC 14229, 2003, 67 O.R. (3d) 89. An appeal from the judgment was dismissed by the Court of Appeal for [page720] Ontario (Labrosse, Goudge and Blair JJ.A.) on September 14, 2004. The court's endorsement was as follows:
J. David Linton, for appellant. Ron E. Folkes, for respondent.
[1] THE COURT:-- All who have had to deal with this by-law have found it to be difficult to interpret.
[2] In our view, nothing turns on whether the by-law should be given a liberal or restrictive interpretation. Our task is to give it the correct meaning in light of its language and purpose.
[3] The motions judge correctly addressed the critical phrase to be interpreted, namely whether the premises in question are a "single housekeeping unit". He used as an important interpretive criterion whether there was collective decision-making sufficient to create a single unit for housekeeping purposes. We agree this is an appropriate criterion.
[4] In this case, there was ample evidence to support his decision that there was sufficient collective decision-making to meet this criterion, including:
(a) how the rent was paid;
(b) the furnishing of the apartment and rooms by the occupants;
(c) payment of the utilities by the occupants;
(d) the assignment of the rooms by the occupants; and
(e) how the housekeeping, or lack of it, was to be done.
[5] The cohesiveness of this unit is further exemplified by the fact that most of the occupants had occupied the premises for lengthy periods of time.
[6] There was also ample evidence on which the motions judge could conclude that this was not a circumstance in which there was exclusive possession of any parts of the unit.
[7] For these reasons, the appeal must be dismissed. The respondents are entitled to their costs fixed at $8,000, all inclusive.