Court File and Parties
CITATION: City of Toronto v. Sheppbonn Ltd., 2015 ONSC 3050
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 264/14 DATE: 20150512
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
SACHS, LEDERER AND A. J. GOODMAN JJ.
BETWEEN:
CITY OF TORONTO Appellant
– and –
SHEPPBONN LTD. Respondent
Counsel: Brendan O’Callaghan and Kirsten M. Franz, for the Appellant Isaac K. L. Tang, for the Respondent Stanley F. Floras, for the Non-Intervenor, Ontario Municipal Board
HEARD at Toronto: May 12, 2015
Oral Reasons for Judgment
SACHS J. (ORALLY)
[1] The respondent, Sheppbonn has submitted that this Court should decline to hear this case based on the doctrine of mootness. The respondent has now applied for a building permit for other interior alterations to convert the building into a day nursery. The Chief Building Officer refused the application and the respondent has appealed that decision to the Superior Court pursuant to s. 25 of the Building Code Act. Thus, according to the respondent, there is no longer a live controversy between the parties.
[2] In our view, even though there may be no live controversy between the parties, this is a case where we should exercise our discretion to hear the matter. All parties are present and fully prepared to argue the issue. The issue is an important one that has implications beyond these particular parties. There is now some uncertainty in the law which it would be helpful to clarify. Therefore we are going to proceed to hear this matter.
___________________________ SACHS J.
LEDERER J.
- J. GOODMAN J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: May 12, 2015
Date of Release: May 15, 2015
CITATION: City of Toronto v. Sheppbonn Ltd., 2015 ONSC 3050
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 264/14 DATE: 20150512
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
SACHS, LEDERER AND A. J. GOODMAN JJ.
BETWEEN:
CITY OF TORONTO Appellant
– and –
SHEPPBONN LTD. Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SACHS J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: May 12, 2015
Date of Release: May 15, 2015