Stenton v. The Corporation of the Township of Severn, 2019 ONSC 5590
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-17-1056
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
Swinton, Myers and Raikes JJ.
B E T W E E N:
T. Peter Stenton
Appellant
- and -
The Corporation of the Township of Severn and James Oakley, Chief Building Official
Respondents
Unrepresented, Appellant
Michael Millar, for the Respondents
Heard at Oshawa: September 26, 2019
REASONS FOR DECISION
1This Court has jurisdiction, pursuant to s. 38(3) of the Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 23, to hear an appeal with respect to paragraph 1 of the order of DeSa J. dated October 3, 2017, which ordered demolition or removal of the shed on the appellant’s property.
2The appellant admitted before the application judge, and before this Court today, that he did not have a building permit to build the shed. On the evidence before the application judge, there was no error in ordering the shed be demolished or removed.
3With respect to paragraphs 2 and 3, the orders were made pursuant to s. 440 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25. An appeal lies to the Court of Appeal with respect to these paragraphs.
4We have discretion pursuant to s. 110 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 to transfer this aspect of the appeal to the Court of Appeal. One consideration in deciding whether to exercise our discretion is the merits of the appeal.
5In our view, much of this appeal appears to be moot. In July of 2018, the respondent demolished the shed and removed the derelict bus. The appellant concedes that he had already removed other items listed in paragraph 2 of the order, such as the Fleetwood trailer and the skid steer (a tractor, according to the appellant).
6With respect to paragraph 3, counsel for the respondent concedes there is an apparent problem in the formal order, as it is framed overly broadly to permanently prohibit occupation of any trailer, structure or building on the property for the purposes of human habitation. He concedes that the order was meant to apply until there had been compliance with paragraphs 1 and 2.
7Although the appellant does not consent to the amendment of paragraph 3 today, it appears to us that a mistake may have been made in drafting the formal order, and we leave it to the application judge to address this.
8If the order were amended, it would be a temporary order that could be appealed to this Court with leave. However, a motion for leave to appeal would be moot.
9Given the issue of mootness, we decline to exercise our discretion to transfer this appeal to the Court of Appeal.
10This appeal is dismissed for oral reasons given today. Costs to the respondent are fixed at $5,000 all in.
Swinton J.
I agree _______________________________
Myers J.
I agree _______________________________
Raikes J.
Oral Reasons: September 26, 2019
Release Date: September 26, 2019
CITATION: Stenton v. The Corporation of the Township of Severn, 2019 ONSC 5590
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-17-1056
DATE: 20190926
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
Swinton, Myers and Raikes JJ.
BETWEEN:
T. Peter Stenton
Appellant
– and –
The Corporation of the Township of Severn and James Oakley, Chief Building Official
Respondents
Reasons for Decision
Swinton J.
Oral Reasons: September 26, 2019
Released: September 26, 2019