Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-18-152 DATE: 2020 04 21 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF AMARANTH Applicant D. Germain, for the Applicant

- and -

VIDHYA RAMDAS Respondent Self-Represented

HEARD: November 12, 2019

REASONS FOR DECISION

L. SHAW J.

OVERVIEW

[1] The respondent, Ms. Vidhya Ramdas (“Ms. Ramdas”), owns property in the Township of Amaranth. The applicant, the Corporation of the Township of Amaranth (the “Township”), alleges that Ms. Ramdas breached its Site Alteration By-law by performing certain fill activities on her property that were not allowed without a permit. As Ms. Ramdas’ property is located within the Township, it is subject to the Township’s By-laws. It is also alleged that Ms. Ramdas failed to comply with a Stop Work Order and Remedial Order.

[2] The Township is seeking a declaration that Ms. Ramdas is in contravention of its Site Alteration By-law and Stop Work Order and Remedial Order. The Township also seeks a permanent injunction that Ms. Ramdas refrain from carrying out fill activities contrary to the By-law and that she be ordered to restore the property to its condition prior to the unauthorized fill activities.

[3] This application was heard at the same time as another application commenced by the Grand River Conservation Authority (the “GRCA”). The GRCA is also seeking a permanent injunction that Ms. Ramdas refrain from doing work on her property that is interfering with the wetland on which the property is located. Although the evidence for both applications was the same, separate reasons will be released regarding that application.

[4] For the reasons outlined below, the Township’s application is granted.

[5] This application was commenced on August 15, 2018 and was first before the court on August 27, 2018. Although Ms. Ramdas had not yet filed responding materials, the court granted an interim injunction prohibiting her from all excavation and alteration of the grade and placement of fill or soil on her property and the removal of any fill, soil, peat or other native materials from her property. Ms. Ramdas was also ordered to file her responding materials by September 7, 2018. She did not comply with that term of the order.

[6] The matter was next before the court on September 17, 2018 and was adjourned on consent to December 3, 2018. That date was adjourned, on consent, to March 4, 2019. On March 4, 2019, the matter was adjourned, on consent, to June 3, 2019.

[7] On June 3, 2019, the matter was adjourned to November 12, 2019, peremptory. On that date, Coroza J. ordered that no further adjournments would be granted unless leave was granted by the judge hearing the matter on November 12, 2019. Ms. Ramdas was ordered to file her responding materials by September 30, 2019. Coroza J. also ordered that if Ms. Ramdas did not file her responding materials, the presumption was that the matter would proceed on November 12, 2019 without any input or submissions from her. Ms. Ramdas did not file any responding materials.

[8] When the matter was before me on November 12, 2019, Ms. Ramdas requested a further adjournment. I declined to grant the adjournment. The reasons for the denial were twofold. First, the application was commenced in August 2018. Ms. Ramdas had 15 months to file responding materials, which she failed to do. Second, Ms. Ramdas failed to comply with two court orders to file her materials by certain fixed dates. As the matter had been adjourned on a number of occasions, I found that Ms. Ramdas had ample opportunity to either retain a lawyer or file her own material. Based on the order of Coroza J., Ms. Ramdas was aware that the matter would proceed if she did not file her responding material. Given the delays in the proceeding, I declined her request for a further adjournment and heard the application.

[9] Court orders are not recommendations or suggestions. On two separate occasions, Ms. Ramdas was ordered to file responding materials and she deliberately did not comply with those orders. When a party is self-represented, the court will often grant indulgences in order to ensure that access to justice is achieved and that the matter is dealt with substantively. For example, self-represented litigants are often unfamiliar with the various rules surrounding the court process, such as when materials must be served and filed.

[10] In this case, Ms. Ramdas was twice given dates to file her materials. She provided no acceptable explanation with respect to why she did not comply with those orders. She had 15 months to file material and the matter was adjourned a number of times. Given her deliberate non-compliance and the length of time that this application was outstanding, I declined to exercise my discretion to grant a further adjournment.

REVIEW OF THE APPLICABLE LEGISLATION

[11] Before reviewing the uncontested evidence in this matter, I will review the applicable legislation and the by-law which the Township alleges Ms. Ramdas breached.

[12] This application is brought under r. 14.05(3) (d) and (g) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, as it relates to the determination of rights that depend on the interpretation of a municipal by-law. It also involves a request for injunctive relief. As the evidence is not contested and there are no material facts in dispute, it is appropriate that this matter be heard by way of an application.

[13] The evidence relied upon by the Township includes an affidavit from an employee from the County of Dufferin. It also relies on the affidavit evidence filed on behalf of the GRCA in the companion action.

[14] The Township is empowered to make by-laws that control the placement of fill and alteration of grades within its boundaries. The authority for making such by-laws is found in s. 142(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, which states as follows:

Without limiting sections 9, 10 and 11, a local municipality may,

(a) prohibit or regulate the placing or dumping of fill;

(b) prohibit or regulate the removal of topsoil;

(c) prohibit or regulate the alteration of the grade of the land;

(d) require that a permit be obtained for the placing or dumping of fill, the removal of topsoil or the alteration of the grade of the land; and

(e) impose conditions to a permit, including requiring the preparation of plans acceptable to the municipality relating to grading, filling or dumping, the removal of topsoil and the rehabilitation of the site.

[15] Pursuant to s. 142(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001, the Township passed Site Alteration By-law 65-2009, as amended by By-law 28-2014 (“Site Alteration By-law”). The Township alleges that Ms. Ramdas was in breach of ss. 2, 3 and 4 of the By-law, which state as follows:

2. No person shall dump, place or remove fill or cause or permit fill to be dumped, placed or removed on any property in the Township.

3. No person shall alter the grade of any land or cause or permit the grade of any land to be altered on any property in the Township.

4. No person shall dump, place or remove soil or cause or permit soil to be dumped, placed or removed on any property in the Township.

[16] The term “fill” is defined in s. 1 of the Site Alteration By-law as “any type of material deposited or placed on lands, and includes soil, topsoil, aggregate material, stone, concrete, peat, sod or turf either singly or in combination”. The term “fill activities” means “importing, placing, depositing and/or removing fill – with fill being as defined in the Site Alteration By-law- and altering the grading”.

[17] The Site Alteration By-law also specifies what steps can be taken if there is a breach of the By-law. Sections 9 and 10 state as follows:

9. Every person who places or dumps fill or who causes or permits to be placed or dumped and every person who alters the grade of any land or who causes or permits the grade of any land to be altered and every person who places or removes soil or who causes or permits the removal of soil in the Township contrary to this By-law shall remove such fill or replace such soil and restore the existing grade of the land.

10. Where an Owner of land fails to do any work required by a permit issued pursuant to this By-law or pursuant to Section 9 of this By-law the Township may undertake such work and for this purpose may enter on the Owner’s land with its employees and agents. The Township may recover the costs of such work from any security held in respect of the lands in question, or such costs may be added to the tax roll.

[18] Pursuant to these sections, the Township seeks an order that Ms. Ramdas remove any fill she imported onto the property without a permit. The Township also seeks an order that Ms. Ramdas replace any fill she removed and to restore the existing grade of the land. If she fails to do so, pursuant to s. 10 of the Site Alteration By-law, the Township seeks an order that it be permitted to enter the property to perform the work.

[19] Section 440 of the Municipal Act, 2001 outlines general enforcement powers. It states as follows:

If any by-law of a municipality or by-law of a local board of a municipality under this or any other Act is contravened, in addition to any other remedy and to any penalty imposed by the by-law, the contravention may be restrained by application at the instance of a taxpayer or the municipality or local board.

[20] The Municipal Act, 2001 also permits municipalities to make orders to discontinue an activity which contravenes a by-law. Section 444(1) states as follows:

If a municipality is satisfied that a contravention of a by-law of the municipality passed under this Act has occurred, the municipality may make an order requiring the person who contravened the by-law or who caused or permitted the contravention or the owner or occupier of the land on which the contravention occurred to discontinue the contravening activity.

[21] Lastly, s. 446(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, provides for remedial orders. It states as follows:

If a municipality has the authority under this or any other Act or under a by-law under this or any other Act to direct or require a person to do a matter or thing, the municipality may also provide that, in default of it being done by the person directed or required to do it, the matter or thing shall be done at the person’s expense.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE

[22] Ms. Ramdas owns and resides at the property with a municipal address of 504386 Highway 89 in the Township of Amaranth, legally described as Part Lot 32, Concession 5, Parcel 10 (“the property”).

[23] On July 4, 2018, Mr. Jason Wagler (“Mr. Wagler”), a Resource Planner with the GRCA, received an email from the Director of Planning at the Township indicating that a councillor had observed multiple truckloads of material entering the property.

[24] On July 5, 2018, Mr. Wagler and Ms. Kaitlyn Rosebrugh (“Ms. Rosebrugh”), a Regulations Officer with the GRCA, attended at the property. Mr. Wagler observed an excavator loading material into a dump truck. He also observed a dump truck leaving the property. Ms. Rosebrugh’s evidence was that she observed a large excavator extracting material behind the house and a fill pile on the west side of the house within the area that is regulated by the GRCA.

[25] When Mr. Wagler and Ms. Rosebrugh were at the property on July 5, 2018, there were three other individuals present: the operator of the excavator, a man with a shovel stamping material in the dump truck, and a person standing to the side of an excavated hole. That person indicated that he was the contractor/supervisor. He told Mr. Wagler that Ms. Ramdas had a GRCA permit. Mr. Wagler informed the contractor that he had done a search of the GRCA’s records which indicated that Ms. Ramdas did not have a permit. Mr. Wagler advised the contractor to stop the work as it was in violation of a regulation. The contractor told Mr. Wagler that he would not stop the work as he did not believe a permit was necessary. Mr. Wagler’s evidence was that this person was verbally abusive to him and threatened to throw him in the excavated hole if he did not leave the property.

[26] Ms. Rosebrugh’s evidence was that this individual also said that Ms. Ramdas was away for two weeks and that she had authorized him to complete the work.

[27] While on site, Mr. Wagler noted that site grading was occurring within the area regulated by the GRCA. He also observed that a large trench had been excavated and that the grading appeared to extend beyond the trench into the wetland. The soils in the trench were dark and appeared to be characteristic of a wetland. The contractor also confirmed that they were removing the peat and replacing it with fill material.

[28] On July 10, 2018, the Township received complaints regarding fill activities taking place at the property. The following day, Mr. Lammerding, a By-law Enforcement Officer with the Corporation of the County of Dufferin attended at the property. According to Mr. Lammerding, the Township contracts with the County of Dufferin to carry out by-law enforcement and therefore one of his responsibilities is to enforce the Township’s by-laws.

[29] When Mr. Lammerding attended at the property, he spoke with Ms. Ramdas’ son, Avi Ramdas, as Ms. Ramdas was not present. Mr. Ramdas told Mr. Lammerding that he did not think any permits were required for the fill activities. According to Mr. Lammerding, Mr. Ramdas handed him a cellphone and someone named Tina told him to leave the property. As Mr. Lammerding was leaving the property, he observed fill materials being deposited and removed from the property. He took photographs of a dump truck and excavator on the property.

[30] Mr. Lammerding prepared an investigation report detailing what occurred on July 11, 2018. According to the report, Mr. Lammerding observed a dump truck entering the property that appeared to be carrying broken concrete or concrete blocks. He observed this material being dumped in an area behind the house on the property. He also observed an excavator on the property loading a top soil/peat-like material into the dump truck that then left the property.

[31] On July 12, 2018, Ms. Rosebrugh chartered a plane and requested that the pilot circle the property. She observed a large yellow excavator extracting dark soil and placing the soil into a dump truck. She also observed a bulldozer on the property. She concluded that the development was continuing and expanding despite the GRCA’s request on July 5, 2018 that the work end.

[32] On July 13, 2018, Ms. Rosebrugh attended the Provincial Offences Court in Orangeville and swore an information to charge Ms. Ramdas. The charges on the information were for a violation under s. 28(16) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O., 1990 c. 27, as amended. This section prohibits undertaking development or permitting another person to undertake development, in particular, the dumping and removal of material, without obtaining an authorization of a development permit in or on the areas within the jurisdiction of the GRCA, contrary to s. 2(1) of the Grand River Conservation Authority: Regulation of Development, Interference With Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses, Ontario Regulation, O. Reg. 150/06, made pursuant to the Conservation Authorities Act.

[33] On July 13, 2018, Mr. Lammerding prepared a Stop Work Order and Remedial Order against Ms. Ramdas. That Order stated as follows:

You are hereby ordered to cease immediately all excavation, alteration of the grade and placement of fill or soil on the Property and further to cease immediately all removal of fill, soil, peat or other native materials from this property.

You are further ordered to remove all imported material and to restore the grade of the Property to its original condition on or before July 23, 2018.

[34] The notice also indicated that the actions of site alteration, placing fill, and removal of top soil/peat-like materials, without approvals or permits, carried with it the risk of possible legal action and penalties. The notice informed Ms. Ramdas that failure to comply with the Order would result in further legal action.

[35] On July 16, 2018, Mr. Lammerding personally delivered the Stop Work Order and Remedial Order to Ms. Ramdas. He posted it at the entrance to the property and also sent Ms. Ramdas a copy by registered mail. When he attended at the property on July 16, 2018, Ms. Ramdas told Mr. Lammerding that she did not think she needed a permit for the fill activities.

[36] On July 19, 2018, Ms. Rosebrugh served Ms. Ramdas with a summons to appear in court.

[37] On August 11, 2018, Mr. Lammerding attended at the property again as the Township received complaints about ongoing fill activities. While at the property, Mr. Lammerding was told by one of the contractors on site, Mr. Keith McDonald (“Mr. McDonald”), that Ms. Ramdas had been issued a building permit by the County of Dufferin to fix the foundation of her house. He believed that the permit also permitted the fill activities. Mr. Lammerding spoke to another contractor that day, Ms. Tina McDonald (“Ms. McDonald”), who told him that about 600 loads of fill had been imported to the property and that an equal amount of peat had been removed.

[38] While Mr. Lammerding was at the property on August 11, 2018, he observed two loads of fill arrive. Mr. Lammerding advised the contractor that the Stop Work Order remained in place.

[39] On August 13, 2018, Mr. Wagler received an email from the Township advising that site excavation was continuing at the property.

[40] On August 14, 2018, Mr. Wagler and Ms. Rosebrugh conducted a site inspection of the property from the roadside. They both observed an excavator dumping soil into a dump truck in the GRCA-regulated area.

[41] On August 16, 2018, Mr. Wagler and Ms. Rosebrugh attended a meeting with Ms. Ramdas and the contractors, Mr. and Ms. McDonald. Ms. Ramdas gave Mr. Wagler a copy of the building permit issued by the County of Dufferin on July 26, 2018 to repair the foundation around the home. Mr. Wagler’s evidence was that he observed the permit drawing, but did not observe any mention or drawing depicting the excavation and filling of material beyond the foundation of the house.

[42] A further meeting was arranged for August 22, 2018 at the property. When Mr. Wagler attended at the property, he saw Mr. McDonald operating a small excavator at the front of the house. Mr. McDonald informed both Mr. Wagler and Ms. Rosebrugh that the on-site meeting was cancelled and that they did not have permission to access the property.

[43] On August 31, 2018, Ms. Rosebrugh obtained a search warrant to access the property for the purpose of collecting evidence for charges laid under s. 28(16) of the Conservation Authorities Act.

[44] On September 11, 2018, Mr. Wagler, Ms. Rosebrugh and Mr. Robert Messier (“Mr. Messier”), an ecologist with the GRCA, attended at the property to execute the search warrant to obtain evidence of development in the wetland. Both Mr. Wagler and Ms. Rosebrugh observed that fill placement and grading had occurred. That same day, photographs and soil samples were taken. Ms. Rosebrugh observed several excavated areas where dark organic soils had been extracted by machinery and imported fill had been placed. A large yellow excavator and a bulldozer were parked on the property.

[45] Mr. Messier’s evidence was that he assisted and observed Mr. Wagler to collect Global Position System (“GPS”) co-ordinates to delineate the extent of the development. Based on Mr. Wagler’s analysis using the GPS co-ordinates, he concluded that the development of fill activities extended 64 metres from the rear of the house and that approximately 5,235 square meters of wetland had been impacted by the development.

ISSUES

[46] There are two issues to be determined on this application:

1. Whether Ms. Ramdas’ actions constitute a breach of the Township’s Site Alteration By-law and Stop Work Order and Remedial Order?

2. If so, whether injunctive relief is the appropriate remedy?

ANALYSIS

Issue #1: Whether Ms. Ramdas’ Actions Constitute a Breach of the Township’s Site Alteration By-Law and Stop Work Order and Remedial Order?

[47] The following uncontroverted evidence leads me to conclude that Ms. Ramdas was in breach of the Township’s Site Alteration By-law:

• The observations made by Mr. Wagler and Ms. Rosebrugh on July 5, 2018 of an excavator loading material into a dump truck and the dump truck leaving the property;

• Ms. Rosebrugh’s observation on July 5, 2018 of an excavator extracting material behind the house;

• Mr. Wagler’s observation on July 5, 2018 that a large trench had been excavated;

• The contractor informed Mr. Wagler on July 5, 2018 that they were removing peat form the property and replacing it with fill;

• Mr. Lammerding’s observation on July 11, 2018 of a dump truck entering the property and dumping what appeared to be broken concrete or concrete blocks;

• Mr. Lammerding’s observation of an excavator loading top soil/peat-like material into a dump truck and the dump truck leaving the property;

• Ms. Rosebrugh’s observations on July 12, 2018 of an excavator extracting dark soil and placing it into a dump truck;

• Mr. Lammerding was informed by one of the contractors on August 11, 2018 that 600 loads of fill had been imported to the property and an equal amount had been removed;

• Mr. Wagler’s and Ms. Rosebrugh’s observation on August 14, 2018 of an excavator dumping soil into a dump truck at the property;

• Ms. Rosebrugh’s observation on September 11, 2018 of several excavated areas where dark organic soils had been extracted and replaced with imported fill; and

• A number of photographs filed as evidence also depict the machinery on the property and the various fill activities described by the witnesses. These photographs also confirm that the work being done was well beyond the area around the foundation of the house.

[48] These fill activities required a permit from the Township which Ms. Ramdas did not obtain. Even after being informed that the work must stop, and after being served with a Stop Work Order and Remedial Order, Ms. Ramdas chose to ignore the orders and continue with the fill activity. Therefore, there was a deliberate and continuing breach of the Site Alteration By-law and Stop Work Order and Remedial Order after Ms. Ramdas was informed that a permit was required and was directed to return the fill she had removed from the property, remove the fill she had brought onto the property, and return the property to its condition prior to the fill activities.

[49] Based on this evidence, I am satisfied that the Township has proven that Ms. Ramdas was in breach of the Site Alteration By-law and the Stop Work Order and Remedial Order.

Issue #2: Is Injunctive Relief the Appropriate Remedy?

[50] Having been found in breach of the Site Alteration By-law and the Stop Work Order and Remedial Order, the next issue is whether injunctive relief is the appropriate remedy.

[51] The Township is seeking a permanent injunction pursuant to s. 440 of the Municipal Act, 2001. In this case, the Township has authority to control the quantity and quality of fill that is imported and deposited onto Ms. Ramdas’ property under ss. 2, 3, and 4 of the Site Alteration By-law. In addition, ss. 9 and 10 of the Site Alteration By-law contemplates the relief sought.

[52] Where a by-law has been contravened, a municipality may seek injunctive relief for such contraventions pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act, 2001: Tay (Township) v. Switzer, [2002] O.J. No. 5380 (S.C.), at para. 31.

[53] The three-part test for an interim injunction is: (1) whether there is a serious issue to be tried; (2) whether the moving party would otherwise suffer irreparable harm; and (3) whether the balance of convenience favours granting the injunction: RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311, at paras. 77-80.

[54] In this case, the Township seeks a statutory injunction pursuant to s. 440 of the Municipal Act, 2001. In seeking a statutory interim injunction, irreparable harm and balance of convenience do not need to be considered. This is because the public authority is presumed to be acting in the best interests of the public and a breach of the law is considered to be irreparable harm to the public interest: York (Regional Municipality) v. DiBlasi, 2014 ONSC 3259, at para. 62. Accordingly, the only inquiry is whether there is a serious issue to be tried.

[55] In this case, the Township is seeking a permanent injunction to enforce a by-law. It is therefore not necessary for the Township to lead compelling evidence that the injunction is warranted. As noted by the court in Newcastle Recycling Ltd. v. Clarington (Municipality), [2005] O.J. No 5344 (C.A.), at para. 32: “Where a municipal authority seeks an injunction to enforce a bylaw which it establishes is being breached, the courts will refuse the application only in exceptional circumstances.”

[56] The Township has led evidence that the Site Alteration By-law was breached. The evidence led, which I accept, is that the Township attempted to compel compliance through service of a Stop Work Order and Remedial Order. Nonetheless, Ms. Ramdas continued to contravene the Site Alteration By-law even after being served with the Order. Given the ongoing and deliberate breaches of the Site Alteration By-law and Stop Work Order and Remedial Order, I find that an injunction is an appropriate remedy.

[57] Furthermore, the public also has an interest in having by-laws enforced. In this case, the Township attempted to enforce the Site Alteration By-law by serving Ms. Ramdas with a Stop Work Order and Remedial Oder, which she ignored. As a result, as authorized by s. 440 of the Municipal Act, 2001, a stronger remedy in the form of an injunction is required to enforce compliance. I also agree that it is in the public interest that such an order be made particularly where there has been a persistent and deliberate flouting of the by-law: City of Toronto v. Polai (1970), 1 O.R. 483 (C.A.); Lakehead Region Conservation Authority v. Demichele, [2009] O.J. No. 5858 (S.C.), at para. 41.

[58] In addition to seeking an injunction prohibiting Ms. Ramdas from all excavation, alteration of the grade, placement of fill or soil on the property and the removal of fill, soil, peat or other native materials from the property, the Township also seeks an order that Ms. Ramdas take steps to return the property to the condition that existed in June 2018, prior to the fill activities. It also seeks an order that the Township be allowed onto the property to complete the work, should Ms. Ramdas fail to do so. It seeks this relief pursuant to s. 446 of the Municipal Act, 2001.

[59] Sections 9 and 10 of the Site Alteration By-law specifically contemplate this relief being sought. Ms. Ramdas was served with an order that she return the property to its previous condition. She failed to do so. Accordingly, it is appropriate to grant the relief sought by the Township.

ORDER

[60] For the reasons outlined above, I make the following order:

1. A declaration that the Respondent, Vidhya Ramdas, owner of lands legally described as Part Lot 32, Concession 5, Parcel 10, and as more particularly described in the Parcel Register as PIN 34055-0056 (LT), and with a municipal address of 504386 Highway 89 in the Township of Amaranth, Ontario (“Property”), is in contravention of the Township By-law 65-2009, as amended by Township By-law 28-2014 (“Site Alteration By-law”);

2. A declaration that the Respondent, Vidhya Ramdas, is in violation of the Stop Work Order and Remedial Order, issued July 13, 2018;

3. An order for a permanent injunction prohibiting and restraining the Respondent, Vidhya Ramdas, from carrying on all Fill Activities on the Property without Township authorization being granted pursuant to the Site Alteration By-law;

4. An order requiring the Respondent, Vidhya Ramdas, at her cost, to remove from the Property all fill and topsoil and all non-soil debris which have been illegally placed on the Property (“Fill Materials”) within 60 days from the date of this Order and to legally dispose of the Fill Materials elsewhere;

5. An order requiring the Respondent, Vidhya Ramdas, at her cost, to regrade the Property to its previous condition so that the grading is consistent with the previous condition as it existed in June 2018, within 60 days from the date of this order;

6. An order requiring the Respondent, Vidhya Ramdas, at her cost, to file with the Township an engineering report under seal confirming that the requirements of subparagraphs 5 and 6 have been complied with within 90 days from the date of this order;

7. An order requiring the Respondent, Vidhya Ramdas, to reimburse the Township for its costs incurred in carrying out its enforcement activities, including the costs charged to it by the County for by-law enforcement, and its invoices from Thomson Rogers, being the Township Solicitors (which invoices are separate from the subsequent costs being incurred to carry on this litigation) and which costs are to constitute a lien and charge against the Property and which costs, if not paid, may be added to the Respondent’s tax roll and collected in the same manner as municipal taxes;

8. An order permitting the Township and its agents to enter onto the Property and carry out the provisions of subparagraphs 5 and 6 at the cost of the Respondent, Vidhya Ramdas, should she fail to meet the requirements, including the meeting of timelines set out in subparagraphs 5, 6, and 7, and with this right ongoing so long as such requirements are not satisfied, and further directing that the Respondent, Vidhya Ramdas, shall pay all costs for the removal and disposal of all Fill Materials located on the Property and regarding, and the costs of any necessary clean up and remediation measures of the Property, which costs are to constitute a lien and charge against the Property and which costs, if not paid, may be added to the Respondent’s tax roll and collected in the same manner as municipal taxes; and

9. A declaration that no action or inaction taken by the Township or its agents pursuant to the terms of this order makes the Township or its agents liable for the remediation or clean up of the Property in the event that a contaminant, as defined in the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, E. 19, as amended, is found on the surface of, in, or under the surface of the Property.

[61] The Township is entitled to its costs. According to its Bill of Costs, it seeks partial indemnity costs of $20,615 and disbursements of $2,117.40. These fees are significantly more than what was incurred by GRCA in the companion action, although GRCA filed more detailed affidavits in support of its claim. When I consider the reasonable expectations of parties in assessing costs, I have considered the costs incurred by GRCA as compared to the Township. Given this factor, together with the hourly rates and time spent, I have assessed a reasonable amount of costs to be $15,000. Accordingly, Ms. Ramdas shall pay the Township costs and disbursements of $17,117.40 by October 1, 2020.

L. Shaw J. Released: April 21, 2020