COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: Elbasiouni v. Brampton (City), 2020 ONCA 43

DATE: 20200124

DOCKET: M50596

Feldman, Brown and Zarnett JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Ahmed Elbasiouni

Moving Party

and

The Chief Building Official (CBO) the Corporation of the City of Brampton

Responding Party

Ahmed Elbasiouni, acting in person

Charles A. Painter, for the responding party

Heard: In writing January 22, 2020

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] The appellant seeks leave to appeal a decision of the Divisional Court, dismissing appeals from three orders of the Superior Court affirming the dismissal of an appeal from a decision of the Chief Building Official of the City of Brampton.

[2] Motions for leave to appeal from the Divisional Court under s. 6(1)(a) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O 1990, c. C.43, are heard by this court in writing and in most cases, they are disposed of without reasons.

[3] In this case, the respondent took the position that the motion for leave should be dismissed on the basis that there is no appeal to this court available, and in the alternative, that leave should not be granted applying the criteria under the Sault Dock test: Sault Dock Co. Ltd. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), 1972 CanLII 572 (ON CA), [1973] 2 O.R. 479 (C.A.).

[4] The purpose of these reasons is to clarify that leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal in accordance with s. 6(1)(a) of the Courts of Justice Act remains available for a decision of the Divisional Court made under s. 26 of the Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 23. Such leave is not precluded by ss. 25 and 26 of the Building Code Act, 1992, which provide that a decision of an inspector or chief building official may be appealed first to a judge of the Superior Court, and then to the Divisional Court on the grounds and with the powers set out in those sections.

[5] The motion for leave to appeal is dismissed on the alternative ground, with costs fixed at $500.00 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

“K. Feldman J.A.”

“David Brown J.A.”

“B. Zarnett J.A.”