Citation: Wasiak v. City of Kitchener, 2025 ONSC 5070
COURT FILE NO.: DC-23-00000001-00
DATE: 2025-09-04
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Grazyna Wasiak Appellant
– and –
The Corporation of the City of Kitchener Respondent
Ashon L. Simpson, for the Appellant
Jennifer Dell’Unto, for the Respondent
HEARD: June 23, 2025
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Justice S. Antoniani
Overview
[1] This is an appeal of a Property Standards Order, issued under section 15.3(4) of the Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 23, by the City of Kitchener (the “City”) with respect to 120 Bedford Road, Kitchener, Ontario, N2G 3A4 (the “Property”).
[2] The Appellant is the registered owner of the Property. She contests an Order to Comply with a City By-law, of January 27, 2023, which required the Appellant to:
[R]emove all LED lighting/lighting in the windows on the driveway side of house that are causing a nuisance to the neighbouring property. Ensure that any lighting spillage is contained on [the appellant’s] own property. No lighting from [the appellant’s] property shall cause a nuisance to any neighbouring properties.
[3] In issuing the Order to Comply, the City relied on the Property Standards By-law article in relation to “exterior lighting,” s. 665.6.6.
[4] The Appellant appealed the Order to Comply before the City’s Property Standards Committee, who upheld the Order in a decision dated May 3, 2023.
[5] The matter was previously endorsed to proceed before me as a hearing de novo, and the parties agreed that in any event, a Superior Court Judge hearing an appeal of a decision of the Property Standards Committee would have the same powers and function as did the Committee itself.
[6] The Appellant argues that the Committee’s decision fails to provide sufficient reasons, that the ruling of the Committee is wrong in law, and that the Order to Comply should be rescinded. The City of Kitchener argues that the Order to Comply should be confirmed.
[7] As this is now agreed to have been a hearing de novo, I have not addressed either the sufficiency of the Committee’s reasons, or whether they were wrong in law.
[8] The parties agree that the subject lighting is installed on the interior of the appellant’s home, and that the light spills onto the appellant’s driveway, and into the windows of the adjacent neighbour’s home.
[9] The issue for consideration is whether the City’s exterior lighting provisions, from its Property Standards by-law No 2017-129 were properly used to address lighting which is installed on the interior of the home and spills into the exterior.
[10] The parties further agree that this is strictly a matter of statutory interpretation.
Issues:
[11] Was section 665.6.6 of the City of Kitchener By-law No. 2017-129, Standards of Maintenance and Occupancy of Property, which addresses exterior lighting, properly considered and applied to the lighting found at 120 Bedford Road, Kitchener, on January 27, 2023?
Decision:
[12] In applying the principles of statutory interpretation to the facts before me, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the exterior lighting provisions of the Property Standards By-law, s.665.6.6, must be read to apply to a lighting feature which primarily and significantly impacts the exterior. The Order to Comply is confirmed.
The Statutory Framework and the Relevant Law
[13] Section 665.6.6 of the Property Standards By-law states the following:
6.6 No exterior lighting on private property shall be used in a manner, or directed into another dwelling unit in a manner that creates a nuisance to occupants of another property.
[14] Article 665.8 of the same By-law is titled “Interior of Buildings and Structures.” Specifically, section 665.8.18 refers to the property standards regarding interior lighting:
8.18 Interior lighting fixtures within a building or structure and their supports shall be maintained in good repair and working order and in a safe and structurally sound condition, so that such are able to provide an adequate level of lighting so that the use normally carried out in such areas can be undertaken safely in accordance with the intended use of the area.
[15] Article 665.3.1 states that “the applicable standards for maintenance and occupancy of property set forth in this Chapter are hereby prescribed as the minimum standards for all property in the city of Kitchener”.
[16] The modern principle of statutory interpretation governs the interpretation of municipal by-laws and statutes and was articulated by the Supreme Court in Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), 1998 837 (SCC), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27, at para. 21:
Although much has been written about the interpretation of legislation (see, e.g., Ruth Sullivan, Statutory Interpretation (1997); Ruth Sullivan, Driedger on the Construction of Statutes (3rd ed. 1994) (hereinafter “Construction of Statutes”); Pierre-André Côté, The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (2nd ed. 1991)), Elmer Driedger in Construction of Statutes (2nd ed. 1983) best encapsulates the approach upon which I prefer to rely. He recognizes that statutory interpretation cannot be founded on the wording of the legislation alone. At p. 87 he states:
Today there is only one principle or approach, namely, the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament.
[17] The parties also referred me to section 10 of the Interpretation Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.11 which requires every act “receive such fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation as will best ensure the attainment of the object of the Act according to its true intent, meaning and spirit.”
[18] As Winkler C.J.O. recited in St. Mary's Cement Inc. (Canada) v. Clarington (Municipality), 2012 ONCA 884, 356 D.L.R. (4th) 448, at para. 17:
The modern principles of statutory interpretation apply equally to the interpretation of a municipal by-law and a statute: Montréal (City) v. 2952-1366 Québec Inc., 2005 SCC 62, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 141, at para. 10. Thus, the interpretation of a by-law involves consideration of the text of the by-law, the intent of municipal council, and the purpose and scheme of the by-law as a whole: Neighbourhoods of Windfields Limited Partnerships v. Death (2008), 48 M.P.L.R. (4th) 183 (Ont. S.C.), at para. 33, aff’d 2009 ONCA 277, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused [2009] S.C.C.A. No. 253.
Analysis
[19] No substantive facts are in dispute. The parties prepared an agreed statement of facts. In argument, the parties focused on the primary purpose of the appeal, which is to assess whether the By-law was properly considered and applied in the circumstances, and whether the Order to Comply will be upheld, or rescinded.
[20] The Property contains a driveway on the east side with the main door entrance located on the driveway side closest to the sidewalk, a side yard window from the living room, a side door entrance with one exterior overhead mounted motion-activated safety light, followed by a side yard window from the kitchen.
[21] The discrete subject of this appeal is the application of the exterior lighting provisions of the By-law to the LED strip lighting in the interior side yard windows from the living room and kitchen.
[22] The Agreed Statement of Facts includes findings made via the Property Standards Committee minutes which state the evidence before them was as follows:
- The inspection of the subject property occurred the week of January 23, 2023 due to a complaint received;
- An inspection was conducted on the interior of the neighbouring property and noted the light coming from the appellant’s window on the driveway side of the house greatly impacts the neighbour’s living room, front entrance and bedroom on the side of the house adjacent to 120 Bedford Rd;
- No exterior light source appeared to be present on the driveway side windows of the subject property; and
- The lighting causing disturbance at the neighbouring property appeared to be the result of bright interior lighting.
[23] Further, the minutes state that the Appellant confirmed that:
- The LED lighting is used for decoration and safety purposes;
- The LED lighting prevents the driveway area from being dark, creating a sense of safety;
- The LED lighting performs a flashing feature as well.
[24] Chapter 665 of the By-law does not expressly define any of the following terms: “exterior,” “exterior lighting,” “interior,” or “interior lighting.”
[25] Photos included in the Agreed Statement of Facts were taken at night and show very bright lights emanating from the Appellant’s east facing windows and east facing side door. The impact is that the lighting “lights up” the entire facing wall of the adjacent neighbour’s home. Those photos were taken after the Order to Comply was issued, by a City By-law enforcement officer. There is no issue taken with the fact that they fairly represent the lighting of concern here.
[26] Further, the photos include a close up of the east facing side door for the Appellant’s home. The LED lights are strip lighting, some installed directly onto the inside portion of the window of the door itself. An additional three strings of lights are installed below the window. They appear to be installed on the exterior of the solid lower half of the door, inside the screen door. These three strings of light obviously primarily light the exterior, as they are placed below the window of the door and facing the exterior and would have no impact on the interior of the home at all.
[27] The balance of the LED lights in the east facing windows all appear to be affixed to the interior side of transparent window panes.
[28] It is evident that, functionally, the lighting as a whole significantly illuminates the exterior driveway, and significantly illuminates the entire facing wall of the adjacent neighbour’s home.
[29] The Appellant argues that I should adopt a plain meaning of the words of the By-law, to find that none of the sections of Chapter 665 prohibit light spillage from the interior of a resident’s home into neighbouring properties.
[30] The Appellant admits that the choice of lighting was, at least in part, made in consideration of the fact that it would light the exterior of the house, lighting the otherwise dark driveway and creating a sense of safety.
[31] I am not required to determine whether the impact on the neighbouring property meets the definition of “nuisance”, though the admitted facts and the record, including the photographs, clearly demonstrate that the lighting has a significant impact on the neighbour’s home, in particular on the bedroom and the living room windows.
[32] Rather, I am tasked with determining whether it was reasonable for the City to rely on article 665.6.6 of the Property Standards By-law in issuing the Order to Comply.
[33] The appellant maintains that the provisions of 665.6.6 only apply to exterior lighting, and further that the intent of Chapter 665 and the By-law generally is not to address nuisance, but that its focus is to establish minimum standards to address the health and wellbeing of the public. I reject this submission.
[34] Chapter 665 covers a wide range of topics which impact physical property. The title of the Chapter, and the opening article 665.3.1 references “standards for maintenance and occupancy of property”, which I find to be a broad and general statement.
[35] Further, I find that “wellbeing” and “nuisance” are related terms. There can be no question that nuisance created by light entering one’s bedroom and living room at night would have an impact on the wellbeing of affected residents.
[36] The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines nuisance as “something (as an act, object, or practice) that invades or interferes with another's rights or interests (as the use or enjoyment of property) by being offensive, annoying, dangerous, obstructive, or unhealthful.”
[37] Finally, I find that Chapter 665 has numerous objects in addition to health and wellbeing. I find that the prevention of nuisance, safety, and the maintenance of the City’s aesthetic, are examples of other objects. I provide some of those references here:
- S. 665.4.3 Where a provision of this Chapter conflicts with the provisions of any other City by – law, the provisions which establish the higher standard to protect the health, safety and welfare of the general public shall prevail. [Emphasis added re welfare.]
- S. 665.6.5 Exterior lighting fixtures and their supports shall be installed and maintained in good repair and working order and in a safe and structurally sound condition, so that such fixtures are able to provide an adequate level of lighting to that the use normally carried out in such areas can be undertaken safely in accordance with the intended use of the area. [Emphasis added re safety.]
[38] And the paragraph relied upon in issuing the Order to Comply:
- S. 665.6.6 No exterior lighting on private property shall be used in a manner, or directed into another dwelling unit in a manner that creates a nuisance to occupants of another property. [Emphasis added re nuisance.]
[39] Examples demonstrating that the By-law’s objects also concern maintaining the aesthetic of the City is found in the numerous references to “abandoned” or “derelict” elements not being permitted – these relate to the aesthetic impact of a property’s features. Further, there is an entire article which addresses “unsightly storage”: s. 665.6.25.
[40] I find that the purpose and scheme of the By-law as a whole is to regulate aspects of the physical structures and elements which make up a neighbourhood. I find that it would be contrary to the intention of the By-law if lighting in any location on private property could be functionally used as exterior lighting, and be directed into another dwelling unit in a manner that creates a nuisance to occupants of another property, and yet escape the “exterior lighting” provisions due to the physical location of the electrical source.
[41] I find that the term “exterior lighting,” taking into account the objects of the entire By-law, must be interpreted to include reference to any lighting which primarily, or significantly, impacts the exterior.
[42] The lighting in issue at 120 Bedford Road is clearly intended to impact, primarily, the exterior lighting of the home. There is no other lighting affixed to the exterior of the home. A secondary and significant consequence of the LED lighting, as it is positioned, is that the light is directed into another dwelling in a manner that the By-law enforcement officer found to create a nuisance to the occupants of the facing adjacent property.
[43] This is not a situation where the Applicant’s only means to adequately light her driveway, for safety of passage and to help her feel secure, can only be achieved by the lighting she elected. Ample options which would not cause impact to her neighbour are no doubt available, whether affixed to the interior or exterior of her home.
[44] I find that, on these facts, the By-law officer reasonably relied on section 665.6.6 of the City’s Property Standards By-law in issuing the Order to Comply.
Order:
[45] The Order to Comply is confirmed. The Appellant shall remove the lighting as required by the Order, within 15 days of her receipt of these reasons.
Costs:
[46] I would urge the parties to agree on costs. If the parties are unable to agree, then costs submissions may be made as follows:
[47] Within 15 calendar days of the distribution of these reasons to counsel, the Respondent, City shall serve and file their written costs submissions, not to exceed three pages, double-spaced in 12pt font, together with a draft bill of costs and copies of any pertinent offers;
[48] The Appellant, Grazyna Waziak, shall serve and file her responding costs submissions of no more than three pages, double-spaced in 12pt font, together with a draft bill of costs and copies of any pertinent offers, within 25 calendar days of the distribution of these reasons;
[49] Reply submissions, if any, are to be served and filed within 30 calendar days of the distribution of these reasons, and are not to exceed two pages;
[50] If no submissions are received within the times allocated by either party, said party shall be deemed to have no submissions; and
[51] If no submissions are received by either party, the parties will be deemed to have resolved the issue of the costs, and costs will not be determined by me.
Justice S. Antoniani
Released: September 4, 2025
CITATION: Wasiak v. City of Kitchener, 2025 ONSC 5070
COURT FILE NO.: DC-23-00000001-00
DATE: 2025-09-04
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Grazyna Wasiak Appellant
-and-
The Corporation of the City of Kitchener Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Antoniani, J.
Released: September 4, 2025