Court File and Parties

CITATION: Singh v. Brampton (City), 2025 ONSC 5694

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-25-0013-0000

DATE: 20251006

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: Harinder Singh, Appellant

AND:

city of brampton, Respondent

BEFORE: Sweeny, Nakatsuru and Shore, JJ.

COUNSEL: Harinder Singh, self-represented Appellant

Kritika Seth, for the Respondent

HEARD at Toronto: October 6, 2025

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The Appellant in this case, Mr. Singh, seeks to appeal the decision rendered by the Brampton Appeal Tribunal on February 4, 2025, upholding a Property Standards Order that was issued by a Property Standards Officer, on September 12, 2024, regarding parking on the side lot/walkway of his residential property. The Appellant seeks to exercise the statutory appeal mechanism outlined in section 15.3(4) of the Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 23.

[2] At the outset of the hearing, the panel raised the issue of jurisdiction. Both parties were of the understanding that Divisional Court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and no prior judge advised that they were in the wrong court. Whether the issue of jurisdiction was raised by prior judges is not determinative of the issue of this Court’s jurisdiction. The Divisional Court only has jurisdiction to hear appeals if granted by statute.

[3] Section 15.3(4) provides that:

(4) The municipality in which the property is situate or any owner or occupant or person affected by a decision under subsection (3.1) may appeal to the Superior Court of Justice by notifying the clerk of the municipality in writing and by applying to the court within 14 days after a copy of the decision is sent.

[4] Pursuant to section 15.3(4), the appeal should have proceeded before a single judge of the Superior Court of Justice, and not a panel of the Divisional Court. Although Divisional Court judges are judges of the Superior Court, the Appellant has brought the appeal to the wrong court. The Divisional Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this matter.

[5] The City of Brampton is not seeking costs of the appeal.

Disposition:

[6] Pursuant to s.110 of the Courts of Justice Act, this matter is transferred to the Superior Court of Justice, to be heard by a single judge, and continue as if had been commenced in that Court.

[7] The appeal is dismissed without costs.

Sweeny J.

I agree _______________________________

Nakatsuru J.

I agree _______________________________

Shore J.

Date: October 6, 2025