ABU MOSSA v. CITY OF MISSISSAUGA, 2013 ONSC 4887
CITATION: ABU MOSSA v. CITY OF MISSISSAUGA, 2013 ONSC 4887 COURT FILE NO.: CV-12-3860-00 DATE: 2013-07-22
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
ABU MOOSA Applicant
– and –
CITY OF MISSISSAUGA Respondent
COUNSEL: Thomas J. Hanrahan for the Applicant Paul DeMelo for the Respondent
HEARD: March 27, 2013
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
barnes, j
INTRODUCTION
1Mr. Abu Mossa and Ms. Naiyara Rahman are married. Mr. Mossa is the Applicant in this action. The couple owns the property located at 5032 Mariner Court in Mississauga, Ontario. The couple have lived in Qatar since April 2004. Mr. Mossa and Ms. Rahman hired Hill property Management Group to manage the property. This property was rented to Jason White and Adina White. This couple lived at the address with their two children.
2On July 23, 2013, there was a fire at the property. The property was extensively damaged. The fire Marshal determined that the fire was caused as a result of the operation of a clandestine drug lab on the property. At the time of the fire, Mr. and Mrs. White were renting the property. The Applicant was in Qatar and Hill Management Group was managing the property.
3The City of Mississauga incurred some costs in cleaning up the Applicant’s property. These costs were assessed against the Applicant’s property. Between October 16, 2006, and January 26, 2007, the Applicant received invoices from the City informing him of the costs assessed against his property.
4As of July 24, 2008, the total amount owing was $178,309.05. The City of Mississauga seeks to recover these costs from the Applicant. The Respondent (City) relies on City of Mississauga by-law 0225-2003. The Applicant argues that the by-law does not apply to him and any costs assessed must be reversed.
ISSUES
5The authority of the City to pass the by-law is not in dispute. The authority of the City to seek to recover costs pursuant to the by-law is not in dispute. There are no allegations of procedural unfairness or bad faith in how the City has applied the by-law.
6The Applicant’s primary position is that the by-law does not apply to him. The Applicant has not been charged under the provisions of any City by-law; instead, the City relies on the by-law to recover costs associated with the clean-up of the Applicant’s property.
7The Applicant challenges the City’s interpretation of the by-law. The arguments advanced by the parties gives rise to these main issues:
a. Does the City by-law require the owner or occupant of the property to have actual knowledge of the prohibited activity?
b. Does the City by-law apply to the Applicant?
c. Does the City’s clean-up of the property constitute an unjust enrichment of the Applicant?
8I have concluded that the by-law does not require the element of knowledge. The City by-law applies to the Applicant. The City’s clean-up of the property, without cost recovery from the Applicant, constitutes an unjust enrichment of the Applicant.
DOES THE CITY BY-LAW REQUIRE THE OWNER OR OCCUPANT OF THE PROPERTY TO HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROHIBITED ACTIVITY?
(a) THE BY-LAW:
9The subject by-law is Mississauga by-law 0225-