ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO.: CR-14-00000144-00AP
DATE: 20151022
BETWEEN:
DENNIS CIBULKA
313 MANOR ROAD EAST
Appellant
– and –
CITY OF TORONTO
Respondent
Self-represented and acting in person
Amanda Ross, counsel for the City of Toronto
HEARD: April 15, June 5, August 26 and October 20, 2015
ENDORSEMENT
Diamond J.:
[1] This matter originally came before me on April 15, 2015. The appellant appealed a decision dated November 3, 2014 (the “decision”) of the Property Standards Committee – Toronto and East York Panel which confirmed an Order to Comply issued on September 3, 2014 by the respondent City of Toronto (the “City”) with respect to 313 Manor Road East, Toronto (the “property”).
[2] By endorsement dated April 16, 2015, I found that the Order to Comply lacked the necessary particulars to properly inform the appellant of the nature of the required remedial steps to ensure compliance with the Toronto Municipal Code, Property Standards. I directed the City to issue a revised Order to Comply setting out the necessary, additional particulars.
[3] On April 22, 2015, the City issued an amended Order to Comply and delivered same to the appellant. While the amended Order to Comply still listed three items “throughout building”, the defects were further particularized and stated as follows:
- The property has not been repaired in accordance with the Standards.
Every wall and ceiling shall be repaired and maintained, clean and free of any deteriorated surface material. Mainly interior ceilings and walls to be cleaned, repaired and finished to reasonably match the existing walls or ceiling.
Ensure that every supplied facility in or on the property is: constructed, installed, maintained or repaired so that it will function safely and effectively. Mainly but not limited to, the front door, hardware, and locking mechanism.
- Immediate action has not been taken to eliminate an unclean, condition.
Namely, but not limited to, the removal from the property of waste, rubbish and debris to affirm, rooms, doors, passage ways and exits shall be maintained free from hazardous conditions, obstructions and impediments.
- The property is not maintained and/or kept clean in accordance with the Standards.
Namely, waste, rubbish and debris including animal feces and urine, to be removed from the Property, ceilings, walls, floors and floor surfaces cleaned, sanitized, deodorized, repaired or maintained to affirm that, all surfaces shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition and free from holes, stains, waste, rubbish or debris and maintained free from any trip or hazardous condition.
[4] The appellant maintained his appeal of this amended Order to Comply. In accordance with the City’s request, I ordered a trial de novo with viva voce evidence to be called by the parties. I have now heard that evidence along with submissions from the parties.
[5] For the reasons which follow, I order that the decision be upheld and confirmed.
[6] The City called two witnesses. The first witness was Peter Hardisty, employed by the City as a manager of Customer Service and Issues Management in the Municipal Licensing and Standards Division. Mr. Hardisty testified that one of his responsibilities is dealing with potentially problematic properties where occupants have carried out what is commonly known as “hoarding” activities.
[7] The Property is a semi-detached house with a common roof and unenclosed front porch. Mr. Hardisty attended at the property on approximately three occasions. In response to community concerns, this file was “escalated” to Mr. Hardisty’s attention due to the appellant being “complicated and challenging”. In April 2013, Mr. Hardisty met with the owners of 311 Manor Road East, being the adjoining, semi-detached property. From outside the appellant’s property, he noticed the presence of (and evidence of) many animals including pet cats, feral cats and squirrels. The front porch was heavily hoarded with numerous items, and access to the front door was seemingly impossible as the items were piled several feet high.
[8] On November 28, 2013, Mr. Hardisty attended at the property as an observer during a three day attendance by members of Toronto Fire Service pursuant to an order dated May 29, 2013 of the Superior Court of Justice authorizing steps to remove combustible materials and address fire and life safety issues. Mr. Hardisty did not enter the property, but observed similar issues to when he was there a few months earlier. This included contaminated items, animal waste and rotting food strewn among what appeared to be a significant amount of refuse.
[9] The City’s second witness was Jan Sepp who is employed by the City as a Provincial Offences Officer with Municipal Licensing Standards. In advance of the Order to Comply, Mr. Sepp attended at the property on August 21, 2014 for the purpose of removing contaminated waste and debris materials on the property’s front porch, driveway and back/side yards. These steps were being carried out pursuant to a previous Order to Comply which is not the subject of the within appeal.
[10] During his attendance, Mr. Sepp took various photos, including photos of the inside of the property as the front door was open upon his arrival at approximately 8:30 a.m. that morning. While the contention of the door being open was originally an issue raised by the appellant, during the appellant’s own testimony he confirmed that as he was residing outside at the time, he walked around the side of the house to meet Mr. Sepp and shut the front door which was already open. It was the appellant’s contention that Mr. Sepp then re-opened the door to take photographs, a contention which Mr. Sepp denies.
[11] A review of the photographs confirms that there was a large amount of debris and waste obstructing the front hallway, including boxes and bins. Mr. Sepp testified that at no point did he enter the property, but made his observations and took photographs from the walkway and/or front porch upon which he was authorized to stand. Mr. Sepp further testified that he recalled the locking mechanism on the front door to be in disrepair, and there was water damage to the walls and ceiling inside the property.
[12] Mr. Sepp further testified that one of the contractors hired by the City to carry out the existing order on August 21, 2014 had his foot fall through a set of dilapidated steps in the rear of the property.
[13] The City relies upon the testimonies of Mr. Harvisty and Mr. Sepp to substantiate the concerns raised in the revised Order to Comply. In response, the appellant seems to raise two arguments. First, the appellant takes issue with the City’s characterization of the state of the interior of the property. I note that the appellant confirmed he has been living outside the property on the front and/or back porches for some time. The utilities have been disconnected for several years, and there is evidence that access to the interior of the property has been and continues to be impeded. In this regard, I prefer the evidence of Mr. Harvisty and Mr. Sepp over that of the appellant.
[14] The appellant’s second argument was more difficult to understand. It appeared to me that the appellant alleged that the City’s Municipal Licensing and Standards Office was conspiring with the City’s Fire Service Office with a view to “destroying” the appellant and his property.
[15] The appellant has adamantly refused to allow any City representative access to the interior of his property, forcing the City to proceed as it has over the last several years. The appellant has effectively “dared” the City to force him to comply with the various fire, building and property standards obligations.
[16] In one instance, the appellant submitted that the City’s attendance on November 27-29, 2013 was unlawful as it related to the front and back porch due to the fact that the City’s order was issued on September 13, 2012, more than 12 months earlier and had expired. Even accepting such a submission to be accurate (which I do not), the appellant himself gave further evidence that the state of the property, both interior and exterior, did not change at all between September – November 2013. Thus the appellant would have suffered no prejudice caused by an additional two months.
[17] Taking the appellant’s evidence as a whole, and listening to his closing submissions, it is apparent that the state of the property is in significant need of attention. According to the appellant, there are now raccoons occupying the interior of the property. Those raccoons obviously increase the chances of waste and contamination.
[18] I conclude that the decision should be confirmed and upheld. The appellant is very fearful that the terms of the revised Order to Comply are such that the City’s representatives would be authorized to enter his property and “have carte blanche to do whatever they want”. In confirming and upholding the decision, the City is thus authorized to take the necessary steps to ensure compliance with the specific defects listed in the revised Order to Comply. As such, the scope of the remedial work to be carried out by the City must not stray from that contemplated in the revised Order to Comply which is mostly focused upon the removal of all waste, rubbish and debris, the repair and maintenance of walls and ceilings with deteriorated material, and the presence of safe passages free from hazardous conditions and obstructions.
[19] In addition, the appellant also expressed concern that many of the items currently found throughout the property constitute “evidence” in a potential legal proceeding he intends to commence against Toronto Fire Service, and he does not want these items to be discarded or destroyed. The appellant advised the Court that in light of the provisions of the Limitations Act 2002 S.O. 2002, c. 24, he must commence this legal proceeding on or before November 29, 2015 and is in the process of trying to retain counsel, preferably on a pro bono basis. While I have no knowledge if this factual information is correct, to the extent that the appellant needs to itemize and remove the “evidentiary items” so that a lawyer may review those items prior to commencing a legal proceeding, I order that the City may not commence its remedial work under the revised Order to Comply until or after December 1, 2015.
[20] Order accordingly.
Diamond J.
Released: October 22, 2015
COURT FILE NO.: CR-14-00000144-00AP
DATE: 20151022
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
DENNIS CIBULKA
313 MANOR ROAD EAST
Appellant
– and –
CITY OF TORONTO
Respondent
ENDORSEMENT
Diamond J.
Released: October 22, 2015