Court File and Parties
Court File No.: CV-13-1084 Date: 2016-10-04 Amended: 2017-03-08
Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
Re: Ahmed Elbasiouni, Applicant And: The Chief Building Official (CBO) and The Corporation of the City of Brampton, Respondents
Before: Barnes J.
Counsel:
- Ahmed Elbasiouni, Self-Represented Applicant
- Charles A. Painter, for the Respondents
Heard: September 9, 2016
Endorsement
1This matter is about a dispute between Appellant and the City of Brampton, the City’s Chief Building Officer (the “Respondents”). The Appellant owns a property with the municipal address of 443 Centre Street in the City of Brampton (the “property”).
2The Respondent CBO granted and then revoked legal non-conforming use status for the property. The Respondent CBO granted and then revoked a building permit for the construction of a duplex on the property. The Appellant appealed the decision of the CBO to this court and I upheld the revocation of the building permit but restored the legal non-conforming use designation. I determined that the proper zone for the property was R1B(3)-153. The Appellant appealed my decision.
3On March 19, 2015, the Divisional Court dismissed the Appellant’s appeal of my decision and sent the matter back to the Superior Court of Justice for the purpose of implementing a remediation timetable.
4The Appellant sought leave to argue a new issue and also to introduce fresh evidence in the form of a document described as Schedule “A” to City of Brampton by-law 270-2004. This schedule is described as “Exhibit H” to the affidavit of Ahmed Elbasiouni dated June 8, 2015. According to the Appellant, this Exhibit H was part of by-law 270-2004 and it showed that the proper zone for his property is R3A(2)-237 and not R1B(3)-153 as this court determined. If R1B(3)-153 is the correct zone for the property, in effect, this dispute shall be resolved.
5On October 2, 2015, I concluded that Exhibit H was not an authentic document and the correct zoning by-law for the property was still R1B(3)-153.
6The Appellant submits that the court made some factual errors in its endorsement dated October 2, 2015 and wished the court to vary that endorsement.
7I refused to accept the Appellant’s request in the form of a motion as final judgment was rendered on October 2, 2015; however, as a courtesy, I agreed to consider the Appellant’s written list of errors and recommended corrections. The Respondents did not consent to any changes to the October 2, 2015 endorsement.
8A succinct summary of the reasons why this court concluded that Exhibit H is not an authentic document is stated in Elbasiouni v. City of Brampton, 2015 ONSC 6149 at paras. 95 to 97 as follows:
The Appellant has provided a list of reasons why this court should conclude that the Respondents have conspired to hide Exhibit H from him, thus thwarting his efforts to complete construction on the property. However, the person the Appellant says he received Exhibit H from does not recall seeing Exhibit H or providing it to the Appellant.
The City of Brampton employees, who are alleged to have been shown Exhibit H by the Appellant, deny ever seeing Exhibit H. Ms. Carrazolla states that Exhibit H is not and has never been a document produced by the City of Brampton.
In the result, I conclude that Exhibit H is not an authentic document. Therefore, my August 15, 2013, decision that the applicable zoning for the property is R1B(3)-153 is unchanged and the remediation timetable previously set by this court remains unchanged.
9Upon considering the Appellant’s list of suggested errors and recommended changes, I conclude that para. 23 of the October 2, 2015 endorsement shall be deleted and replaced as follows: “After considering issues raised on January 13, 2014, I awarded the Respondents $700.00 in costs.”
10No other changes to the October 2, 2015 endorsement shall be made. The other changes recommended either stem from a different interpretation of the evidence and/or would have no impact on the decision of the court rendered on October 2, 2015.
11These reasons vary and supersede my Endorsement on this issue released on September 9, 2016 as “Ruling #1”.
Barnes J. Date: October 4, 2016 Amended: March 8, 2017