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

[1] This 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”).

[2] The 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.

[3] On 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.

[4] The 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.

[5] On 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.

[6] The Appellant submits that the court made some factual errors in its endorsement dated October 2, 2015 and wished the court to vary that endorsement.

[7] I 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.

[8] A 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.

[9] Upon 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.”

[10] No 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.

[11] These 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