Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
Citation: Smith-Ennismore-Lakefield (Township) v. Tarala, 2016 ONSC 7109
Court File No.: 269/12
Date: 2016-11-15
Between:
The Corporation of the Township of Smith-Ennismore-Lakefield and Robert Lamarre, Chief Building Official, Applicants
- and -
Arthur Tarala and Catherine Tarala, Respondents
Before: Bale J.
Counsel: John Ewart, for the applicants Arthur Tarala, in person, Self-represented
Heard: July 25, 2016
ENDORSEMENT
[1] In early 2012, the respondents commenced construction of an addition to their home in the Township of Smith-Ennismore-Lakefield. They did so without applying for a building permit. The construction came to the attention of the chief building official in May of 2012, and an order to comply and stop work order were issued. The respondents subsequently applied for a building permit, but the chief building official refused to issue one. The primary issue between the parties was whether the drawings submitted with the permit application complied with the technical requirements of the Building Code.
[2] The Township then applied for an injunction, including a mandatory order requiring demolition of the addition. At a pre-trial held in April of 2014, the applicants undertook to obtain an independent review of the drawings submitted by the respondents. The applicants then retained CCI Group Inc. to report on the sufficiency of the drawings, and a report dated September 25, 2014 was delivered. The CCI report suggests that there are thirty-one deficiencies in the drawings submitted with the respondents’ permit application.
[3] After numerous adjournments, two pre-trials, and interlocutory proceedings arising from collateral litigation commenced by the respondents, the application came on for hearing in April 2015. At that time, the respondents argued that the CCI report was flawed, and maintained their position that the submitted drawings complied with the technical requirements of the Building Code.
[4] While the respondents continued to argue the sufficiency of their drawings, and alleged that they were victims of municipal corruption, the issue before this court was never the sufficiency of the drawings (they did not appeal the decision of the chief building official), or any issue of municipal corruption. Rather, it was whether the respondents had obtained a building permit for the addition – which they admitted they had not done. However, rather than granting an injunction at that time, and in the hope that the issue between the parties could be resolved short of a demolition order, I referred the issue of the sufficiency of the drawings to the Building Code Commission.
[5] The Commission held a hearing in April of 2016, and issued its report in June. After reviewing the deficiencies noted in the CCI report, and considering the evidence given by the parties, the Commission concluded that the documents and drawings submitted by the respondents in support of their permit application are not sufficiently detailed to allow compliance with the technical requirements of the Building Code to be determined.
[6] The application came back before me on July 25, 2016. At that time, the respondents argued that the Building Code Commission report was flawed, and maintained their position that they are victims of municipal corruption, and that the submitted drawings complied with the technical requirements of the Building Code.
[7] This matter has now been outstanding for more than four years. The respondents have been afforded every possible opportunity to comply with the Building Code Act, and to obtain a permit. However, rather than attempting to comply, they have continued to maintain their position that the existing drawings are sufficient, and that they are victims of municipal corruption. In these circumstances, the Township is entitled to an injunction, and an order will go in terms of the relief requested in subparagraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of paragraph 1 of the notice of application. The respondents’ approval of the form of the order will not be required.
[8] However, with the consent of the applicant, the order will be stayed for a period of 90 days to allow the respondents one final opportunity to submit the necessary drawings, and obtain a permit.
[9] If the parties are unable to agree on costs, I will consider brief written argument provided that it is delivered to Judges’ Reception, at the Durham Region Courthouse, no later than December 16, 2016.
“Bale J.”
Date: November 15, 2016
CITATION: Smith-Ennismore-Lakefield (Township) v. Tarala, 2016 ONSC 7109
COURT FILE NO. 269/12
DATE: 20161115
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
The Corporation of the Township of Smith-Ennismore-Lakefield and Robert Lamarre, Chief Building Official
Applicants
- and -
Arthur Tarala and Catherine Tarala
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Bale J.
Released: November 15, 2016