Elbasiouni v. City of Brampton, 2017 ONSC 1540

CITATION: Elbasiouni v. City of Brampton, 2017 ONSC 1540

COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-1084-00

DATE: 20170303

AMENDED: 20170308

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

RE: Ahmed Elbasiouni v. The Chief Building Official (CBO), The Corporation of The City of Brampton

BEFORE: Barnes, J.

COUNSEL: Ahmed Elbasiouni, Self-Represented, Appellant

Charles A. Painter, Counsel for the Respondents

Steven O’Melia, Counsel for the Ontario Municipal Board

HEARD: March 4, 2017

ENDORSEMENT

BARNES J.

INTRODUCTION

1This endorsement shall be read in conjunction with my order dated September 30, 2016.

2There was an appearance before me to set a judicial review hearing date. The Appellant seeks to review the decision of the Ontario Municipal Board dated April 28, 2016.

3At the hearing of today’s date a number of issues were raised:

(i) Should the Appellant’s application for Judicial Review be dismissed because it was commenced under the wrong court number (proceeding)?

(ii) Does a conflict of interest declared by member Robert Crouch at the October 6, 2015 Committee of Adjustment hearing prohibit counsel retained by the Ontario Municipal Board from appearing on the judicial review hearing?

(iii) If the judicial review application is not dismissed, on what day shall it proceed?

(iv) What options were open to the Appellant to take as remediation in accordance with my Order dated September 30, 2016 (the Order)?

(v) Should the court order the production of the video recording of the January 24, 2017 Committee of Adjustment meeting for the Appellant?

(vi) Should the remediation timetable set in my Order dated September 30, 2016 be varied?

ORDERS

4I deal with each of these in turn.

(a) Request for dismissal of judicial review application

5The request for dismissal of the judicial review of the April 28, 2016 application on the basis of a technicality is denied.

6While it is correct that the judicial review was commenced pursuant to my order of September 30, 2016, the judicial review is a completely different process than the proceedings in which my September 30, 2016 order was made.

7The Appellant is unrepresented. Therefore the court office shall assign a new file number to the judicial review commenced by the Appellant without the need for him to begin the process anew.

8At the date set for judicial review the issues of conflict of interest, and whether a judicial review can be brought before a single judge of the Divisional Court shall be addressed in addition to the substantive judicial review.

9The judicial review application shall proceed before Barnes J. on April 3, 2017 set for a full day (10:00 a.m.).

(b) Video recording of the COA proceeding

10The Appellant seeks to appeal the Committee of Adjustment (COA) proceeding dated January 24, 2017.

11The COA and persons responsible for recording the proceedings, dated January 24, 2017, shall provide the Appellant with a copy of the proceedings.

12Any issue surrounding the preparation of material before the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) i.e. the filing of an appeal before the OMB, including the sufficiency or insufficiency of the material before the OMB shall be dealt with by the OMB as part of the OMB’s control of its own process (this includes the issue of the video recording).

13Both parties always have the option of appealing any decision of the OMB in accordance with the applicable statutory process.

(c) The order of September 30, 2016 (The Order)

14Failure to comply with the steps for remediation as set out in paragraph 1 of the Order of September 30, 2016 amounts to non-compliance with the order.

15Paragraph 1 of the Order sets out the options for remediation i.e. the options to comply with remediation under the Order. Three distinct options are given. Paragraph 1 reads as follows:

THIS COURT ORDERS the following final remediation timetable in respect to the Appellant's property located at 443 Centre Street North, Brampton, Ontario ("the Property") and if the Appellant fails to file the necessary application for one or more of the following within 90 days of the date of this Order, then the stay of the building permit revocation by the Chief Building Official dated February 20, 2013 is revoked:

A. The Appellant may seek a demolition permit for the Property;

B. The Appellant may make an application to the Committee of Adjustment to seek the three minor variances required to bring the Property into compliance with the R1B(3)-153 zoning requirements, as listed in the Zoning Non-Compliance Checklist attached hereto as Schedule "A";

C. The Appellant may submit to the City of Brampton, Building Division, an application for a revision permit, which provides the necessary plans, drawings and other materials required to bring the existing structure into compliance with the applicable R1B(3)-153 zoning requirements, and which satisfactorily addresses the issues listed in the Zoning Non- Compliance Checklist attached hereto as Schedule "A".

16Paragraph 2 of the Order reads as follows:

THIS COURT ORDERS that any of the available options listed in paragraph 1 of this Order, or any other options not listed therein which are or may be available to the Appellant in respect to addressing the zoning non-compliance issues at the Property, that are not pursued/commenced within 90 days of the date of this Order, will not be permitted to form the basis of any future remediation timetable or extension to the stay of the permit revocation.

17This paragraph does not modify paragraph 1. Instead, it deals with remediation timetable timelines. It makes clear that failure to comply with paragraph 1 or any other [non-court ordered] options, within 90 days shall not be a basis to delay / vary the remediation timetable.

18Paragraph 3 of the Order reads as follows:

THIS COURT ORDERS that in the event that the Appellant applies for one or more of the options in paragraph 1 of this Order, then the stay of the permit revocation by the Chief Building Official dated February 20, 2013 is extended to May 30, 2017, at which time the stay expires and the building permit is revoked, and no further extension of the stay will be granted by this court.

19Paragraph 3 makes it clear that the only way the stay of revocation of the Chief Building Officials (CBO) permit, dated February 2013 shall be extended to May 30, 2017 is if paragraph 1 of the Order is complied with.

20Any step taken that is not in compliance with paragraph 1 of the Order is not in compliance with the court ordered options (dated September 30, 2016).

21Approval as to form and content is waived.

22All parties should advise themselves of the deadlines and conditions precedent set out in the Order of September 30, 2016. They have not changed.

23Parties shall bear their own costs for today’s appearance.

Barnes, J.