Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: 124/16 (Cobourg) DATE: 2017-01-11 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

The Corporation of the Municipality of Port Hope, Applicant

– and –

Nathan Drew, Respondent

Counsel: Jennifer Savini, for the applicant Nathan Drew, in person

Heard: In writing on January 11, 2017

Bale J.:

Endorsement

[1] Following my endorsement of December 7, 2016, I received written argument from counsel for the municipality, but not (perhaps not surprisingly) from the respondent who is self-represented.

[2] Subsection 36(1) of the Building Code Act, 1992 creates three offences: (a) furnishing false information in an application under the Act; (b) failing to comply with an order, direction or other requirement made under the Act; and (c) contravening the Act, the regulations, or a bylaw passed under section 7.

[3] Subsection 36(7) of the Act provides that if the Act or the regulations are contravened and a conviction is entered, the court may make an order prohibiting the continuation or repetition of the offence by the person involved.

[4] In this case, the justice of the peace convicted the respondent, seemingly under clause (b) of subsection 36(1) of the Act, for failing to comply with a property standards order made under subsection 15.2(2) of the Act. At the same time, the justice of the peace made an order that the respondent be “prohibited from continuing the offence of failing to comply with” the property standards order, and that the respondent comply with the order within a specified period of time.

[5] I raised the question of jurisdiction because, on its face, subsection 36(7) of the Act would appear to apply only to convictions under clause (c) of subsection 36(1) for contravening the Act or regulations, and not to convictions under clause (a) for knowingly furnishing false information, under clause (b) for failing to comply with an order, direction or other requirement made under the Act, or under clause (c) for contravening a by-law passed under section 7.

[6] In her written submissions, counsel for the applicant argues that the jurisdiction under subsection 36(7) of the Act to make a restraining order applies to all convictions under subsection 36(1) of the Act, and that in any event, failure to comply with a confirmed property standards order is a contravention of the Act, because subsection 15.3(7) requires that the owner or occupant comply with such an order.

[7] I am not persuaded that subsection 36(7) of the Act applies to all convictions under subsection 36(1). However, in the view I take of the argument based upon subsection 15.3(7), it is not necessary for me to decide the question.

[8] I agree that the respondent’s failure to comply with the property standards order amounted to a contravention of subsection 15.3(7) of the Act, and the justice of the peace therefore had jurisdiction under clause (c) of subsection 36(1) to issue the restraining order.

[9] In the result, the applicant may obtain a date for the hearing of its contempt application. The parties would be well-advised to contact the trial coordinator to obtain potential application dates, in advance of the presently scheduled January 24, 2017 return date.

[10] Costs of the day on December 7, 2016, and the costs of the argument on jurisdiction, are reserved to the application judge.

“Bale J.”

Released: January 12, 2017

COURT FILE NO. 124/16 (Cobourg) DATE : 20170111 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE Between: The Municipality of the Corporation of Port Hope Applicant – and – Nathan Drew Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION

Bale J.

Released: January 12, 2017