COURT FILE NO.: CV-19-4878

DATE: 2019 12 13

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

RAVINDER MANN

Santiago H. Costa, for the Applicant

Applicant

• and -

TOWN OF CALEDON

Raivo Uukkivi, for the Respondent

Respondent

HEARD: November 29, 2019

DALEY RSJ.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

[1] The Applicant Ravinder Mann instituted an Application and Motion seeking a variety of relief against the Respondent Town of Caledon (the “Town”). The relief included: leave under s. 6(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. J.1; orders in the form of certiorari and mandamus; and an interim injunction against the Respondent enjoining it from entering the Applicant’s property for the purpose of enforcing work orders made with respect to the Applicant’s property under By-Law 2007-59 (the “Fill By-Law”).

[2] The Application and Motion, in simple terms, relate to the Town’s work order requiring the Applicant to remove 5,500 tonnes of fill from its property. It is undisputed that neither the Applicant nor his predecessors in title had a fill permit from the Town authorizing the placing of fill on the Applicant’s property.

[3] This matter came before the court on November 29, 2019, the same day that the Application and Notice of Motion seeking an interim injunction were filed with the court.

[4] The Town received very short notice of the Application and Motion, and counsel on its behalf appeared in court on such short notice. An affidavit of the Town’s Assistant Solicitor, Alanna Vandervoort, were submitted on the Town’s behalf, along with a brief factum of argument.

[5] At the conclusion of submissions, I concluded that the Motion for an Order in the nature of mandamus and injunctive relief sought must be dismissed, with detailed reasons to follow.

[6] These are my reasons.

Evidentiary Record

[7] The evidentiary record on this motion is uncontroversial in many respects. It is the application of the applicable legal framework to the evidentiary record that was central to the submissions of counsel on behalf of both parties.

[8] The evidence adduced was in the form of the affidavit of the Applicant, which included numerous exhibits, along with the affidavit of the Town’s Assistant Solicitor.

[9] As to the chronology of events, the record shows that the Applicant, with three other purchasers, took title to the property located at 5731 King Street, Caledon, in December 2018.

[10] It is uncontradicted that the presence of illegal fill on the property predated the Applicant’s ownership of the property.

[11] Notably, in the affidavit submitted on behalf of the Applicant on this Motion, the Applicant failed to disclose that at the time he obtained title to the property, and as a condition of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale by which he obtained title, he and his co-purchasers acknowledged disclosure of the existence of work order 2018-0943 issued by the Town on July 19, 2018 in respect of the property. Further, the Applicant failed to disclose that the work order called for the removal of