COURT FILE NO.: CV-23-318-00 DATE: 2024 02 22
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
257 5950 ONTARIO LTD. Appellant
Jennifer Meader and Jessica De Marinis, for the Appellant
- and -
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF GUELPH, PROPERTY STANDARDS COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF GUELPH, and STEPHEN JAMIESON Respondents
Matthew Irish, for the Respondent
HEARD: December 5, 2023
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
MIRZA J.
INTRODUCTION
[1] This appeal was heard as a short motion on December 5, 2023 in Guelph.
[2] Pursuant to ss. 15.3(4) of the Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992 c. 23, the Appellant, 25759502529 ONTARIO LTD. (257) appeals the compliance date of December 31, 2023 imposed by the Property Standards Committee (Committee) in their decision of September 13, 2023.
[3] The Committee extended the prior compliance order date of August 17, 2023, as set out in the order of the Property Standards Inspector dated July 27, 2023.
[4] The Appellant requests that this Court modify the decision to extend the compliance date to August 31, 2024.
FACTS
[5] 257, publicly known as Mattamy Homes, is the owner of the lands municipally knowns as 2187 Gordon in the City of Guelph.
[6] 257 proposes to develop the subject lands as a residential development of mixed use.
[7] On this property there is an approximately 170-year-old stone barn (the “Kidd Barn”) that is vacant.
[8] The Kidd Barn is in a state of disrepair. The north-facing rear stone part of the barn structure collapsed, and the remaining roof and walls are at risk of collapsing.
[9] Pursuant to Property Standards By-Laws, an Order of the Property Standards Officer, dated September 8, 2021 (2021 Order) was issued to 257 with a compliance deadline of September 29, 2021. The order required 257 to make repair or demolish the barn.
[10] This was not done. 257 did not complete the work set out in the 2021 Order.
[11] On July 27, 2023 (2023 order), a Second Property Standards Order was issued to 257 with a compliance deadline of August 17, 2023. This was following the collapse of the north wall of the Kidd Barn. The Inspector’s order required 257 to make extensive repairs to the Kidd Barn. This work was not done by the deadline. The order stated:
At the large old barn on the property; The north facing entrance of the rear stone part of the structure has fully collapsed and the remaining roof and walls of this stone structure are in danger of collapse due to lack of building maintenance.
I. You must immediately put in place an engineered solution to secure the remaining roof, 3.1.1,3.3 &4.1 and stone walls of this identified heritage resource and to prevent further deterioration or collapse.
Further to the above you must forward an engineering report to this office of what work l5.8(I)BCA was completed to secure this structure and if any further work is recommended.
The chain link fencing has been damaged in several areas. You must repair any damaged 3.3 fencing and ensure it is in good repair.
There are pieces of the roofing cladding that are missing in several various areas of the barns; you must repair All roofing of the large barn to ensure no water entry into the 4.2 & 4.3 building envelope.
There are missing pieces of wood siding on the East facing side of the barn, you must 4.3 replace any loose or missing wood siding and ensure it is in good repair free from any holes or other defects.
NOTE: Heritage Guelph would not support demolition of this building.
Date Order Issued: Thursday July 27th 2023 Order to be Complied with by: Thursday August 17th 2023
[12] 257 appealed the 2023 Order to the Committee on August 9, 2023. The Committee heard the appeal on September 13, 2023.
[13] 257 argued that the work ordered was unsafe to complete and that the condition of the Kidd Barn created risk of further collapse and potential liability to contractors attempting to complete the job. 257 argued that demolition would more appropriately satisfy the intent of the By-law.
[14] The Respondent submitted that 257 could have applied for demolition since 2021.
[15] The Committee’s decision was released on September 13, 2023. No reasons were provided. [1] The decision states:
Decision PSC-23-002:
Chair (B. Lance) - In the matter of the Appeal of an Order issued by the Property Standards Officer, dated, July 27, 2023, regarding 2187 Gordon St, CON 7 REAR PT LOT 14, it is the decision of the Committee that Order 23-0001809 CM be modified to remove item 3, remove current note stating Heritage Guelph would not support demolition of this building and add, "Note: Alternatively you may demolish this structure and leave the area in a graded and level condition to comply with this bylaw" and the compliance date on the Order extended to December 31, 2023.
[16] In other words, the Committee’s decision extended the compliance date of the Second Property Standards Order from August 17, 2023 to December 31, 2023. It also added and permitted the alternative of demolishing this structure and to leave the area in a graded and level condition to comply with the By-law.
[17] 257’s application before this court seeks to further extend the compliance order deadline of the Committee. With respect to the required work set out in the Committee’s Decision, 257 has not applied for a demolition permit, building permit or consent of council to complete the work.
[18] Pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. O.18, on October 26, 2023, the municipality served on 257 a Notice of Intention to Designate this property to be of cultural heritage value or interest.
POSITIONS
Appellant
[19] 257 seeks to have this Court modify the Committee’s decision and to extend the compliance date to August 31, 2024.
[20] The Appellant submits that due to an ongoing heritage designation process and the safety risks associated with completing the work contemplated by the Property Standards Order, the December 31, 2023, date is not feasible.
[21] 257 submits that the heritage designation process frustrates compliance. Since the property is subject to a pending heritage designation, pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act, if the property was so designated, then any permit obtained would be void. The effect of the Notice is such that any building permits issued in relation to the lands prior to service of the Notice are void.
[22] Subsections 33(1) and 34(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act prohibits alteration or demolition of any designated property unless the owner applies to council and receives consent in writing. The owner’s application is subject to complete application requirements, a public process that can take up to 90 days, and an available appeal process.
[23] Pursuant to ss 15.3(6) of the Building Code Act, on appeal this Court has the same powers and functions of the Committee. The Committee’s powers are set out in ss 15.3(3.1) of the Building Code Act, and include confirming, modifying, or rescinding the order, if doing so would maintain the general intent and purpose of the by-law.
[24] On appeal, this Court may consider the record before the Committee as well as any new material that is appropriate, considering the individual circumstances of the case. This includes the record before the Committee as well as the impact of the City’s Notice of Intention to Designate the Subject Lands. See Balroop v. Quinte West (City), 2017 ONSC 3352.
[25] This Court need not defer to the findings of the Committee and is free to arrive at its own assessment of the merits of the appeal.
[26] 257 seeks an extension of the Compliance Date for the 2023 Order to August 31, 2024. The constraints of the heritage designation process and the safety and liability risks mean that compliance within the Compliance Date are unfeasible and unsafe.
[27] An extension to August 31, 2024, is an appropriate outcome and within the powers of this Court on an appeal under s. 15.3(6) of the Building Code Act.
Respondent
[28] The Respondents oppose the relief sought and requests that this Court dismiss the application and confirm the decision of the Committee. 257 has repeatedly failed to comply with outstanding orders and to take reasonable steps towards compliance.
[29] It is the Respondents’ position that the applicable standard of review is reasonableness.
[30] Courts have acknowledged that where a municipality has determined that there should be a minimal enforceable property standard for private property within the municipality, both the Property Standards Inspectors and the Property Standards Committee ought to be granted deference, supporting a standard of reasonableness: Anderson v. Hamilton (City) (2009), 315 D.L.R. (4th) 486, at para. 34.
[31] The nature of the question under review is largely fact centered in determining whether the Appellant has been provided with sufficient time to comply with the terms of the Decision by the compliance date of December 31, 2023. This factor favors this Court applying a standard of reasonableness.
THE LAW
Relevant Parts of Applicable Statutes:
Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992 c. 23
Inspection of property without warrant 15.2 (1) Where a by-law under section 15.1 is in effect, an officer may, upon producing proper identification, enter upon any property at any reasonable time without a warrant for the purpose of inspecting the property to determine, (a) whether the property conforms with the standards prescribed in the by-law; or (b) whether an order made under subsection (2) has been complied with.
Contents of order (2) An officer who finds that a property does not conform with any of the standards prescribed in a by-law passed under section 15.1 may make an order, (a) stating the municipal address or the legal description of the property; (b) giving reasonable particulars of the repairs to be made or stating that the site is to be cleared of all buildings, structures, debris or refuse and left in a graded and levelled condition; (c) indicating the time for complying with the terms and conditions of the order and giving notice that, if the repair or clearance is not carried out within that time, the municipality may carry out the repair or clearance at the owner’s expense; and (d) indicating the final date for giving notice of appeal from the order.
Appeal of order 15.3 (1) An owner or occupant who has been served with an order made under subsection 15.2 (2) and who is not satisfied with the terms or conditions of the order may appeal to the committee by sending a notice of appeal by registered mail to the secretary of the committee within 14 days after being served with the order.
Confirmation of order (2) An order that is not appealed within the time referred to in subsection (1) shall be deemed to be confirmed.
Duty of committee (3) The committee shall hear the appeal.
Powers of committee (3.1) On an appeal, the committee has all the powers and functions of the officer who made the order and the committee may do any of the following things if, in the committee’s opinion, doing so would maintain the general intent and purpose of the bylaw and of the official plan or policy statement:
- Confirm, modify or rescind the order to demolish or repair.
- Extend the time for complying with the order.
Appeal to court (4) The municipality in which the property is situate or any owner or occupant or person affected by a decision under subsection (3.1) may appeal to the Superior Court of Justice by notifying the clerk of the municipality in writing and by applying to the court within 14 days after a copy of the decision is sent.
Appointment (5) The Superior Court of Justice shall appoint, in writing, a time and place for the hearing of the appeal and may direct in the appointment the manner in which and the persons upon whom the appointment is to be served.
Judge’s powers (6) On the appeal, the judge has the same powers and functions as the committee.
Effect of decisions (7) An order that is deemed to be confirmed under subsection (2) or that is confirmed or modified by the committee under subsection (3) or a judge under subsection (6), as the case may be, shall be final and binding upon the owner and occupant who shall carry out the repair or demolition within the time and in the manner specified in the order.
Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. O.18
Designation by municipal by-law 29 (1) The council of a municipality may, by by-law, designate a property within the municipality to be of cultural heritage value or interest if, (a) where criteria for determining whether property is of cultural heritage value or interest have been prescribed, the property meets the prescribed criteria; and (b) the designation is made in accordance with the process set out in this section.
Notice required (1.1) Subject to subsections (1.2) and (2), if the council of a municipality intends to designate a property within the municipality to be of cultural heritage value or interest, it shall cause notice of intention to designate the property to be given by the clerk of the municipality in accordance with subsection (3).
Effect of notice of designation Permits void 30 (1) If a notice of intention to designate a property as property of cultural heritage value or interest is given under section 29, any permit that allowed for the alteration or demolition of the property and that was issued by the municipality under any Act, including a building permit, before the day the notice was served on the owner of the property and on the Trust and published in a newspaper is void as of the day the notice of intention is given in accordance with subsection 29 (3).
Interim control of alteration, demolition or removal (2) Sections 33 and 34 apply with necessary modifications to property as of the day notice of intention to designate the property is given under subsection 29 (3) as though the designation process were complete and the property had been designated under section 29.
Alteration of property 33 (1) No owner of property designated under section 29 shall alter the property or permit the alteration of the property if the alteration is likely to affect the property’s heritage attributes, as set out in the description of the property’s heritage attributes in the by-law that was required to be registered under clause 29 (12) (b) or subsection 29(19), as the case may be, unless the owner applies to the council of the municipality in which the property is situate and receives consent in writing to the alteration.
Application (2) An application under subsection (1) shall be accompanied by the prescribed information and material.
Other information (3) A council may require that an applicant provide any other information or material that the council considers it may need.
Notice of complete application (4) The council shall, upon receiving all information and material required under subsections (2) and (3), if any, serve a notice on the applicant informing the applicant that the application is complete.
Notification re completeness of application (5) The council may, at any time, notify the applicant of the information and material required under subsection (2) or (3) that has been provided, if any, and any information and material under those subsections that has not been provided.
Decision of council (6) The council, after consultation with its municipal heritage committee, if one is established, and within the time period determined under subsection (7), (a) shall, (i) consent to the application, (ii) consent to the application on terms and conditions, or (iii) refuse the application; and (b) shall serve notice of its decision on the owner of the property and on the Trust.
Same (7) For the purposes of subsection (6), the time period is determined as follows:
- Unless paragraph 2 applies, the period is 90 days after a notice under subsection (4) is served on the applicant or such longer period after the notice is served as is agreed upon by the owner and the council.
- If a notice under subsection (4) or (5) is not served on the applicant within 60 days after the day the application commenced, as determined in accordance with the regulations, the period is 90 days after the end of that 60-day period or such longer period after the end of the 60-day period as is agreed upon by the owner and the council.
Deemed consent (8) If the council fails to notify the owner under clause (6) (b) within the time period determined under subsection (7), the council shall be deemed to have consented to the application.
Appeal to Tribunal (9) If the council of a municipality consents to an application upon certain terms and conditions or refuses an application, the owner may, within 30 days after receipt of the notice under clause (6) (b), appeal the council’s decision to the Tribunal by giving a notice of appeal to the Tribunal and to the clerk of the municipality setting out the objection to the decision and the reasons in support of the objection, accompanied by the fee charged by the Tribunal.
Demolition or removal 34 (1) No owner of property designated under section 29 shall do either of the following, unless the owner applies to the council of the municipality in which the property is situate and receives consent in writing to the demolition or removal:
- Demolish or remove, or permit the demolition or removal of, any of the property’s heritage attributes, as set out in the description of the property’s heritage attributes in the by-law that was required to be registered under clause 29 (12) (b) or subsection 29 (19), as the case may be.
- Demolish or remove a building or structure on the property or permit the demolition or removal of a building or structure on the property, whether or not the demolition or removal would affect the property’s heritage attributes, as set out in the description of the property’s heritage attributes in the by-law that was required to be registered under clause 29 (12) (b) or subsection 29 (19), as the case may be.
Application (2) An application under subsection (1) shall be accompanied by the prescribed information and material.
Other information (3) A council may require that an applicant provide any other information or material that the council considers it may need.
Notice confirming complete application (4) The council shall, upon receiving all information and material required under subsections (2) and (3), if any, serve a notice on the applicant informing the applicant that the application is complete.
Notification re completeness of application (4.1) The council may, at any time, notify the applicant of the information and material required under subsection (2) or (3) that has been provided, if any, and any information and material under those subsections that has not been provided.
Decision of council (4.2) The council, after consultation with its municipal heritage committee, if one is established, and within the time period determined under subsection (4.3), (a) shall, (i) consent to the application, (ii) consent to the application, subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified by the council, or (iii) refuse the application; (b) shall serve notice of its decision on the owner of the property and on the Trust; and (c) shall publish its decision in a newspaper having general circulation in the municipality.
Same (4.3) For the purposes of subsection (4.2), the time period is determined as follows:
- Unless paragraph 2 applies, the period is 90 days after a notice under subsection (4) is served on the applicant or such longer period after the notice is served as is agreed upon by the owner and the council.
- If a notice under subsection (4) or (4.1) is not served on the applicant within 60 days after the day the application commenced, as determined in accordance with the regulations, the period is 90 days after the end of that 60-day period or such longer period after the end of the 60-day period as is agreed upon by the owner and the council.
Appeal to Tribunal 34.1 (1) If the council of a municipality consents to an application subject to terms and conditions under subclause 34 (4.2) (a) (ii) or refuses an application under subclause 34 (4.2) (a) (iii), the owner of the property that was the subject of the application may appeal the council’s decision to the Tribunal within 30 days of the day the owner received notice of the council’s decision.
ANALYSIS
Standard of Review:
[32] Pursuant to clear statutory language in section 15.3(6) of the Building Code Act, the Superior Court has the same authority as the Committee.
[33] Based on section 15.3(3.1), this means that this Court has the same authority as the Inspector that made the order(s) and may, if in this Court’s opinion doing so would maintain the general intent and purpose of the by-law and of the official plan or policy, i) confirm, modify, or rescind the order to demolish or repair; ii) extend the time for complying with the order.
[34] I accept that as a general principle when decisions under review are largely fact based, and there are clear reasons that explain the facts found, this context favours deference to prior findings of fact. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, at paras 16-17 [Vavilov].
[35] However, in this case there is clear legislative direction that a different standard of review on appeal to the Superior Court was intended. Pursuant to the language of the Building Code Act, the appeal process authorizes the Court to review the record, decision, and any new information to confirm, modify, rescind, or extend an order to maintain the general intent and purpose of the by-law and official plan or policy.
[36] In this case, Guelph’s property standard by-law number (2000)-16454 is related to section 15.1(3) of the Building Code Act to prescribe standards for maintenance, repair, or clearing of structures and debris.
[37] Since this Court has the same authority as the Committee (and in turn, the Inspector/officer that made the order) the Court must consider both the record before the committee, their reasons, and additional relevant admissible information or evidence submitted as part of the appeal.
[38] The statute is clear that this Court’s function is not solely to assess whether the decision-maker’s determinations and reasonings are reasonable. In this setting, the legislature has given this Court a broader based judicial or appellate review authority.
Findings
[39] On the one hand, the Appellant has been aware of the repair work necessary to prevent the deterioration of the Kidd Barn for an extended period, dating back to 2018. Despite receiving consistent notices from the Property Standards Inspector since 2021 and receiving two Orders of the Inspector in September 2021 and July 2023 setting out the work required, the Appellant has still not completed the necessary work set out in these Orders. As a result, the Kidd Barn has further deteriorated.
[40] 257 has retained an engineering firm MTE Consultants (MTE) since 2018 to provide continuing advice on the structural condition of the Kidd Barn. However, in the ensuing years, 257 did not complete the work recommended by MTE in a structural report dated June 28, 2021 to prevent further deterioration of the Kidd Barn. By July 2023, MTE’s letter stated that the barn was unsafe and the work required to be completed by the City of Guelph is not safe to complete. This was confirmed in MTE’s structural report of September 11, 2023.
[41] It is clear that 257 has moved too slow. 257 did not move with diligence and take steps to comply with the orders during the past several years. In the interim, the Kidd Barn continues to deteriorate. The structural reports make this clear. MTE’s latest letter said the repairs were now unsafe and by inference, supported demolition. During submissions, counsel for 257 were unable to point me to permits obtained over the past several years for either repair or demolition.
[42] Also, 257 has not applied to the municipal council to obtain permission to alter or demolish the structure. Although 257 may prefer for there to be a decision on the heritage designation first, 257 taking the step of requesting the matter be expedited may have assisted with moving the process. This would have shown 257 was genuine about compliance and safety.
[43] On the other hand, this situation is now more complex due to a combination of the Kidd Barn’s structural deterioration and the municipal heritage designation process, which was triggered by the notice to designate this property of cultural heritage value or interest on October 26, 2023.
[44] I recognize that 257 should have taken remedial steps to address the deterioration of the barn. Their failure to do so contributed to its further decline, rendering it unsafe to repair.
[45] However, the Court must be mindful of the current situation and reality. The notice to designate post-dates the Committee’s decision on September 13, 2023 and triggers additional complications that effectively prevent 257 from modifying or demolishing the structure without written permission of the municipality.
[46] Pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act, the municipality’s notice to designate the lands as of October 26, 2023 means that any permits obtained to repair would have been void. Demolition or alteration is not permitted either.
[47] The Inspector’s order of July 2023 providing a new date of August 2023 for compliance contained notes that may have contributed to some of the more recent delay. The July 2023 order stated that “Heritage Guelph would not support demolition of this building.” In contrast, the inspector’s earlier order of September 2021 stated “alternatively, you may demolish this structure and leave the area in a graded and level condition to comply with this bylaw.”
[48] The Committee’s decided to extend the deadline to December 31, 2023, and to substitute the inspector’s note in the order of July 2023 with language consistent with the September 2021 order permitting the alternative of demolition, while upholding the other work. I recognize that there was a fair hearing as 257 was a party to the Committee’s proceeding, filed a written brief, and their position for a longer deadline was heard but rejected. The Committee ultimately granted the Appellant’s request to add demolition as an option.
[49] With that background acknowledged, there are no Committee reasons for review, and the change in circumstances since that decision necessarily diminishes this Court’s deference to any implied findings of fact and the imposition of the deadline of December 31, 2023.
[50] Even if the Committee’s decision were to be assessed against a reasonableness standard, this Court would have to be satisfied that the decision reflects justification, transparency and intelligibility: Vavilov, at para. 15. In this case, there are not adequate reasons that justify the decision. Reasons facilitate meaningful review by shedding light on the rationale for a decision.
[51] In the future, the Committee, even if not statutorily required, should issue formal reasons (not just a decision with their summary notes from the hearing) justifying its decision pursuant to law so that if there is an appeal to the Superior Court there is an adequate record for review. This is important for transparency, justification, intelligibility and appellate review. Reasons should transparently reflect that the decision maker “meaningfully grapple[d] with key issues or central arguments raised by the parties,” and the relevant factors: Vavilov, at para 128. By providing reasons that reflect the arguments and relevant facts, the Committee will enhance legitimacy, including in terms both of whether their decision is procedurally fair and whether it is substantively reasonable: Vavilov, at para. 81. When this is done, I expect that there may be heightened deference, even with a distinctly broader authority on appeal granted in statute to the Superior Court.
[52] The intervening event of the municipality’s service of the notice of designation on 257 in late October 2023 is a material change in circumstance. This was obviously not before the Committee since the notice post-dates their decision.
[53] This change in circumstance means that the deadline the Committee imposed is not reasonable in the total circumstances before this Court. Even if deference was appropriate, it no longer is applicable. In this context, and based on the authority of the statute, this Court has the power to act as the Committee.
[54] The notice of designation is a change that prevents 257 from complying with the December date since prior permits to structurally repair or demolish, had they been obtained, would be voided. Ultimately, this circumstance makes compliance with the December deadline untenable in these factual and legal circumstances.
[55] I accept that it would be inefficient, if not futile, for 257 to seek an alteration or demolition permit when the property is sought to be designated by the municipality as protected.
[56] The municipality’s reasons for not moving to designate earlier was not adequately explained before me. As noted, the Committee did not explain whether they considered the heritage designation issue as part of their assessment. The Respondent’s materials indicate that the Kidd Barn has been listed on the City’s Municipal Register of Culture Heritage Properties, earmarked for designation since approximately 2011. This serves as interim protection and requires the owner to provide the city with 60 days notice of intention to demolish the structure.
[57] Having considered these tensions and unique circumstances, the bottom line is that 257 has not acted in a timely manner and with due diligence to comply and either repair or demolish the structure. But now, it is practical and necessary for there to be clarity about the municipality’s designation of the Kidd Barn as demolition may no longer be an option. Repairs are also legally constrained until a final designation decision is made, subject to any appeals. The Committee’s decision is no longer reasonable.
[58] Accordingly, an extension to August 31, 2024, will ensure that the decision and any appeal, if required, is dealt with. This is an appropriate outcome and within the powers of this Court on an appeal under s. 15.3(6) of the Building Code Act.
[59] By granting the extension, this should not be seen by 257 as condoning their conduct not to take steps to obtain the necessary solution to remedy the deficiencies as required since 2021. This delay and inaction cannot continue. 257 must take reasonable steps to ensure safety while the process continues.
[60] The extension is a reflection of the practical reality and legal constraints of the municipality formally seeking to designate the land in late October 2023.
[61] Going forward, 257 must be more diligent and proactive to meet the deadline and to ensure the property poses no safety risks.
CONCLUSION
[62] The Committee’s deadline for compliance is extended to August 31, 2024.
[63] The Appellant has agreed to ensure that access to the land is restricted, monitored, and made safe.
[64] They Appellant shall continue to consult with their engineers and the City to take additional steps required to protect safety.
[65] The parties shall consult and a draft order shall be emailed to my judicial assistant as required.
[66] If the decision regarding the heritage designation has not been made as of this date of this ruling, municipal council or the appropriate designated body is encouraged to expedite the process to facilitate compliance with the new date. The parties shall provide them with a copy of this decision.
[67] The Appellant is encouraged to promptly apply for council’s permission for demolition.
COSTS
[68] The Appellant did not seek costs. The Respondent submitted it was up to the Court. Neither party uploaded cost outlines.
[69] Although the Appellant is successful in obtaining an extension, the reasons demonstrate that their conduct is not without fault. The result is split in substance.
[70] There shall be no costs.
MIRZA J.
Released: February 22, 2024
COURT FILE NO.: CV-23-318-00 DATE: 2024 02 22 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: 257 5950 ONTARIO LTD. Appellant - and - THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF GUELPH, PROPERTY STANDARDS COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF GUELPH, and STEPHEN JAMIESON Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Mirza J. Released: February 22, 2024
[1] The Committee’s notes at the hearing were included in the Respondent’s record. The notes summarize the hearing. They are not a transcript.