CITATION: Greater Napanee (Town) v. Belanger, 2026 ONSC 1803

COURT FILE NO.: CV-25-00000267-0000

DATE: 20260324

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF GREATER NAPANEE and CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF GREATER NAPANEE

Applicants

– and –

JACK BELANGER, JANE DOE and JOHN DOE

Respondents

James McCarthy, for the Applicants

Jack Belanger, self-represented

Michael Godfrey, self-represented

HEARD: March 4, 2026 at Kingston

RYAN BELL j.

1The Corporation of the Town of Greater Napanee and the Chief Building Official of the Corporation of the Town of Greater Napanee (together, the “Town”), apply for a permanent injunction to enforce the Town’s Zoning By-law 02-22, Property Standards By-law 2010-50, and Yard Maintenance By-law 04-31 at 1388 Bridge Street, Napanee, Ontario. Jack Belanger is the legal owner of 1388 Bridge Street. Mr. Godfrey and other unidentified individuals reside at 1388 Bridge Street from time to time.

2At the first appearance before Lacelle J., the application was scheduled to be heard on January 22, 2026. Mr. Belanger and Mr. Godfrey were present at the appearance before Lacelle J. On January 22, the Town was ready to proceed. However, Mr. Belanger and Mr. Godfrey requested an adjournment to file responding materials. I adjourned the application to March 4, 2026, with a new timetable.

3Neither Mr. Belanger nor Mr. Godfrey filed any responding materials on the application. The only evidence before the court is the affidavit of James Feeney, the Deputy Fire Chief for the Town. At the outset of his submissions, following those of the Town and Mr. Belanger, Mr. Godfrey requested that I strike Mr. Feeney’s affidavit from the record because Mr. Godfrey was not “invited” to cross-examine Mr. Feeney and because of Mr. Feeney’s involvement in another matter concerning 1388 Bridge Street. Mr. Feeney states in his affidavit that he attended the property on July 17, 2025 for the purpose of carrying out a warrant permitting the fire department to remove various unsafe wood burning appliances. I dismissed Mr. Godfrey’s motion on the basis that it was simply too late – Mr. Godfrey did not give the Town or the court any notice of his intended motion. In addition, as I explained to Mr. Godfrey, a party is not “invited” to cross-examine an affiant. The opportunity to conduct cross-examinations was expressly addressed in the detailed timetable I established for the hearing of the application. Mr. Godfrey did not avail himself of that opportunity.

4The Town’s evidence establishes clear breaches of its Zoning By-law, Property Standards By-law, and Yard Maintenance By-law. These reasons explain why the Town is entitled to the relief it seeks.

1388 Bridge Street

5Mr. Belanger is the legal owner of the property located at 1388 Bridge Street. The property is located along a rural road, west of the Town’s main population centre. Use of land within the Town, including 1388 Bridge Street, is regulated by the Town’s Zoning By-law. 1388 Bridge Street is zoned “Prime Agriculture” under the Zoning By-law.

6In the fall of 2023, Town staff began receiving complaints about 1388 Bridge Street. They began conducting visits to the property in March 2024.

7Mr. Feeney conducted a visit to 1388 Bridge Street on July 17, 2025. A long driveway leads in from the road, through a wooded area, to a large, cleared field. At the time of his visit, Mr. Feeney observed a number of muddy pathways and roads crisscrossing the field, leading to approximately eight to ten recreational vehicles, many of which had structures built onto them, a Quonset hut, and a cinderblock shed. Mr. Feeney also observed empty propane tanks, scrap metal, and similar materials strewn about the property.

Permanent injunction to enforce a by-law

8 Section 440 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25 allows a municipality to bring an application to restrain a person or persons from contravening its by-laws. In this case, the Town seeks a permanent injunction to enforce its by-laws. It is not necessary for the Town to lead compelling evidence that the injunction is warranted: “[w]here a municipal authority seeks an injunction to enforce a bylaw which it establishes is being breached, the courts will refuse the application only in exceptional circumstances”: The Township of Amaranth v. Ramdas, 2020

ONSC 2428, at para. 55, citing Newcastle Recycling Ltd. v. Clarington (Municipality), 2005 46384 (ON CA), at para. 32.

9The Jane and John Doe respondents reside in the trailers on 1388 Bridge Street from time to time. Mr. Godfrey is one such respondent and actively participated in this proceeding. An injunction can be brought against non-parties on the basis of the long-standing principle that “non-parties may be seen as being, if not technically bound by the order, bound to obey the order”: MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Simpson, 1996 165 (SCC), at para. 23, cited by City of Ottawa v. Persons Unknown, 2022 ONSC 1151, at para. 30.

Breach of the Zoning By-law

10The Town’s evidence establishes a clear breach of the Zoning By-law.

11Section 5.4 of the Zoning By-law provides that in respect of any property zoned Prime Agriculture, “[n]o person shall … use any lot or erect, alter, or use any building or structure except as specified hereunder.”

12The only permitted uses of Prime Agriculture zoned property are the residential, non-residential, and accessory uses specified in s. 5.4.1 of the Zoning By-law. The six permitted residential uses are:

Single detached dwelling house;
Existing converted dwelling house;
Group Home;
Special Care Facilities, excluding the use of warming/cooling centres;
Transitional Housing Unit; and
Home Occupation or Home Industry.

13I find the current use of 1388 Bridge Street does not meet any of the permitted residential uses under the Zoning By-law. First, a dwelling house is defined in s. 3 of the Zoning By-law to mean a building or part of a building occupied as the home or residence of one or more persons, “but shall not include a trailer, motor home or Sea-Can.” A dwelling unit is defined to mean a suite of two or more rooms, in which sanitary conveniences are provided, and in which only one kitchen facility is provided for cooking. The definition of dwelling unit specifically excludes “a tent, trailer, mobile home, or a room or suite of rooms in a boarding or rooming house, motel, motor hotel or tourist home. Not only do the trailers not meet the definition of a dwelling house, there is no evidence that the cinderblock shed on the property contains the suite of two or more rooms, and cooking and sanitary facilities so as to meet the definition of a dwelling unit in the Zoning By-law.

14Second, the permitted residential uses of home industry and home occupation are not engaged here because each, by definition, requires a dwelling unit.

15Third, there is no evidence that the premises at 1388 Bridge Street meet the respective definitions of a group home, special care facilities, or a transitional housing unit as set out in s. 3 of the Zoning By-law.

16Finally, there is no evidence indicating a commercial use of 1388 Bridge Street.

17Accordingly, I find 1388 Bridge Street is being used in a manner contrary to the Zoning By-law.

Breach of the Property Standards By-law

18The Town’s evidence also establishes a clear breach of the Property Standards By-law. The Property Standards By-law prescribes the standards for the maintenance and occupancy of property within the Town.

19Under s. 2.12 of the Property Standards By-law, a dwelling is defined to mean “a building or structure or part of a building or structure occupied or capable of being occupied in whole or in part for the purposes of human habitation and includes the land and premises appurtenant thereto and all outbuildings, fences or erections thereon or therein.” Therefore, while the trailers on 1388 Bridge Street are not a permitted use under the Zoning By-law, they do meet the definition of dwelling under the Property Standards By-law. As a result, they are subject to the “standards of physical conditions and occupancy” set out in the Property Standards By-law: s. 2.40.

20Section 3.13 of the Property Standards By-law sets out the standards for parking, walkways, and safe passage. Photographs attached as exhibits to Mr. Feeney’s affidavit show a lack of any gravel or coarse surface, and puddling on the muddy roads connecting the different structures on 1388 Bridge Street, contrary to s. 3.13.1 of the Property Standards By-law. Section 3.13.3 requires that in yards of multiple dwellings and non-residential properties, there must be sufficient lighting of exterior property areas so as to minimize any danger to persons using walkways. Contrary to the Property Standards By-law, the areas around and between the trailers on 1388 Bridge Street do not have adequate lighting.

21Section 4 of the Property Standards By-law addresses residential standards. Section 4.10 deals with garbage disposal and requires, among other things, that garbage, rubbish and other debris shall be made available for removal or removed in accordance with the Town’s regulations. Mr. Feeney’s observations of empty propane tanks, scrap metal, and other materials strewn about the property, and the photographs attached to his affidavit evidence a clear contravention of the Property Standards By-law.

22Both Mr. Belanger and Mr. Godfrey maintained that there was no garbage on the property, with Mr. Belanger explaining that he recycles skids. Mr. Belanger did not put any evidence before the court to support his assertion. The only evidence before me plainly contradicts their assertion that there is no garbage present on the property.

Breach of the Yard Maintenance By-law

23Finally, on the evidence before me, there is no question that the Yard Maintenance By-law has been breached.

24Sections 2 and 3 of the Yard Maintenance By-law provide:

Every yard shall, at all times, be kept in a neat, clean and tidy condition, free from any objects or conditions that might create a health, fire or accident hazard, or create a public nuisance.

Every yard shall, at all times, be kept free from refuse, rubbish, garbage, brush and other debris.

25The photographic evidence plainly shows refuse throughout 1388 Bridge Street and garbage between trailers, a contravention of the Yard Maintenance By-law. The photographs corroborate Mr. Feeney’s observations about empty propane tanks, scrap metal, and other materials lying about the property.

Conclusion

26The evidence establishes that 1388 Bridge Street is being used in a manner not permitted by the Town’s Zoning By-law. The evidence also establishes contraventions of the Property Standards By-law and the Yard Maintenance By-law. The Town is entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief. I declare and order that,

(i) the placement and use of one or more trailers and residential uses of cinderblock sheds on 1388 Bridge Street contravene the Zoning By-law and the respondents have breached the Zoning By-law;

(ii) the state of 1388 Bridge Street with respect to maintenance and cleanliness violates the Yard Maintenance By-law and the Property Standards By-law and the respondents have breached the Yard Maintenance and Property Standards By-laws;

(iii) the respondents and any other person having notice of this order are restrained from using 1388 Bridge Street or allowing 1388 Bridge Street to be used other than as provided by the Zoning By-law;

(iv) the respondents and any other person having notice of this order are restrained from committing any breaches of the Yard Maintenance and Property Standards By-laws at 1388 Bridge Street;

(v) the respondents and any other person having notice of this order are enjoined from causing or permitting:

any trailers or other structures to be placed on 1388 Bridge Street except as permitted under the Zoning By-law;
any individual to begin residing in a trailer or other structure on 1388 Bridge Street, unless such structure is compliant with the Zoning By-law and the Property Standards By-law;
any garbage or refuse to be placed or deposited on 1388 Bridge Street, except as permitted by the Property Standards By-law;
any construction materials to be stored or piled on 1388 Bridge Street; and
any further violation of the Zoning, Property Standards, or Yard Maintenance By-laws;

(vi) the respondents shall, no later than June 1, 2026, bring 1388 Bridge Street into compliance with the Zoning, Property Standards, and Yard Maintenance By-laws, including by,

removing all trailers or recreational vehicles located on the property;
obtaining a permit for or removing the cinderblock sheds and Quonset hut located on the property;
removing all garbage, refuse, and construction materials on the property to the satisfaction of the Town;
ceasing to occupy, reside in, or enter any trailer located on the property; and
ceasing to occupy or reside in any cinderblock shed located on the property.

27Should the respondents fail to comply with my order by June 1, 2026, the Town shall be permitted to remove, disassemble, or dispose of the cinderblock sheds, trailers, and any attached or associated constructions on 1388 Bridge Street which are not in compliance with the Zoning By-law, and that the local Sheriff or police have the authority to take such steps as may be necessary to assist the Town in carrying out the provisions of my order. The respondents and any person having notice of the order shall be enjoined from interfering with or preventing any actions taken by the Town, the police, or anyone acting under their authority to enforce my order. The respondents shall be jointly and severally liable to the Town for all costs incurred in carrying out the provisions of my order, including clean up, removal and disposal costs. The Town may enforce recovery of any such costs pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure and may add any costs to the Assessment Roll for 1388 Bridge Street.

28Notice of this order may be effected by posting a copy of the order at or near the entrance to 1388 Bridge Street.

29The Town requested an opportunity to address costs following release of my decision. In the event the Town is seeking its costs, and is unable to resolve costs with Mr. Belanger and Mr. Godfrey, the parties may provide their submissions in writing. The Town will provide its

submissions by April 7, 2026. Mr. Belanger and Mr. Godfrey will provide their responding submissions by April 21, 2026. Costs submissions are not to exceed three pages. If no submissions are received within this timeframe, the parties will be deemed to have settled the issue of costs as between themselves.

Justice R. Ryan Bell

Released: March 24, 2026

CITATION: Greater Napanee (Town) v. Belanger, 2026 ONSC 1803

COURT FILE NO.: CV-25-00000267-0000

DATE: 20260324

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N: