Steven O’Melia

The applicant purchased a property to operate a salvage yard and sought a declaration that its use was a lawful non-conforming use under s. 34(9)(a) of the Planning Act.

The respondent municipality argued that the previous owner had discontinued the salvage yard use, thereby losing the non-conforming status.

The court found that the previous owner had continuously conducted salvage operations as part of its business, maintaining the legal non-conforming use.

Furthermore, the court held that the applicant's more intensive salvage operation did not constitute a wholly different use that would extinguish the non-conforming status.

The application for a declaration was granted.

The applicant developer sought to enforce a cost sharing provision in a 1975 subdivision agreement against the respondent municipality, arguing the municipality was required to collect a proportionate share of servicing costs from a new adjacent development.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the cost sharing obligation was only triggered if the new development connected to or benefited from the installed services, which it did not.

The court also dismissed the applicant's alternative claim for unjust enrichment, holding that the subdivision agreement provided a juristic reason for the municipality's benefit.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' motion and application challenging the issuance of building permits, the respondent municipality and its Chief Building Officer sought costs.

The applicants argued for a mixed result and that parties should bear their own costs, but the court found the respondents were successful on the majority of issues.

Applying the principles of indemnity and reasonable expectations, the court fixed costs payable by the applicants to the respondents at $30,000.

The applicants brought an application seeking a declaration that building permits issued for a neighbouring townhouse development did not comply with a zoning by-law restricting development to one storey.

The applicants also brought a motion to amend their application to include an appeal under the Building Code Act and to stay construction.

The court dismissed the motion to amend, finding that the applicants failed to appeal the permits within the statutory 20-day period and did not provide reasonable grounds for an extension.

The request for a stay of construction was also dismissed as the applicants failed to meet the test for an interlocutory injunction.

However, the court granted an order requiring the town to enforce a settlement agreement restricting the use of adjacent municipally-owned lands.

The self-represented appellant appeared before the court to set a date for a judicial review of an Ontario Municipal Board decision regarding a building permit revocation and zoning non-compliance.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application on the technicality that it was commenced under the wrong court file number.

The court denied the request for dismissal, ordered the court office to assign a new file number, directed the production of a video recording of a Committee of Adjustment meeting, and clarified the remediation timetable from a previous order.