Sylvain R. Rouleau

This is an appeal of a decision by the Chief Building Official (CBO) of the Municipality of Mississippi Mills regarding building permit fees and development charges.

The Applicant, 2755249 Ontario Inc., sought permits for the conversion and renovation of a former seniors' residence into apartments.

The CBO assessed the units as new construction, leading to higher fees, and subsequently failed to issue a permit for Phase II of the project.

The court found the CBO's decision to categorize the renovation and expansion of existing units as new construction to be unreasonable and incorrect.

The appeal was granted, the CBO's decision was set aside, and specific fee amounts were ordered for both Phase I and Phase II, with a building permit to be issued upon payment.

The appellant, a hookah lounge, appealed the dismissal of its application to quash a municipal smoking and vaping by-law.

The appellant argued that changes to Schedule A of the by-law, which lists set fines and short-form offence wording, after its enactment and municipal consent, invalidated the by-law.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the application judge's decision, holding that the changes to Schedule A were made by the Regional Senior Justice under the authority of the Provincial Offences Act to establish set fines, which is a judicial function, and did not alter the substance of the by-law's prohibitions.

The court found Schedule A was a placeholder and its changes did not invalidate the by-law.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their application for a declaration that their current use of lands was a legal non-conforming use under the Planning Act.

The application judge found that the use had changed significantly from the prior legal non-conforming use and that the appellants had abandoned the prior use.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's factual findings and her conclusion that the appellants failed to establish a continuing legal non-conforming use.

The court also confirmed the admissibility of property complaints as factual matters from records kept in the ordinary course of business.

The applicants sought a declaration that their property's current use (outside storage of vehicles, machinery, equipment, commercial/business operation, storage of trucks/trailers, shipping containers) constituted a legal non-conforming use under s. 34(9) of the Planning Act, which would set aside municipal Orders to Comply.

The respondent sought dismissal, or a declaration limiting the non-conforming use to 4 trucks and 7 trailers.

The court found that while the property had a prior legal non-conforming use as a trucking business with ancillary parking and storage, the applicants' current use had significantly changed in nature and intensity, including storage of derelict vehicles, a fuelling station, and a junk yard, which were too remote from the original use and caused undue neighbourhood impact.

Consequently, the applicants lost the protection of s. 34(9) of the Planning Act, and their application was dismissed, making the Orders to Comply enforceable.

The applicant sought a declaration that his property's seasonal use as a "camping and recreational compound" with a travel trailer constituted a legal non-conforming use under the Planning Act.

The respondent, an adjacent landowner, counter-applied for a declaration that the use was not lawful.

The court found the relevant zoning by-law clear and unambiguous, permitting only "park" or "open pavilion" uses in the "Hazard Land Zone," thereby prohibiting the applicant's recreational vehicle use.

The applicant failed to establish a legal non-conforming use or that the municipality was estopped from enforcing the by-law due to "officially induced error," as the municipal officials who provided advice lacked the authority to bind the municipality on zoning matters.

The application was dismissed, and the counter-application was granted.

The appellants, owners of several hookah lounges in the Regional Municipality of Peel, challenged by-law No. 30-2016, which prohibits waterpipe smoking in enclosed public places, enclosed workplaces, and restaurant or bar patios.

The appellants argued the by-law was ultra vires the Region, conflicted with provincial occupational health and safety legislation, and was enacted in bad faith.

The application judge dismissed the application, finding the by-law was a valid exercise of municipal authority aimed at protecting public health and safety.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, dismissing the appeal and awarding costs to the respondent.