4 total
A chain link fence does not constitute a principal structure under the municipal by-law.
The appellants appealed a Superior Court order regarding their compliance with a municipal by-law.
The sole issue on appeal was whether a chain link fence could be considered a 'principal structure' under section 5.16.6 of the by-law.
The Court of Appeal held that, reading the by-law as a whole, a principal structure must have a wall, and a chain link fence does not constitute a wall.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Open salvage yard on bare land violated zoning by-law.
A municipality brought an application seeking declarations and an injunction against a salvage yard operation alleged to contravene municipal zoning by-laws and site plan requirements.
The respondents argued their use complied with the zoning by-law, that it was grandfathered prior to an interim control by-law under the Planning Act, and that municipal conduct and representations created estoppel or bad faith issues requiring trial.
The court held the matter could properly be determined under Rule 14 because the material facts were not in dispute and the central issue was legal interpretation of the zoning by-law.
Interpreting the by-law purposively, the court found that a lawful salvage yard required a principal building or structure and could not operate solely as open storage on bare land without site plan approval or building permits.
The respondents’ use was therefore unlawful and could not constitute a prior legal non‑conforming use.
Allegations of municipal bad faith and estoppel were unsupported by evidence and could not defeat statutory obligations.
University landlord cannot use a tenancy termination agreement solely to enforce a prohibited 'no pets' policy.
The appellants, university students, rented a unit from the respondent university.
The university refused to renew their lease solely because they kept cats, relying on a tenancy termination agreement signed at the start of the lease.
The university claimed an exemption under the regulations allowed them to enforce the termination agreement.
The Court of Appeal held that while the university is exempt from the prohibition against requiring termination agreements at the time of leasing, it cannot use such agreements solely to enforce a 'no pets' policy, which is explicitly prohibited by the Tenant Protection Act.
The appeal was allowed.
University landlord exempt from prohibition on agreements to terminate tenancy; can refuse renewal over pets.
The appellant university landlord appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal which found that the university's 'no pet rule' and refusal to renew a tenancy agreement substantially interfered with the tenants' reasonable enjoyment.
The tenants, who kept cats in their student housing unit, had signed an agreement to terminate the tenancy at the time of entering the lease.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that while the 'no pet' provision was void under the Tenant Protection Act, the university was exempt from the prohibition against agreements to terminate signed at the inception of a tenancy due to the student housing exemption in O. Reg. 194/98.
Consequently, the university was entitled to rely on the agreement to refuse a new tenancy at the end of the term.
