R. v. Goebel (R.), 2015 ONCA 411

JudgeWeiler, Watt and Epstein, JJ.A.
CourtCourt of Appeal (Ontario)
Case DateJanuary 22, 2015
JurisdictionOntario
Citations2015 ONCA 411;(2015), 336 O.A.C. 62 (CA)

R. v. Goebel (R.) (2015), 336 O.A.C. 62 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] O.A.C. TBEd. JN.018

Richard Goebel (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen, Attorney General of Ontario and City of Toronto (respondents)

(C55495; 2015 ONCA 411)

Indexed As: R. v. Goebel (R.)

Ontario Court of Appeal

Weiler, Watt and Epstein, JJ.A.

June 9, 2015.

Summary:

Goebel had a disability. He suffered from a serious mental illness. He owned and occupied a house in the City of Toronto. As a result of complaints relating to the maintenance of his property, the City performed inspections and made various compliance orders under the Building Code Act (BCA). Goebel failed to comply. The City issued an information under s. 23 of the Provincial Offences Act charging Goebel with failing to comply with an order contrary to s. 36(1)(b) of the BCA. By way of defence, Goebel challenged the constitutional validity of the BCA. He essentially argued that the BCA violated his security of the person under s. 7 of the Charter as, according to Goebel, enforcement of the BCA allowed the City to seize his home. Goebel also appeared to seek prerogative relief in light of what he characterized as the City's manifestly unfair and oppressive prosecution of him. Goebel applied for an order requiring the Attorney General of Ontario or the City to provide him with advanced funding to assist him in pursuing his constitutional challenge.

The Ontario Superior Court dismissed the application. Goebel appealed that decision.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 1201

Security of the person - General - Economic or property rights - [See Practice - Topic 7883 ].

Land Regulation - Topic 5012

Unsightly premises (neglected buildings) - Enforcement - Prosecution - [See Practice - Topic 7883 ].

Practice - Topic 7883

Costs - Funding before judgment - When interim or advance costs available - Goebel had a disability - He suffered from a serious mental illness - He owned and occupied a house in the City of Toronto - As a result of complaints relating to the maintenance of his property, the City performed inspections and made various compliance orders under the Building Code Act (BCA) - Goebel failed to comply - The City issued an information under s. 23 of the Provincial Offences Act, charging Goebel with failing to comply with an order contrary to s. 36(1)(b) of the BCA - By way of defence, Goebel challenged the constitutional validity of the BCA - He essentially argued that the BCA violated his security of the person under s. 7 of the Charter as, according to Goebel, enforcement of the BCA allowed the City to seize his home - Goebel also appeared to seek prerogative relief in light of what he characterized as the City's manifestly unfair and oppressive prosecution of him - Goebel applied for an order requiring the Attorney General of Ontario or the City to provide him with advanced funding to assist him in pursuing his constitutional challenge - Ewaschuk, J., dismissed the application - Goebel appealed - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the basis that Goebel's constitutional challenge was without merit - First, s. 7 of the Charter had not been interpreted to protect a right to property - Second, Goebel's assertion that the operation of the BCA put his interest in his property in jeopardy was factually incorrect - The prosecution was proceeding under the Provincial Offences Act, not the BCA - In any event, there was no provision in either statute that would allow the City to deprive Goebel of his shelter - To the extent Goebel was seeking prerogative relief, that request was also devoid of merit - The City had, within the context of the avenues available to it, dealt with Goebel fairly and reasonably by attempting to assist him where possible.

Cases Noticed:

British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v. Okanagan Indian Band et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 371; 313 N.R. 84; 189 B.C.A.C. 161; 309 W.A.C. 161; 2003 SCC 71, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Caron (G.), [2011] 1 S.C.R. 78; 411 N.R. 89; 499 A.R. 309; 514 W.A.C. 309; 2011 SCC 5, refd to. [para. 20].

Authorson v. Canada (Attorney General), [2003] 2 S.C.R. 40; 306 N.R. 335; 175 O.A.C. 363; 2003 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 23].

Peel (Regional Municipality) v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Co. of Canada Ltd. (1991), 44 O.A.C. 179; 2 O.R.(3d) 65 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [para. 1].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Hogg, Peter, Constitutional Law of Canada (2007) (Looseleaf), p. 47-17 [para. 23].

Counsel:

Ken J. Berger, for the appellant;

Daniel Guttman, for the respondent, Attorney General of Ontario;

Amanda Ross, for the respondent, City of Toronto.

This appeal was heard on January 22, 2015, before Weiler, Watt and Epstein, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Epstein, J.A., on June 9, 2015.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • Lauture et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2015] F.T.R. Uned. 107 (FC)
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • 17 Marzo 2015
    ...Ludny Lauture and Marcley Lauture (applicants) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent) (IMM-5892-13; 2015 FC 336; 2015 CF 336) Indexed As: Lauture et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Cite As: [2015] F.T.R. Uned. 107 Federal Court Rennie, J. March 1......
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (June 8-12, 2015)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • 17 Junio 2015
    ...was clear from his reasons that the summary judgement order would determine and deal with all issues raised by the parties. R. v. Goebel, 2015 ONCA 411 [Weiler, Watt and Epstein K. J. Berger, for the appellant D. Guttman, for the respondent Attorney General of Ontario A. Ross, for the respo......
1 cases
1 firm's commentaries
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (June 8-12, 2015)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • 17 Junio 2015
    ...was clear from his reasons that the summary judgement order would determine and deal with all issues raised by the parties. R. v. Goebel, 2015 ONCA 411 [Weiler, Watt and Epstein K. J. Berger, for the appellant D. Guttman, for the respondent Attorney General of Ontario A. Ross, for the respo......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT