Woodglen & Co. v. North York, (1984) 5 O.A.C. 313 (DC)

Judge:Southey, Saunders and Smith, JJ.
Court:Superior Court of Justice of Ontario
Case Date:September 25, 1984
Jurisdiction:Ontario
Citations:(1984), 5 O.A.C. 313 (DC)
 
FREE EXCERPT

Woodglen & Co. v. North York (1984), 5 O.A.C. 313 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Woodglen & Co. Ltd. v. North York, Corporation of the City of and Building Inspector for North York (Uzumeri)

Indexed As: Woodglen & Co. v. North York and Building Inspector for North York (Uzumeri)

Ontario Divisional Court

Southey, Saunders and Smith, JJ.

September 25, 1984.

Summary:

A corporation was refused a building permit by the chief building officer on the ground that the proposed construction was contrary to the official plan. The use for which the permit was requested was permitted under the applicable zoning by-laws. The corporation applied for mandamus to compel the officer to issue the permit.

The Ontario Divisional Court, in a decision reported in 42 O.R.(2d) 385, refused to hear the application on the ground that the corporation had an adequate alternate remedy to mandamus, namely, a right of appeal under the Building Code Act. The corporation then appealed to the County Court.

The Ontario County Court, in a decision reported in 43 O.R.(2d) 289, allowed the appeal and ordered that the permit be issued. The municipality and its building inspector appealed.

The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the appeal.

Land Regulation - Topic 3213

Land use control - Building permits - Grounds for refusal - Rezoning - An applicant appealed the refusal of the chief building officer to issue a building permit, despite compliance with zoning by-laws - The appellate judge refused to adjourn the appeal to allow the municipality time to rezone the lands to prohibit the proposed construction - The Ontario Divisional Court affirmed the judge's decision and held that an intention by the municipality to rezone was not a valid reason for refusing or postponing the issuance of a permit, where the proposed construction otherwise complied with the zoning by-laws at the time of the application - See paragraphs 7 to 13.

Land Regulation - Topic 3215

Land use control - Building permits - Grounds for refusal - Proposed construction not in compliance with applicable law - S. 6(1) of the Building Code Act empowered the chief building officer to issue building permits where the proposed building, construction or demolition would not contravene the Act, building code or any other applicable law - The Ontario Divisional Court held that noncompliance with an official plan was not a contravention of applicable law which would bar the issuance of a permit - See paragraphs 4 to 6.

Words and Phrases

Applicable Law - The Ontario Division Court discussed the meaning of the words "applicable law" as found in s. 6(1) (a) of the Building Code Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 51 - See paragraphs 4 to 6.

Cases Noticed:

Re Steven Polon Ltd., and Metropolitan Licensing Commission, [1961] O.R. 810, ref'd to. [para. 6].

Township of Southwold v. Caplice et al. (1978), 8 M.P.L.R. 1, ref'd to. [para. 6].

Re Cadillac Development Corp. Ltd. et al. and City of Toronto (1973), 1 O.R.(2d) 20, ref'd to. [para. 6].

City of Ottawa v. Boyd Builders Ltd., [1965] S.C.R. 408, not appld. [para. 8].

Statutes Noticed:

Building Code Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 51, sect. 5 [para. 9]; sect. 6(1)(a) [paras. 4-6, 9, 11-12]; sect. 15 [paras. 7, 10].

Planning Act, S.O. 1983, c. 1, sect. 37 [para. 13].

Counsel:

Nadia Koltun, for the appellants;

M.J. McQuaid, Q.C., for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Southey, Saunders and Smith, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court on June 12 and 13, 1984. The decision of the Division al Court was delivered by Southey, J., and released on September 25, 1984.

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP