Focus On

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT - Building regulations - Construction - Standards - Development permits

Tuesday, August 11, 2020 @ 5:54 AM  


Lexis Advance® Quicklaw®
Cross-appeals by the parties from the partial summary judgment granted to the City. Balmoral Developments built stacked townhouses that consisted of 24 rental units. The development was originally intended to be for affordable senior housing but when funding was no longer available, Balmoral modified the project to develop residential housing for students and other tenants. It did not appeal the City’s barrier-free requirements and complied with those requirements with respect to the internal construction of the units. Balmoral commenced its action against the City after the City granted Balmoral’s application for a Condominium Exemption subject to the condition that the units were not to be occupied as a boarding, lodging or rooming house. The motion judge found the City lacked the right to impose conditions on the Condominium Exemption. He found the barrier-free requirements on the development imposed by the City were moot.

HELD: Appeal by City allowed; appeal by Balmoral dismissed. The motion judge’s conclusion that the City’s official acted in bad faith in his dealings with Balmoral was set aside, as conceded by Balmoral. There was nothing in sections 9(6) and 9(7) of the Condominium Act that prohibited the imposition of conditions as part of an Exemption order. The condition was to protect the health, safety and well-being of prospective tenants and occupants of the development and was within the City’s authority. The motion judge was correct that having failed to appeal the City’s decision regarding compliance with barrier-free requirements, it was too late for Balmoral to challenge those requirements. Balmoral’s action was dismissed.

Balmoral Developments Hilda Inc. v. Orillia (City), [2020] O.J. No. 3004, Ontario Court of Appeal, D.H. Doherty, J.C. MacPherson and M.L. Benotto JJ.A., July 7, 2020. Digest No. TLD-August102020003