Pinder v. Canada

Pinder v. Canada

The deck is part of the cottage (not a mere projection or separate accessory building), extends to the southern side lot line and therefore fails to meet the 2 metre side yard width; the 2005-06 work affected structural integrity and required a development permit; estoppel cannot be invoked to bar enforcement of clear mandatory regulatory provisions by a public authority; the Plaintiffs’ tort claims (defamation, breach of privacy, intentional misconduct) do not raise genuine issues for trial on the evidence.

Citation
2015 FC 1376
Parties
Plaintiffs/respondents: HERB C. PINDER JR., JOHN WEDGE AND TOM MOLLOY TRUSTEES FOR THE PINDER FAMILY TRUST; Defendants/applicants: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA, REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT, AND PARKS CANADA AGENCY
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Lease Dispute / Summary Judgment Motions Decision
Outcome
Defendants' motion granted with costs; Plaintiffs' motion dismissed
Legal Topics
National Parks of Canada Cottage Regulations, Promissory Estoppel, Development Permits, Statutory Compliance, Defamation, Breach of Privacy, Misfeasance in Public Office, Side Yard Setback
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Property Law Equity Tort Law Statutory Interpretation National Parks of Canada Cottage Regulations Promissory Estoppel Development Permits +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HERB C. PINDER JR., JOHN WEDGE AND TOM MOLLOY TRUSTEES FOR THE PINDER FAMILY TRUST

Plaintiffs/respondents

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA, REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT, AND PARKS CANADA AGENCY

Defendants/applicants

Procedural Posture

Civil Action Lease Dispute / Summary Judgment Motions Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 scope of court inquiry on summary judgment
  2. 2 existence of a genuine issue for trial
  3. 3 whether Plaintiffs' deck complies with National Parks cottage Regulations (setbacks and permit requirements)

Ratio Decidendi

The deck is part of the cottage (not a mere projection or separate accessory building), extends to the southern side lot line and therefore fails to meet the 2 metre side yard width; the 2005-06 work affected structural integrity and required a development permit; estoppel cannot be invoked to bar enforcement of clear mandatory regulatory provisions by a public authority; the Plaintiffs’ tort claims (defamation, breach of privacy, intentional misconduct) do not raise genuine issues for trial on the evidence.

Court Disposition

Defendants' motion granted with costs; Plaintiffs' motion dismissed

Orders

  • Defendants' motion for summary judgment granted with costs
  • Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment/summary trial dismissed