Wilson v. Jones

The proposed 17-unit building, containing many private residences under one roof plus communal accommodations (corridors, lockers, laundry), is in ordinary terms an apartment house and not within the by-law's permitted use of 'private residences' or 'duplex dwellings'; therefore the by-law prohibits its erection and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [1968] SCR 554
Parties: Defendant Appellant: Arthur D. Wilson; Plaintiff Respondent: Joan DeLancey Jones
Court: Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 29 April 1968
Procedural Posture: Appeal / Supreme Court of Canada Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome: Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics: By Law Interpretation, Land Use Restriction, Building Permits, Injunction
Source Language: english

Municipal Law Property Law Zoning By Law Interpretation Land Use Restriction Building Permits Injunction

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2

Parties

Arthur D. Wilson

Defendant Appellant

Joan DeLancey Jones

Plaintiff Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court of Canada Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

1 Whether a building containing 17 apartments constitutes 'private residences' or is prohibited by the by-law
2 Proper standard of interpretation for land-use by-laws (ordinary/popular vs legal/technical)
3 Effect and legal significance of a building permit issued in contravention of a by-law

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

Appeal dismissed with costs
Injunction restraining construction to be issued as directed by the Court of Appeal

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.