Can-Euro Investments Ltd. v. Dartmouth (City)

Can-Euro Investments Ltd. v. Dartmouth (City) Court Court of Appeal Date 1995-11-14 Citation 1995 NSCA 214 Docket CA 118354 Judge/Registrar/Adjudicator Clarke, Lorne O. (Honourable Chief Justice); Hart, Gordon L.S. (Honourable Justice); Jones, Malachi C. (Honourable Justice) (CA) Document Type Decision Decision Content C.A. No. 118354 NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Cite as: Can-Euro Investments Ltd. v. Dartmouth (City), 1995 NSCA 214 Clarke, C.J.N.S.; Hart and Jones, JJ.A. BETWEEN: CAN-EURO INVESTMENTS LIMITED ) Kenneth H. LeBlanc ) for the Appellant Appellant ) - and - ) ) A. Jean McKenna ) for the Respondent CITY OF DARTMOUTH ) ) Respondent ) Appeal Heard: ) November 14, 1995 ) ) ) Judgment Delivered: ) November 14, 1995 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) THE COURT: Appeal dismissed from decision of a chambers judge who determined the barrier-free access provisions of the National Building Code applied to a building development, per oral reasons for judgment of Clarke, C.J.N.S.; Hart and Jones, JJ.A. concurring. C.A. No. 118354 NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: CAN-EURO INVESTMENTS LIMITED ) ) Appellant ) - and - ) REASONS FOR ) JUDGMENT BY: CITY OF DARTMOUTH ) ) CLARKE, C.J.N.S. ) (Orally) Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) ) The reasons for judgment of the Court were delivered orally by: CLARKE, C.J.N.S.: The appellant appeals from the decision of Justice Saunders dated June 23, 1995. He decided that the doorway threshold to 29 ground floor dwelling units in a housing development of the appellant known as Horizon 11, Gardenstone Estates, must comply with the barrier-free design requirements of the National Building Code. His decision, which confirmed a decision of the Nova Scotia Building Advisory Committee, was rendered pursuant to the Building Code Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 46, s. 16. The effect of the decision is that the doorway thresholds "must be limited to a height of thirteen millimetres above the finished floor surface and must be bevelled to facilitate the passage of wheelchairs as required by Article 3.7.3.3(4) of the Code". The appellant argued before the chambers judge that its building did not come within the description of all buildings that are required to be barrier-free but rather fell within the exemptions in Article 3.7.1.1(1)(a), which states: (a) houses, including semi-detached, duplexes, triplexes, townhouses, row houses, boarding houses and rooming houses; On appeal the appellant contends Justice Saunders erred in law in determining the barrier-free design provisions of the Act and Regulations apply to its building. In our opinion the issues before the chambers judge were essentially questions of fact to be determined by him. The record reveals that in his application of the facts, as he found them, to the Act and the Regulations and the Code, he committed no reversible error in law. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. - 2 - On this appeal we award the respondent costs in the amount of $1,000.00, including its disbursements. C.J.N.S. Concurred in: Hart, J.A. Jones, J.A.