York (Regional Municipality) v. Di Blasi

York (Regional Municipality) v. Di Blasi Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2025-03-13 Neutral citation 2025 ONCA 203 Docket numbers COA-23-CV-0716 Judges MacPherson, James C.; Huscroft, Grant; Pomerance, Renee M. Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: York (Regional Municipality) v. Di Blasi, 2025 ONCA 203 DATE: 20250313 DOCKET: COA-23-CV-0716 MacPherson, Huscroft and Pomerance JJ.A. BETWEEN The Regional Municipality of York Plaintiff (Respondent) and Gaetano Di Blasi Defendant (Appellant) Raymond Boggs, for the appellant Douglas O. Smith and Piper Morley, for the respondent Heard: March 10, 2025 On appeal from the judgment of Justice Jill C. Cameron of the Superior Court of Justice, dated May 31, 2023. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] This appellant appeals from the order of the trial judge that among other things declared a berm constructed by the appellant to be in breach of municipal bylaw; authorized the respondent to enter the appellant’s property to perform remediation work as necessary; enjoined the appellant from interfering with the flow of water; and required him to pay damages in nuisance. In addition, the appellant appeals from the order of the trial judge that he be found in contempt of the 2014 order of Justice Gilmore requiring the berm to be removed and liable to pay a fine of $10,000. [2] The essential facts are not in dispute. The Appellant constructed a berm that impeded the flow of water from ditches onto watercourse on his property, which includes provincially designated wetlands. He was ordered to remove it and was found to have failed to do so completely. The respondent did not enter the property to complete the removal of the berm because of various legal threats the appellant made. The respondent spent over $115,000 in pumping out the ditches since the berm was built in 2012. [3] Counsel describes the appellant as a victim of municipal bureaucracy and overreach. He says the appellant was having defended against a nuisance caused by the respondent rather than as having created the nuisance himself and disputes virtually every finding made by the trial judge. Counsel says that in the appellant’s mind, he intended to comply with the order to remove the berm and that is sufficient. [4] We do not accept these submissions. [5] We see no error in the trial judge’s decision that would permit us to intervene. Her decision is careful and thorough. Her findings are fully supported in the record. The appellant fails to address the standard of review in this court and essentially invites us to retry the case. That is not our function on appeal. [6] The trial judge made no error in not permitting a proposed amendment to the appellant’s pleadings to plead that the respondent failed to mitigate its damages. In any event, she found that the appellant could not meet his burden. Her findings are entitled to deference. [7] The trial judge made no error in finding that the appellant was in contempt. She cited the law correctly and found that the orders were not ambiguous, and that the appellant knew of them and failed to comply with them by removing the berm completely. These findings were open to the trial judge on the record before her and there is no basis to interfere with them. [8] The appeal is dismissed. The respondent is entitled to costs of $25,000, all-inclusive. “J.C. MacPherson J.A.” “Grant Huscroft J.A.” “R. Pomerance J.A.”