Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The City of Surrey sought a statutory injunction over unauthorized building work, but the court dismissed the petition because the City's evidence was inadmissible and did not prove the bylaw breaches.
The court ordered demolition of unauthorized structures in Surrey, finding they were built without permits, exceeded bylaw limits, and could not be retroactively legalized.
The plain wording of s.34(9)(a) requires the prohibited use to have been lawfully in use on the exact day the zoning by-law was passed; appellants failed to prove operation on that day and their factual case was properly reviewed for palpable and overriding error, and the corporate appellant failed to prove prejudice for a s.11(b) breach under pre-Jordan authority, so the convictions stand.
Source excerpt
The Court held that the 11 building permits and extensive site servicing were constituent elements of an integrated development governed by a site plan agreement; therefore, by operation of s.38(8) and s.34(9)(b) of the Planning Act the property and development were not affected by the ICBL, and the application judge erred by failing to decide this issue.
Source excerpt
Leave to appeal was denied because the tendered memos and fax cover sheet would not have created a reasonable possibility of changing the verdict or of compromising trial fairness even assuming non-disclosure, and because the applicant failed to prove entitlement to a legal non-conforming use (both as a factual matter and because any entitlement was lost when he moved the doors to comply), so no question of law alone essential to the public interest was established.
Source excerpt
Section 4.8 of the District 5 landâuse byâlaw is intra vires HRM because policy IMâ19 read in the context of the former Planning Act (s.38/94) authorized relaxation for nonâconforming structures and the provision continued under s.262 MGA; applicants were not barred by s.189(4) or laches but on the merits s.239 and/or s.4.8 authorized reconstruction of a residential nonâconforming structure (property was used and intended for residential purposes) and the development officer and building inspector acted reasonably in issuing the development and building permits; therefore the application is dâŚ
Source excerpt
The Court held that s.17(1) of the Building Code Act does not require the chief building official's order to be in writing; an oral order reduced to writing is sufficient and the owner's protection is afforded by the confirmation procedure in s.17(7), therefore the appeal was dismissed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
