Simon's Megalomaniacal Legal Resources

Homelessness - Building Codes

. The Corporation of the Township of Perry v. MacKay

In The Corporation of the Township of Perry v. MacKay (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court, in upholding a municipalities' search authority under the Building Code, stated starkly the contrast of modern Ontario building law and more fundamental beliefs and needs - something coming in more focus with the homelessness and housing crises:

The Respondents’ Position Below

[17] The Respondents defended the application below on the basis of patently unmeritorious arguments:

(a) As owners of the Property in fee simple of, they were entitled to do whatever they want on the Property, without interference or regulation by the Appellants;

(b) The Applicants’ attempts to enforce the Building Code in respect to the Property amounted to an unlawful conversion of the Property to the benefit of the Appellants;

(c) The Building Code does not apply to them;

(d) The Appellants are restricted to overseeing public property held for public use and have no jurisdiction over private property;

(e) There must be an agreement with a private property owner for the Building Code and municipal by-laws to apply to that owner’s property, and since there is no agreement to this effect with the Respondents, the Appellants have no jurisdiction over their property;

(f) The attempt to enforce the Building Code and municipal by-laws against them in respect to the property violates the Constitution Act, 1982 and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[18] The application judge found these submissions to be without merit (Decision, paras. 51-95). The Respondents did not appeal, and so there is no need for this court to address the Respondent’s unmeritorious arguments that were properly rejected by the Application judge. I would note, however, that trial courts need not provide elaborate reasons for rejecting arguments that someone is not subject to the laws of the land because they are “free” or the Constitution provides that they are to be “without restraint”. These arguments are anarchistic nonsense and should not consume undue time and effort from our trial courts.