July 14, 2026

By Nick Melchiorre 

Municipalities typically enact property standards and yard standards bylaws as a tool to improve neighbourhoods, and to protect us from the faults of our neighbours.

The enforcement of these bylaws is typically focussed on achieving compliance, rather than being punitive. However, sometimes it can turn contentious, which may lead to disputes ending up in Provincial offences Court, where fines typically follow.

Municipalities also have the authority to enforce compliance by arranging to have the defects fixed and then charging the cost to the property owner. In Ontario, which may include adding unpaid amounts to the property taxes.

ISSUE

In rare cases, the municipality may bring an application to Superior Court for an order closing a premises because the activities constitute a public nuisance.

These cases give municipalities, property owners, and lawyers, guidance about property standards and the enforcement process.

THE CASE

One such case is Corporation of the City of St Catharines v. Al-Kadhee.

The Facts

The facts are somewhat extreme, so illustrate both that closing orders are restricted to rare situations, and that this remedy serves an essential purpose.

Like most cases, the evidence was crucial to the outcome. Witnesses testified by affidavit and documents showed that:

• People were making very short visits inside the property and leaving visibly intoxicated.
• People tossed drug paraphernalia — including used needles — over the fence into a neighbour’s backyard.
• That neighbour was regularly disturbed by screaming and yelling from the property. She heard what she believed to be violent events and personally observed a knife fight in the street outside her home.
• She was the victim of a break and enter theft. The owner of the subject property admitted to her that it was someone from his house who committed the crime.
• Drug paraphernalia was also discarded on the street outside the subject property.
• Heavily intoxicated persons leaving the subject property would trespass onto surrounding residential properties. The behaviour of these heavily intoxicated persons was often erratic, threatening and intimidating.
• Garbage accumulated outside the subject property. Neighbours noted increased numbers of vermin such as rats, racoons, skunks, and possums in the neighbourhood.
• Screaming and yelling from the property regularly disturbed the neighbourhood.
• Neighbours had concern about fire risk from a generator on the property.
• Police intervention and bylaw enforcement actions had not resolved these problems. Any improvements in the situation were not longstanding.
• The most extreme incident involved shots being fired at the subject property.

In addition to neighbours, witnesses included City enforcement personnel, police, fire department, and EMS personnel.

The property was used as a rental and the owner alleged that the problems were caused by visitors, not the actual tenants.

The Law

Section 447.1 of Ontario’s Municipal Act 2001 provides the authority to apply for the order, and a detailed list of criteria covering the existence of the public nuisance, the detrimental effect on the neighbourhood, and the knowledge and inaction of the property owner.

Consent from the chief of police (or applicable OPP detachment commander) is required, along with notice to the Attorney General of Ontario, who may choose to participate in the proceeding.

These are not routine applications. The effect of the order is to treat the owner as a trespasser to their own property.

Prior to the St. Catherine’s case, only one order had been issued in Ontario affecting a residential premises. Coincidentally, that case arose in Kenora, located in the Northwest Region where our firm practices. The evidence in that case was not identical, of course, but was similarly serious.

“Public nuisance” is not defined in the Act, so the judge in the St. Catherine’s case applied a 1999 Supreme Court of Canada case arising out of British Columbia, which established the following criteria:

(a)   the inconvenience caused by the activity;

(b)   the difficulty in lessening or avoiding the risk;

(c)   the utility of the activity;

(d)   the general practice of others; and

(e)   the character of the neighbourhood.

despite the Supreme Court case being about what constitutes a nuisance for the purposes of liability for personal injuries, not the statutory test under municipal legislation. This is consistent with other Ontario Superior Court decisions, including the Kenora decision.

Application of the law in this case

The judge expressed caution due to the seriousness of the consequences of the order. They were concerned that the evidence was dated, most of it having been assembled in March through May, and the case not being heard until September. The gun shot incident had however occurred mere weeks before the hearing.

Despite these concerns, the judge determined that the activities were indeed a public nuisance. They found that the nuisance persisted, because the owner did not bring evidence that the situation had improved. The gun shot incident was particularly concerning and persuasive.

There was no question in the judge’s opinion that this nuisance met the required test of detriment.

The owner admitted knowledge of at least some of the facts establishing the nuisance. The absence of evidence of improvement in the situation, together with along with the recency of the gun shot incident was held to be enough to prove that the owner had failed to control the situation.

These findings satisfied the three-step test and the order was issued, to become effective after time for notice to the occupants, and for twelve months from the date of issue.

TAKEAWAYS

• Property standards are serious business.
• Property owners should not just ignore problems.
• Municipalities will enforce bylaws, but that is not the end of the story.
• It is everybody’s best interests to resolve problems early if possible.
• Where other responses fail to solve the situation, in Ontario, an order to vacate the premises may issue.
• The test to establish that the situation is a public nuisance, is detrimental to the neighbourhood, and that the owner has knowledge but has failed to solve the problem calls for extensive evidence to satisfy the court.
• Because the remedy has serious consequences, plenty of good evidence is necessary to obtain an order.
• As in every case, the specific facts are crucial to the outcome.
• Despite the seriousness, and requirements for good evidence, the court may impose an onus on the property owner to show that they have addressed the situation.
• Where the situation escalates beyond the initial phase of enforcement, getting sound legal advice early may save time and expense for both municipalities and property owners.

 

WHAT WEILERS LLP CAN DO TO HELP YOU

Whether you work for a municipality in enforcing the property standards or are in a difficult position as a property owner or contractor attempting to comply with the law, Weilers LLP has the experience and knowledge to collaborate with you to attempt to resolve the situation without the expense and inconvenience of an order to vacate. If that is not possible, we  can vigorously represent your interests in court. If you find yourself confronted with a difficult property standards issue and need legal advice, Weilers LLP may be the right lawyers for you.