Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme request

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

Post by Cat Driver »

Thanks for that information simpleton.

However judging by what I have read about this issue I personally hope the hangar owner prevails in court.

Unless of course the hangar owner is a complete as.hole and was just ignoring all the rules.

Obviously you think the latter, correct?
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
ruddersup?
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 284
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:10 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

Post by ruddersup? »

Jonas,
PM me, you are about to get educated to the good.
---------- ADS -----------
 
jonas
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 11:34 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

Post by jonas »

Simpleton wrote:1) Re-zoning bylaws were in the works for a long time...and you knew that.
Is that so? How would you know this? Now you are clairvoyant?
Even if your assumption was true, do we now live our lives in accordance to future laws that "were in the works for a long time"?
Not everyone has your imaginary super powers.
Simpleton wrote:2) Your hanger isn't "finished"....it's a pole barn shell that went up in a week
One week? More false statements. I'm beginning to see a pattern in your communications on this forum. The planes are inside. Isn't that what a hangar is meant for? When do we consider a hangar finished?
Simpleton wrote:4) Didn't own a big enough piece of property to build the hangar you want (Hmmm...who's fault is that?)
You never answered my hypothetical question in the previous post. Think about that one for a while and tell me how anyone could build at this airport on any of the 20x20 meter lots.

"Who's fault is that?" Apparently everyone at the airport trying to develop for the last 6 years.
without mentioning names, not including my case, there have been 4 other attempts at building, all requesting variances. I'm not going to post documentation because I don't want this post shut down again.
Simpleton wrote:6) I hope I get a front row seat to it being tore down...maybe there'll be a community BBQ to commemorate the event.
A true aviator we have here, what type of community do you hang out in?
Tell you what, you can come donate your time at our next COPA for kids event we host at my hangar. If you're so enthusiastic about a community BBQ you can flip the burgers at ours.
Simpleton wrote:7) Would still love to know where that old thread went. Funny reading in there, and some nice Jonas posts bordering on libelous.
You and I both. If anyone on this forum knows, please enlighten us to stop this question from diluting the conversation.

Do you mean libelous posts like this one?
Simpleton wrote:Lol, puts up building without permit...continues through out stop-work orders...screws over companies trying to buy land..
Even after reading (or not) the facts and documents to back up the facts, you falsely accuse me of working throughout stop-work orders, and accuse me of "screwing over companies trying to buy land.." I'd love to hear your explanations for these accusations. Please elaborate.


Here's some "funny reading" for you.
Whitecourt Star, Local newspaper that was able to find out the truth with one phone call wrote:Natasha Gauthier, a senior media relations advisor with Transport Canada, would not comment on some of the specific restrictions being set by Woodlands County. But she said aeronautics remains in the federal jurisdiction.

“All aerodrome operators, land owners and levels of government are responsible for ensuring they follow the federal laws and regulations that apply to aeronautics. Recent Supreme Court decisions reaffirm that the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over aeronautics. These decisions examined whether or not specific provincial and municipal legislation impaired core federal power over aeronautics. Object setbacks for operational areas of runways and taxiways depend on the level of service and aircraft type and size the airport operator declared when applying for certification,” Gauthier said.
Regulatory documents to read concerning obstruction clearances from apron, taxiway, runway, heliport, and FATOs from the governing power that has exclusive jurisdiction over structures that are core to aviation use are as follows.

Transport Canada's TP312 5th edition

and

Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) Part III - Aerodromes, Airports and Heliports.

It's a sad day for aviation in Canada if any local municipal board made up of non-aviators can completely ignore the above-mentioned regulations and are able to assert that they know better than the federal regulators.

Image





Simpleton wrote:6) I hope I get a front row seat to it being tore down...maybe there'll be a community BBQ to commemorate the event.
It's an even darker day when people like this pollute the aviation community.
---------- ADS -----------
 
MrWings
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1004
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 10:35 am

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

Post by MrWings »

I am enjoying this thread. Thanks for the information. It is a bit confusing at times. Here is my attempted unbiased summary:

1. Jonas buys land to build a hangar.
2. Airport manager approves a reduced setback of hangar construction.
3. Helicopter man thinks the hangar will interfere with his operation. Complains to local Council.
4. Council sides with helicopter man. County changes land use to restrict hangar from being built as planned. Issues a notice to halt construction.
5. Jonas interprets the new restrictions as outside the authority of the local government. Construction is continued. Hangar completed.
6. County is pursuing legal means to remove hangar.

Here is what I see the two issues are:

1. Did the building of the hangar impede the safety and access to helicopter man's property?
2. Are the zoning restrictions set by the County reasonable for airport operations?

The County has determined that the answer to these questions is yes.

If Transport Canada's answer is no, Jonas wins. I'm thinking at least #2 is a no. And based on the previous thread, #1 is likely no as well. From what I recall, it makes is more inconvenient for helicopter man but not dangerous. Although that information presented was one-sided.
---------- ADS -----------
 
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

Post by photofly »

The zoning restrictions set by the municipality are totally irrelevant over aircraft hangars; they have zero jurisdiction.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
7ECA
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1281
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 4:33 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

Post by 7ECA »

photofly wrote:The zoning restrictions set by the municipality are totally irrelevant over aircraft hangars; they have zero jurisdiction.
Good luck convincing any city, municipality, village, etc, that they aren't allowed and granted absolute control over everything that occurs in their private fiefdoms.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Simpleton
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:10 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

Post by Simpleton »

photofly wrote:The zoning restrictions set by the municipality are totally irrelevant over aircraft hangars; they have zero jurisdiction.

Lol, thank you for telling a really funny joke. Photofly told a funny joke everyone.
---------- ADS -----------
 
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

Post by photofly »

7ECA wrote:
photofly wrote:The zoning restrictions set by the municipality are totally irrelevant over aircraft hangars; they have zero jurisdiction.
Good luck convincing any city, municipality, village, etc, that they aren't allowed and granted absolute control over everything that occurs in their private fiefdoms.
That's what the courts are for. It's difficult when the municipality is the airport operator as well though; even if you win a court case you're now on the wrong side of the very people you need be friendly with. You can win the battle, but lose the war, so to speak.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
jonas
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 11:34 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

Post by jonas »

MrWings wrote:I am enjoying this thread. Thanks for the information. It is a bit confusing at times. Here is my attempted unbiased summary:

1. Jonas buys land to build a hangar.
2. Airport manager approves a reduced setback of hangar construction.
3. Helicopter man thinks the hangar will interfere with his operation. Complains to local Council.
4. Council sides with helicopter man. County changes land use to restrict hangar from being built as planned. Issues a notice to halt construction.
5. Jonas interprets the new restrictions as outside the authority of the local government. Construction is continued. Hangar completed.
6. County is pursuing legal means to remove hangar.
There's a much longer history that I had laid out in a previous thread, but it has disappeared.
I'll try to clarify in point form. But, in an effort to not have this thread removed these points are all "alleged".

1. Jonas allegedly Buys land in "airport service district-airside" to build a hangar 2006

Image

2. Jonas allegedly builds hangar 2007 without the need for building permit under the airport manager #1 instruction.

3. County allegedly drastically changes elevation around Jonas hangar. The hangar is now in a deep hole. Parking aircraft anywhere on the lot is dangerous for aircraft. Discussions take place, promises are made to make it right in a few months when the new taxiway is paved.

4.Jonas finally allegedly receives the title for land after many alleged phone calls wondering how the municipality sold land to Jonas without having it subdivided.

Image

5. Fast forward 8 years later 2015 when the taxiway is finally paved, Jonas allegedly talks to county admin about "making it right"

6. Admin allegedly conveniently forgets conversation about making it right, after alleged reluctant conversation admin takes my expenses to a council meeting and allegedly pass a motion to pay me for a fraction of my expenses incurred from their construction activity. At this point, I am just relieved that they FINALLY built the taxiway. I'm willing to just let it go and start over.

Image
Image

7. Meanwhile, I am out of pocket for my original hangar (haven't received the money yet), Airport manager #3 allegedly says things have changed and I need a permit with a variance request. I demolish the hangar and begin construction on the new hangar in the place where the airport manager recommended. This works out ok because I don't need to spend an extremely large amount of extra money removing my original concrete pad, my new building location allows me to simply bury the concrete and build around it.

8. I fall for the manager #3's alleged requirements for building permit and apply for a building permit with variance in an effort to maintain good relations with the county.

9. Airport manager #3 recommends 1m setback. TC has no objections, Nav Canada has no objections, alleged protest from helicopter man and friends of helicopter man allegedly convince the municipality to deny variance request citing false safety concerns, a permit is approved without a reduction in setbacks (which means denied).

10. I file for an appeal, denied with more alleged protest from helicopter man and friends. I was Allegedly told to meet with the airport manager #3 after the appeal hearing and I should be pleasantly surprised, wink wink, nod nod, with the solution to my problem.
At that point I was offered a land swap (like I had been asking for over a period of many years at this point as an alternate solution to the elevation problem), to another location that was not ready for development, away from helicopter man, but the county was only willing to pay me what I purchased the lot for, and then I could pay the difference for the new land at current land values (much higher), the county could not guarantee the same issue would not happen again at the new location. More alleged discussions were had, where it was allegedly agreed to have the county initiate a third party assesment on my property. This assesment was allegedly never performed. (two years later the land that was somewhat offered in exchange is still not ready to build on)

11. Meanwhile still no payment received for my original hangar replacement expenses that were passed in the council meeting.

12. I wait the required 6 months, and try again. was almost successful, was granted a setback of 6 meters from 10 meters airside, and 5 meters from 10 meters on the side of the access road, and additional conditions that are impossible to comply with. (fireproof walls, helicopter and flying debris proof walls, an additional $20,000+ payment to be made to the county for water sewer hookup.
This slight reduction does not allow the building to be placed over the underlying cement as the airport manager allegedly recommended, and does not function properly for the parking of either aircraft or motor vehicles on either side of the hangar. Can not build the building. Still no payment, allegedly.

13. I applied for an appeal, again and hired a lawyer that specializes in Aviation suggested to me by COPA. Airport manager #4 allegedly suggested 6 and 5-meter setbacks (with alleged permission from administration). The lawyer informs them of the jurisdictional issue making the building permit, board's decision, and bylaws ultra-vires, and urges the board to simply grant the variance to avoid costly court visits in the near future. The county's lawyer allegedly says to the board, "it's not in the municipal development committee's jurisdiction to determine if they have the jurisciction over this jurisdiction." She then goes on to describe how the setbacks are needed along the taxiway to leave room for garbage bin truck access, airplane traffic sight lines, snow removal, etc. She allegedly compared the airside to a back alley in the city. (allegedely.)
Appeal denied. Building permit remains as 6 m airside setback, 5-meter front yard setback, the same conditions that are impossible to comply with remain.

14. I filed to try the case in the Alberta Court of Appeals, as that was the next step in the legal system. The judge determined the Court of appeals could not hear the case due to the Municipal appeal board not having the jurisdiction to determine if they had the jurisdiction. The judge suggested hearing the case in Court of Queens bench. This is what we had anticipated, but had hoped to avoid in the interest of time.

15. I file for the case to be heard in Court of Queens bench, a date is set for a year and a half later in 2018.

16. 2 years allegedly pass from time council voted to pay money to Jonas, money is never allegedly paid despite multiple reminders from myself, and a letter from my lawyer, I have no choice other than to take County to Court due to the statute of limitations. (all other options were exhausted) I hire lawyer #2 to deal with this. I'll keep you posted on the outcome.

17.Aviation Lawyer allegedly recommends to inform county we are ignoring build permit as it is ultra-vires, and I should just build it as it complies with federal regulations.

18.Throughout 2016/2017 winter and spring, construction commenced, Alleged threats were made to issue a stop order from the County, I told the County that my patience has come to an end, I'm not stopping, and if they want the issue a stop order, please do so immediately. Otherwise, leave me alone.

19.Construction of hangar is completed June 2017.

20.Zoning and bylaw change completed, stop work order arrives.
The only feasible conditions on stop work order requires applying for a new permit with airport manager #5's permission. Airport manager #5 allegedly wasn't given permission to give permission. Allegedly no permission was received.

20. Currently, I allegedly have no doubt that the demolition order is allegedly coming, I am patiently awaiting their next move so I can file for an injunction.
MrWings wrote:Here is what I see the two issues are:

1. Did the building of the hangar impede the safety and access to helicopter man's property?
2. Are the zoning restrictions set by the County reasonable for airport operations?

The County has determined that the answer to these questions is yes.

If Transport Canada's answer is no, Jonas wins. I'm thinking at least #2 is a no. And based on the previous thread, #1 is likely no as well. From what I recall, it makes is more inconvenient for helicopter man but not dangerous. Although that information presented was one-sided.
1. Not by a long shot according to the alleged fact that helicopter man has unobstructed taxiway access bordering the property that he allegedly leases. (and does not allegedly need to fly across the public roadway and across my property)

2. The neighbouring property to mine has been allegedly bought and sold 3 times with no development due to the setback requirements. Even the newest subdivision has the first alleged occupant applying for a setback reduction from 10 meters to 3 meters, and they are solely helicopter operators.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Simpleton
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:10 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

Post by Simpleton »

That's a lot of "alleged's"


....and a disturbing amount of Jonas discussing Jonas in the 3rd person
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
JasonE
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 837
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2014 8:26 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

Post by JasonE »

Jonas - I hope you win.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by JasonE on Mon Jul 17, 2017 8:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Carelessness and overconfidence are more dangerous than deliberately accepted risk." -Wilbur Wright
7ECA
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1281
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 4:33 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

Post by 7ECA »

photofly wrote: That's what the courts are for. It's difficult when the municipality is the airport operator as well though; even if you win a court case you're now on the wrong side of the very people you need be friendly with. You can win the battle, but lose the war, so to speak.
Yep, you can't fight city hall. Well, you can - but you can never really win. Sort of like fighting "the regulator". We all know how that turns out.
---------- ADS -----------
 
hoptwoit
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 251
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 1:43 am

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

Post by hoptwoit »

7ECA wrote:
photofly wrote: That's what the courts are for. It's difficult when the municipality is the airport operator as well though; even if you win a court case you're now on the wrong side of the very people you need be friendly with. You can win the battle, but lose the war, so to speak.
Yep, you can't fight city hall. Well, you can - but you can never really win. Sort of like fighting "the regulator". We all know how that turns out.
In the case of Transport Canada I would agree. Jonas and myself have manged to outlast 5 airport managers in 8 years (hmmmm I wonder why so many?). Unlike Transport Canada the group pulling the strings at the airport is elected, and this is an election year!
---------- ADS -----------
 
People should not have to fear both the government and the criminal. It should be that the criminal fears both the people and the government.
crazyaviator
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 671
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 7:52 pm
Location: Ontario

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

Post by crazyaviator »

Simpleton,,, you have nothing to offer here, you come across as an asshole and i support jonas 100 % based upon the provided information so far !
---------- ADS -----------
 
Simpleton
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:10 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

Post by Simpleton »

Here's some of my favorite quotes...amongst so many others

...and I'm not going to give away the reference sources for these federally sourced quotes.....cause I like making people work for them (and I enjoy that Jonas has to pay a lawyer to, maybe, figure these things out)

"The exclusive jurisdiction over the location of aeronautical facilities has been repeatedly affirmed by Canadian courts. The federal aeronautics jurisdiction encompasses not only the regulation of the operation of aircraft and aerodromes, but also the power to determine the location of aerodromes."


"In the Lacombe and COPA decisions, the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that a degree of jurisdictional overlap is inevitableIn cases of multiple jurisdictions' laws, compliance with these laws might be enforced by those jurisdictions."


"The Aeronautics Act may not grant immunity from compliance with other applicable federal, provincial, territorial or municipal legislation. As mentioned in the COPA Supreme Court decision, the test is whether the provincial law impairs the federal exercise of the core competence."


"Determination of whether or not provincial, territorial, or municipal legislation impairs the federal core competencies is a matter to be determined by courts on a case-by-case basis. Transport Canada does not provide advice regarding the applicability of provincial, territorial, or municipal legislation"


"In cases of valid and applicable jurisdictional overlap of laws compliance with provincial, territorial and municipal non-aeronautics legislation might be enforced by those jurisdictions"


"Some community/aerodrome situations have reached the point where the effect of land use planning guidelines may be minimal. However, there are still instances where the use of these guidelines will result in more compatible aerodrome and community development. Implementation of this guidance may result in provincial/municipal legislation or bylaws for compatible land uses, easements or land zoning."


"Where the facility is a non-certified aerodrome, the standards in TP312 Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices can be used but are not enforceable; however, the operational integrity of the non-certified aerodrome is enhanced if the designation of the use of land adjacent to the facility is done in line with technical portions of the standards."
---------- ADS -----------
 
Black_Tusk
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 693
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2016 8:57 am

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

Post by Black_Tusk »

That's a lot of bold letters and underlines. Good work Simpleton.
---------- ADS -----------
 
hoptwoit
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 251
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 1:43 am

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

Post by hoptwoit »

Simpleton wrote:Here's some of my favorite quotes...amongst so many others

...and I'm not going to give away the reference sources for these federally sourced quotes.....cause I like making people work for them (and I enjoy that Jonas has to pay a lawyer to, maybe, figure these things out)
Wow the sweat was pouring off my brow trying to find these :rolleyes: Actually I've got them saved on my computer. I find that with most Transport Canada documents they must be read a couple of times to be fully appreciated.

The top part is Advisory Circular (AC) No. 300-009
The bottom part is TP 1247 - Aviation - Land Use in the Vicinity of Aerodromes part 1.1

There you go Jonas No charge :D


Simpleton wrote:"Where the facility is a non-certified aerodrome, the standards in TP312 Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices can be used but are not enforceable; however, the operational integrity of the non-certified aerodrome is enhanced if the designation of the use of land adjacent to the facility is done in line with technical portions of the standards."
"however, the operational integrity of the non-certified aerodrome is enhanced if the designation of the use of land adjacent to the facility is done in line with technical portions of the standards."
An aviator would underline this portion.

Here is the thing. As an aviator you can come at this issue from one of three perspectives. Is it good for me? Is it good for my neighbor? Is it good for the airport? The perspective that you seem to be coming at this from is none of these. Instead you're only perspective on this is. Is it bad for Jonas? Kinda sad really.
---------- ADS -----------
 
People should not have to fear both the government and the criminal. It should be that the criminal fears both the people and the government.
Simpleton
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:10 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

Post by Simpleton »

Glad I was able to help you out with those, since the whole "the feds have sole control over everything on aerodromes" shtick was getting tiresome. "Well, you know...I knew about those all along"....yeah, sure you did Johnny.

It's going to be fun when the judgement comes down.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Schooner69A
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 639
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:17 pm
Location: The Okanagan

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

Post by Schooner69A »

Simpleton:

Do you have a dog in this fight?


J
---------- ADS -----------
 
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

Post by photofly »

Simpleton wrote:Glad I was able to help you out with those, since the whole "the feds have sole control over everything on aerodromes" shtick was getting tiresome. "Well, you know...I knew about those all along"....yeah, sure you did Johnny.

It's going to be fun when the judgement comes down.
It was only a magistrate judge, and in a different province, so no precedent but:


THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF OSHAWA
— AND —
536813 ONTARIO LIMITED
[110] For the reasons stated above, I am satisfied that (1.) the Ontario Building Code Act, 1992 trenches on the protected core of federal competency as it applies to the defendant’s hangar, and (2.) Section 8 of the Ontario Building Code Act, 1992 unacceptably interferes with and, in fact, has a considerable and serious impact on the federal competency as it applies to the defendant’s hangar. I find, therefore, that the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity applies such that the City of Oshawa cannot rely on provincial building code provisions to require the defendant to obtain a building permit for construction to its hangar located at the Oshawa Airport complex. Consequently, the charge against the defendant under clause 36(1) of the Ontario Building Code Act, 1992, for failing to obtain a building permit as required under subsection 8(1), is ultra vires the City of Oshawa and, hence, I am quashing the Information that brought the impugned charge against the defendant.
My emphasis.

The judgement is worth reading. I don't see that an appeal has been filed.

(You're welcome.)
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”