I dont think you read this ..... from LawDog. "
Post# of 56324
Posted On: 11/07/2014 6:46:42 PM
Re: thenewalbum #42510
I dont think you read this ..... from LawDog.
"Also extremely important to note, in a Canadian legal decision called Township of Emily vs. Johnson, an Ontario Court held that the owner of the land in question must only show that the intended operation had commenced, not that it was fully operational. In the Emily vs. Johnson case, a landowner intended on using his land for a go-cart track. His operation was not yet "fully developed." The Town tried to slap him with an injunction prohibiting him from operating a go-cart track on his land as a new by-law prohibited the activity. The Town claimed his go-cart track was not fully operational and hence he was not "using" his land as a go-cart track BEFORE the adoption of the new by-law. The Court disagreed and sided with the landowner. The landowner established that BEFORE the new by-law was adopted he had an INTENTION of operating a go-cart track, had purchased two go-carts, graded the land at the proposed site, removed stones, and had shaped the land. The Court stated, "the conclusion is irresistible that there was an embryo in place in 1977. Mr. Johnson had formulated his plans by 1976. He began to execute them by..." The Court held that based on the actions Mr. Johnson had taken it was evident he had intended to use the property as a go-cart facility BEFORE the Town adopted its new by-law prohibiting the activity in it's location and he was granted lawful non conforming land use rights. "
"Also extremely important to note, in a Canadian legal decision called Township of Emily vs. Johnson, an Ontario Court held that the owner of the land in question must only show that the intended operation had commenced, not that it was fully operational. In the Emily vs. Johnson case, a landowner intended on using his land for a go-cart track. His operation was not yet "fully developed." The Town tried to slap him with an injunction prohibiting him from operating a go-cart track on his land as a new by-law prohibited the activity. The Town claimed his go-cart track was not fully operational and hence he was not "using" his land as a go-cart track BEFORE the adoption of the new by-law. The Court disagreed and sided with the landowner. The landowner established that BEFORE the new by-law was adopted he had an INTENTION of operating a go-cart track, had purchased two go-carts, graded the land at the proposed site, removed stones, and had shaped the land. The Court stated, "the conclusion is irresistible that there was an embryo in place in 1977. Mr. Johnson had formulated his plans by 1976. He began to execute them by..." The Court held that based on the actions Mr. Johnson had taken it was evident he had intended to use the property as a go-cart facility BEFORE the Town adopted its new by-law prohibiting the activity in it's location and he was granted lawful non conforming land use rights. "
(0)
(0)