It appears that the Township of Muskoka Lakes continues to ignore and cater to the proponent, rather than represent the interests of their tax-paying residents, for example …
Next Court appearance
As noted here, on the 13 charges of breaking the Township of Muskoka Lakes Noise Control by-law in December 2018, the proponent’s first Court appearance was January 9, 2019 at the Ontario Court of Justice in Bracebridge. This first appearance was mainly to schedule a second Court appearance, which was set as April 10, 2019.
At this second Court appearance, the proponent was represented by Christopher Lee of Loopstra Nixon LLP. The main purpose of this appearance was to set a date for the Court “to be spoken to”, where the lawyers will update the Court on the status of their interactions (the Disclosure of details of the infraction, the responses, whether a settlement is being proposed, should the issue next go to trial or do the parties need more time to work towards a settlement …).
While this third Court appearance would only be a few minutes of the Court’s time, the Township of Muskoka Lakes lawyer stated he needed more than a month to review any additional materials the proponent’s lawyer may provide, so needed a date after mid-May. After going through many possible dates to determine when the Court and both lawyers would be available, the third appearance “to be spoken to” was set as July 10, 2019.
So even though the proponent has continued to break the Township’s Noise Control by-law by working after 9:00 pm (for example in late March when working at 3:00 am one of their huge hydraulic excavators ended up in the Moon River, as reported here, local copy here).
Notice of Default – NOT
As the Township of Muskoka Lakes has filed 13 charges of violating the Noise Control by-law (and this after-hours work has continued), clearly the Township has determined the proponent is not complying with the Township’s by-laws.
The Township of Muskoka Lakes’ lease of three parcels of Township land to the proponent has provisions for dealing with such situations, as follows:
- Sections 8 (c) and 8 (e) states that that SREL (the “Tenant”) must comply with the by‐laws of the Township of Muskoka Lakes (the Landlord). This is an obligation of the proponent.
- Section 15 states that: “If the Tenant shall default in performing or observing any of its other covenants or obligations under this Lease, the Landlord [the Township of Muskoka Lakes] shall give notice of such default to the Tenant.” Note this is “shall” and not “may”, the Township is required to issue such a Notice of Default.
- Section 15 continues that: “If, after the expiration of … a period of sixty (60) days … the default shall continue to exist … at the option of the Landlord, this Lease shall expire as fully and completely …”
- Section 8 (o) of the Lease specifies that SREL will pay any legal costs the Township incurs in enforcing the provisions of this Lease agreement.
That is, if the proponent breaks any Township by-laws, the Township is to send a Notice of Default to the proponent. If the proponent continues to break Township by-laws, then the Township can terminate the lease and the proponent is to pay the Township’s legal fees to do this.
While the Township may be cautious and not terminate the lease until the Court has agreed that an infraction has occurred, at least the Township could issue a Notice of Default, but they decline to do this.
That is, the Township has not been of much help in representing the interests of their tax-paying residents.