Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Extensive, largely uncontested evidence showed 5 Duke Street functioning as a drug house and public nuisance under s. 447.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001.
• Neighbour, by-law, fire, EMS, and police affidavits documented chronic drug activity, violence, trespass, intimidation, garbage, vermin, and serious fire and safety hazards.
• The respondent admitted nuisance-level activity over roughly 18 months but filed no responding evidence and relied only on oral claims of improvement and vacancy.
• Applying Ryan v. Victoria (City), the court found ongoing, unreasonable interference with public health, safety, comfort, and convenience in a residential neighbourhood.
• The court held that the respondent knew or ought to have known of the nuisance and that sporadic measures, including police “clearings,” were inadequate to eliminate it.
• A 12-month closing order and permanent injunction were granted as proportionate, time-limited remedies, short of the two-year maximum, despite barring the owner from his own property.

Facts and background

The Corporation of the City of St. Catharines applied to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for a closing order under s. 447.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001 in respect of 5 Duke Street, a 100-year-old semi-detached residence in downtown St. Catharines. The property, owned by Huda Al-Kadhee, is attached to neighbour Danielle Williams’ home and close to Montebello Park. After Mr. Al-Kadhee purchased 5 Duke in 2016, he lived on the upper floor and rented the ground floor without difficulty for several years. From mid-2023, however, the property’s condition and use deteriorated significantly.

Neighbourhood complaints and impact

Neighbours, especially Ms. Williams, described 5 Duke as a place where people came to buy and use drugs, making short visits and leaving visibly intoxicated. Residents regularly found discarded needles and paraphernalia in their yards and on the street. They reported frequent screaming and yelling from inside the house, encounters with erratic and threatening individuals, trespass onto their properties, and a multi-person knife fight outside. Ms. Williams suffered a break-and-enter in December 2024 and filed a video in which the respondent acknowledged that someone from 5 Duke was responsible. Garbage accumulated on the property, blew onto surrounding homes, and was linked to increased rats and other vermin. A gas-powered generator running on the porch or fire escape at all hours caused serious fire concerns in a neighbourhood of older wooden homes.

By-law and fire service evidence

Between July 2023 and April 2025, the City issued 11 garbage-related Orders to Comply and conducted seven remedial cleanups, removing about 66.7 cubic yards of waste at an approximate cost of $14,000. The City’s fire department responded to 20 calls between May 2023 and January 2025, including two fires inside the house. In May 2023, a kitchen-stove fire revealed no working smoke alarms; in May 2024, a deliberately set fire again revealed no working alarms. In August 2024, a fire inspector found no functioning alarms, blocked exits, extensive interior garbage, used needles and drug paraphernalia throughout, no hydro, a generator in the living room, and an extension cord running from an upper floor to another apartment, with an estimated 10 to 15 occupants. Later reports described a generator running at night on the fire escape, a backyard garbage fire, and a strong kerosene odour.

Police and EMS involvement

Niagara Emergency Medical Services attended the property 30 times between July 31, 2023 and November 30, 2024 for inflicted injuries, drug overdoses, and withdrawal. Niagara Regional Police linked 5 Duke to the local “drug subculture,” with known offenders living at and using the property for drug trafficking. Police recorded seven calls for service from May to December 2023, more than 50 in 2024, and 11 between January 1 and May 15, 2025, dealing with noise and distress complaints, self-harm and physical altercations, a multi-person knife fight, and suspected drug trafficking. Inside the premises, they observed makeshift weapons, extensive drug paraphernalia, and seriously injured persons. At the respondent’s request or following his complaints, police repeatedly removed unwanted persons, including a January 2025 “clearing” that revealed broken or boarded windows, no electricity, and interiors filled with broken furniture, garbage, and needles. On September 4, 2025, shortly before the hearing, police investigated a report of shots fired inside the house and found a bullet hole in plywood boarding a window, though no bullet or casings were located.

Respondent’s position and evidentiary gap

The City filed detailed affidavits from neighbours, by-law officers, fire personnel, EMS, police, and the Chief of Police, who gave the consent required for a closing order. Mr. Al-Kadhee, self-represented, did not file any responding affidavit evidence. In submissions, he acknowledged that activities at 5 Duke had, over roughly the past 18 months, amounted at times to a public nuisance, but said many of the problems were caused by dangerous visitors rather than tenants and that his own personal struggles limited his ability to manage the situation. He maintained that the property had improved and was vacant by summer 2025 and argued that a closing order was no longer needed. During the hearing, however, City counsel relayed that Ms. Williams, attending remotely from her home next door, could hear voices and barking dogs inside 5 Duke, and the court took note of the recent shots-fired incident as further evidence that risks persisted.

Statutory framework and public nuisance test

The application was grounded in s. 447.1(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, which permits a municipality to seek a court order closing all or part of premises for up to two years if three conditions are met on a balance of probabilities: activities or circumstances on or in the premises constitute a public nuisance or contribute to a public nuisance in the vicinity; the nuisance has a detrimental impact on the use and enjoyment of neighbouring properties, including impacts such as trespass, interference with public spaces, increased garbage, noise or traffic, impacts on property values, increased harassment or intimidation, or graffiti; and the owner or occupants knew or ought to have known of the nuisance and failed to take adequate steps to eliminate it. Section 447.1(9) requires the responsible police service to bar entry to all entrances during the closing period, while ss. 447.1(7)–(8) allow later applications to suspend or discharge an order. The City also relied on s. 433, which authorizes permanent injunctive relief to prevent ongoing or future contraventions.

Because “public nuisance” is not defined in the Municipal Act, the court adopted the Supreme Court’s formulation in Ryan v. Victoria (City): activity that unreasonably interferes with the public’s interests in health, safety, morality, comfort, or convenience, amounting to an attack on the public’s right to live free from serious inconvenience or interference. Ryan’s factors—the extent of inconvenience, difficulty of avoiding the risk, utility of the activity, general practice of others, and character of the neighbourhood—were used to assess the situation at 5 Duke. The court confirmed that s. 447.1 is not limited to commercial properties and can apply to residential premises, citing Kenora (City) v. Eikre Holdings Ltd. as an example.

Application of the law to the facts

On the first element, the court held that the activities and conditions at 5 Duke clearly constituted a public nuisance. The property had become a drug house and hub of criminal behaviour, repeated overdoses and injuries, and severe fire and safety hazards, with no benefit to the community. The volume and nature of calls to police, EMS, and fire services, and the routine presence of needles, weapons, and extreme disorder, showed sustained, unreasonable interference with public health and safety.

On the second element, the court found that the nuisance had a clear detrimental impact on neighbours’ use and enjoyment of their properties in multiple statutory categories: repeated trespass by intoxicated visitors, discarded needles and paraphernalia affecting safe use of streets and sidewalks, marked increases in garbage and vermin, and noise and intimidation from screaming, fights, and frequent emergency responses. These impacts went far beyond minor annoyance.

On the third element, the court concluded that the respondent knew or at least ought to have known of the nuisance. His own submissions acknowledged nuisance-level activity and repeated involvement of police. While the court accepted that he faced personal challenges and some dangerous individuals, intermittent police “clearings” did not amount to adequate steps to eliminate the problem. The absence of sworn evidence documenting improvement, combined with recent incidents such as the shots-fired report and Ms. Williams’ real-time observations during the hearing, undercut his claim that the property was now under control. The court therefore found all three statutory preconditions satisfied.

Remedy, duration, and outcome

Having determined that a closing order was justified, the court considered its timing and length. On timing, unlike in Kenora where tenants were given months to relocate, the respondent stated that no one resided at 5 Duke with his permission and requested no time to remove belongings. The court therefore saw no need to delay the order’s effective date.

The City sought a two-year closure, the maximum allowed by s. 447.1. The court declined to grant the full term, reasoning that while the order is serious and must disrupt entrenched patterns of nuisance activity, it should not exceed what is reasonably necessary. In the absence of specific evidence justifying a two-year term, the court set the duration at 12 months as a proportionate response that would provide a significant break in the property’s use while recognizing the severe impact on the owner.

The order, issued on September 22, 2025 with reasons released November 25, 2025, declared that activities at 5 Duke had constituted and continued to constitute a public nuisance; that they had detrimentally affected neighbours through trespass, increased garbage and noise, intimidation, and criminal and open drug use; and that the respondent and occupants knew or ought to have known of these circumstances and failed to take adequate steps. It directed that the premises be closed to any use and vacated for 12 months from September 22, 2025, subject only to limited exceptions for compliance work, repairs and maintenance by or authorized by the City, and cleanup or remediation addressing life, fire, or public health safety.

Under s. 433, the court also granted a permanent injunction preventing anyone with notice of the order from using or permitting the use of 5 Duke in a way that constitutes a public nuisance. The order empowered City by-law enforcement and Niagara Regional Police to bar entry to all entrances and to arrest or apprehend anyone found on the property (other than for enforcement purposes) as a trespasser, and required that the order be posted conspicuously. The successful party was the Corporation of the City of St. Catharines, which obtained the 12-month closing order and permanent injunction it sought. The judgment does not award damages or specify any quantified costs order, so the total monetary amount in favour of the City cannot be determined from the reasons and appears limited to non-monetary relief.