Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Use of “Prime Agriculture” zoned land at 1388 Bridge Street for multiple trailers and improvised residential structures fell outside all permitted residential and commercial uses under the Town’s Zoning By-law.
• Photographic and affidavit evidence from the Deputy Fire Chief showed numerous trailers, add-on structures, a Quonset hut, cinderblock sheds, muddy unpaved access routes, and scattered debris, supporting ongoing zoning and property standards violations.
• The trailers, while not permitted under the Zoning By-law, qualified as “dwellings” under the Property Standards By-law and were in breach of standards for safe passage, lighting, and garbage disposal.
• Yard conditions, including refuse, garbage between trailers, and scattered scrap metal and empty propane tanks, contravened the Town’s Yard Maintenance By-law requirements for neat, clean, and hazard-free yards.
• Respondents filed no responding materials and offered only bare assertions (e.g., recycling skids) that were rejected in the face of uncontradicted photographic and affidavit evidence.
• Applying Municipal Act s. 440 and established case law, the court granted broad declaratory and permanent injunctive relief, binding both the named respondents and persons with notice, and authorized enforcement and cost recovery if compliance is not achieved by a set deadline.

Background and facts of the dispute

The case arises from the Town of Greater Napanee’s efforts to enforce its zoning, property standards, and yard maintenance regime against the rural property located at 1388 Bridge Street, Napanee, Ontario. Jack Belanger is the registered owner of the property, which lies along a rural road west of the Town’s main population centre and is zoned “Prime Agriculture” under Zoning By-law 02-22. The Chief Building Official is joined with the Town as co-applicant.
Beginning in the fall of 2023, Town staff started receiving complaints about activities and conditions at 1388 Bridge Street. In response, they commenced inspections in March 2024. On July 17, 2025, Deputy Fire Chief James Feeney attended the property under a warrant that also related to unsafe wood-burning appliances. He followed a long driveway through a wooded area into a large cleared field, where he observed eight to ten recreational vehicles (trailers), many of which had structures or additions built onto them, along with a Quonset hut and a cinderblock shed. He noted muddy pathways and roads crisscrossing the field, with puddling, and he observed empty propane tanks, scrap metal, and other materials strewn across the property.
The occupants included Mr. Belanger, Mr. Godfrey (self-represented), and various unidentified individuals who resided in the trailers from time to time. These unidentified occupants were captured procedurally as the Jane and John Doe respondents, some of whom actively used the site as a place of residence.

Procedural history and evidentiary record

The Town commenced an application under s. 440 of the Municipal Act, 2001 for a permanent injunction restraining breaches of its Zoning By-law 02-22, Property Standards By-law 2010-50, and Yard Maintenance By-law 04-31 at 1388 Bridge Street. At a first appearance before Justice Lacelle, the matter was scheduled for hearing on January 22, 2026. Both Mr. Belanger and Mr. Godfrey appeared at that stage.
On January 22, 2026, the Town was ready to proceed, but the respondents requested an adjournment to file responding materials. The application was adjourned to March 4, 2026 before Justice Ryan Bell, with a clear timetable that included provision for cross-examinations on affidavits. Despite this opportunity, neither Mr. Belanger nor Mr. Godfrey filed any responding materials. As a result, the sole evidentiary foundation for the hearing was the affidavit of Deputy Fire Chief James Feeney, with attached photographs documenting the conditions on the property.
At the hearing, after submissions from the Town and Mr. Belanger, Mr. Godfrey brought an oral motion to strike Mr. Feeney’s affidavit, arguing he had not been “invited” to cross-examine and referencing Mr. Feeney’s involvement in other matters concerning the property. Justice Ryan Bell rejected this motion as untimely, noting that Godfrey had given no notice of his intention and that cross-examination rights had been clearly set out in the procedural timetable. The court also clarified that a litigant is not “invited” to cross-examine; that opportunity must be taken within the specified process.
The result was an uncontested evidentiary record. The court accepted Mr. Feeney’s affidavit and photographs as reliable proof of the nature of the structures at 1388 Bridge Street, the use of the property, and the extent of the debris and unsafe conditions.

Zoning framework and land use issues

The central legal framework governing use of 1388 Bridge Street is the Town’s Zoning By-law 02-22, which regulates permissible uses by zoning category. The property is zoned “Prime Agriculture,” and s. 5.4 of the Zoning By-law provides that no person shall use any lot or erect, alter or use any building or structure except as specified for this zone. Section 5.4.1 then lists the permitted residential, non-residential, and accessory uses.
For residential purposes, only the following six uses are permitted on “Prime Agriculture” land:

• Single detached dwelling house;
• Existing converted dwelling house;
• Group Home;
• Special Care Facilities (excluding warming/cooling centres);
• Transitional Housing Unit; and
• Home Occupation or Home Industry.
  The court examined the actual use of 1388 Bridge Street against these categories. The trailers did not qualify as a “single detached dwelling house,” because the Zoning By-law’s definition of a dwelling house explicitly excludes a trailer, motor home or Sea-Can. Nor did the cinderblock shed qualify as a dwelling unit, because there was no evidence that it contained the required suite of two or more rooms with sanitary conveniences and a single kitchen facility. Likewise, home occupation and home industry uses could not apply because both presuppose the existence of a lawful dwelling unit.
  There was no evidence that any of the remaining residential categories—group home, special care facility, or transitional housing unit—were applicable, and no material suggested a commercial use recognized by the by-law. On this record, the judge concluded that the property was being used in a manner inconsistent with every permitted residential or commercial category, and thus was clearly in breach of the Zoning By-law.

Property standards and yard maintenance violations

Separate but related issues arose under the Town’s Property Standards By-law 2010-50 and Yard Maintenance By-law 04-31. These instruments regulate the condition, cleanliness, and safety of lands and structures, and they applied even if the trailers were not lawful uses under the zoning regime.
Under the Property Standards By-law, a “dwelling” is defined broadly as a building or structure, or part of one, occupied or capable of being occupied for human habitation, including the land and premises appurtenant to it. On this wider definition, the trailers on the property, though not permitted by zoning, still counted as dwellings for property-standards purposes. That classification triggered obligations regarding minimum standards of “physical conditions and occupancy.”
Section 3.13 of the Property Standards By-law imposes standards for parking, walkways and safe passage. The photographs supporting Mr. Feeney’s affidavit showed muddy, unpaved access routes with pooling water, and a lack of any gravel or coarse surface on the paths connecting the trailers and other structures. This failed to meet the safe access and surface requirements. Section 3.13.3 further requires adequate exterior lighting in yards of multiple dwellings or non-residential properties to minimize danger to persons using walkways; the evidence showed a lack of adequate lighting around and between the trailers, again contrary to the by-law.
Residential standards in s. 4 of the Property Standards By-law include provisions on garbage disposal. Section 4.10 requires garbage, rubbish and other debris to be properly stored and removed in accordance with Town regulations. Mr. Feeney’s observations of empty propane tanks, scrap metal and miscellaneous materials scattered across the property, corroborated by photographs, demonstrated non-compliance. Although Mr. Belanger and Mr. Godfrey asserted there was no garbage and claimed that skids were being recycled, they submitted no responsive affidavit or documentary proof, and their bare assertions were directly contradicted by the unchallenged visual evidence.
The Yard Maintenance By-law adds another layer of obligation. Sections 2 and 3 require every yard to be kept at all times in a neat, clean, tidy condition, free from objects or conditions that may create a health, fire or accident hazard or a public nuisance, and free from refuse, rubbish, garbage, brush and other debris. The photographs showed refuse and garbage between the trailers and around the property, including scrap metal and empty propane tanks, plainly contravening these provisions. Taken together, the by-law frameworks established that the property’s state of cleanliness, safety, and maintenance was non-compliant on multiple fronts.

Legal test for a permanent injunction and application to non-parties

The Town brought its application under s. 440 of the Municipal Act, 2001, which permits a municipality to apply to restrain contraventions of its by-laws. Jurisprudence cited by Justice Ryan Bell explains that when a municipality proves an ongoing breach of a by-law, courts generally grant an injunction and will refuse such relief only in exceptional circumstances. The court referenced authorities affirming that, once a breach is established, the municipality does not need to prove the usual equitable elements (such as irreparable harm) to the same degree as in purely private disputes.
The application named not only the owner, Jack Belanger, but also Jane and John Doe respondents representing the occupants of the trailers, one of whom—Mr. Godfrey—took part in the proceeding. The court relied on authorities such as MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Simpson and City of Ottawa v. Persons Unknown to confirm that injunctions can bind non-parties or persons unknown, so long as they have notice, under the principle that those aware of an order must not knowingly act to frustrate it. This justified the framing of the order to bind “any other person having notice” of the order, and to capture all individuals residing at or making use of the site going forward.

Declarations, injunctive relief, and enforcement mechanisms

Having found clear breaches of the Zoning By-law, the Property Standards By-law, and the Yard Maintenance By-law, the court granted extensive declaratory and injunctive relief in favour of the Town. The declarations included findings that:

• The placement and use of trailers and any residential use of the cinderblock sheds on 1388 Bridge Street contravene the Zoning By-law, and the respondents have breached that by-law.
• The maintenance and cleanliness of the property violate both the Yard Maintenance By-law and the Property Standards By-law.
  The court then issued a permanent injunction restraining the respondents and any person with notice of the order from:
• Using or permitting use of 1388 Bridge Street in any manner not allowed by the Zoning By-law;
• Breaching the Yard Maintenance or Property Standards By-laws at the property;
• Placing any trailers or structures on the land except as permitted by zoning;
• Allowing any individual to begin residing in a trailer or structure unless compliant with the Zoning and Property Standards By-laws;
• Depositing garbage or refuse on the property except as allowed under the Property Standards By-law;
• Storing or piling construction materials on the property; and
• Committing any further violation of the Zoning, Property Standards, or Yard Maintenance By-laws.
  Crucially, the order required the respondents to bring the property into full compliance by June 1, 2026. This compliance obligation includes:
• Removing all trailers or recreational vehicles from the property;
• Either obtaining a permit for or removing the cinderblock sheds and the Quonset hut;
• Removing all garbage, refuse and construction materials to the satisfaction of the Town;
• Ceasing to occupy, reside in or enter any trailer on the property; and
• Ceasing to occupy or reside in any cinderblock shed.
  If the respondents fail to comply by the deadline, the Town is expressly authorized to remove, disassemble or dispose of the cinderblock sheds, trailers, and any associated constructions that remain non-compliant. The local Sheriff or police are empowered to assist the Town in enforcing the order, and the respondents and anyone with notice are barred from interfering with these enforcement steps.
  The order also provides that the respondents are jointly and severally liable to the Town for all costs it incurs in carrying out the provisions of the order, including cleanup, removal, and disposal. The Town may recover these amounts under the Rules of Civil Procedure and may add such costs to the Assessment Roll for 1388 Bridge Street. Notice of the order can be given by posting a copy at or near the entrance to the property.

Outcome, successful party, and monetary consequences

In the result, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted the Town of Greater Napanee and its Chief Building Official all of the core declaratory and permanent injunctive relief sought to enforce the Town’s Zoning, Property Standards and Yard Maintenance By-laws at 1388 Bridge Street. The Town is therefore the successful party.
The court did not fix a specific monetary award in this decision. Instead, it: (1) made the respondents jointly and severally liable for the Town’s future costs of enforcing the order (such as cleanup and removal expenses), which will be quantified later through enforcement and potentially added to the property’s Assessment Roll, and (2) reserved the question of legal costs of the application, setting a timetable for written submissions on costs. Because no dollar figure is specified for either the enforcement costs or the legal costs at this stage, the total monetary amount ultimately payable in favour of the Town cannot be determined from this judgment.