Counsel:
C.G. Bendick, for the respondent
Keywords: Provincial Offences, Building Code
Violations, Administrative Law, Orders, Collateral Attack,
Building Code Act, ss. 1, ss. 8(1), ss. 12(2), ss. 25, ss.
36(1),
R v Consolidated Maybrun Mines Ltd., [1998] 1 SCR
706,
Wilson v The Queen, [1983] 2 SCR 594,
R v
Bird, 2019 SCC 7,
Garland v Consumers Gas Co.,
2004 SCC 25,
Amtim Capital Inc. v Appliance Recycling Centers
of America, 2014 ONCA 62,
R v Domm, (1996) 31 OR (3d)
540 (CA),
Canada (Attorney General) v Telezone Inc., 2010
SCC 62,
Toronto (City) v CUPE, Local 79, 203 SCC 63,
864503 Alberta Inc. v Genco Place Properties Ltd., 2019
ABCA 80
facts:
Building Code Act (the
Building
Code ). Between 1973 and 1996 the appellant erected
several buildings on his property and entered into site plans and
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
To commence proceedings in Australia, statutory requirements in
relation to a nexus to Australia (citizenship, residency, domicile,
and/or geographical) must be met.
1 Provided these are
met, the Australian Family Courts will have jurisdiction to make
Orders dealing with overseas assets in property settlement
proceedings.
There are strategic considerations to take into account for
parties who may need to compare their respective rights and
entitlements under the applicable law of each country (and the
risks and benefits of commencing proceedings in each of the