Court File No.

CV-12-3016-00 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: FARHAT KHALID Plaintiff -andTHE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF MISSISSAUGA, Frank S.P. Spagnolo, Craig Wesley, Marian Matson, David Martin Defendants

REPLY TO DEFENCE
1. The Plaintiff, Farhat Khalid, admits the allegations contained in paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Statement of Defence. 2. The Plaintiff had no knowledge in respect to the allegation contained in paragraph 9 of the Statement of Defence. Repeated requests for the complaint were denied and never disclosed. 3. The Plaintiff denies each and every other allegation contained in the Statement of Defence, and puts the Defendants to the strict proof thereof. 4. 5. The Plaintiff repeats and relies on the allegations of the Statement of Claim. The Plaintiff states that contrary to the statement made at paragraph 3 of the Statement of Defence, in the first week of September 2010, prior to construction, the Building Department was informed by Saleh, accompanied by Bhatti, that the
1

condition of the house was precarious and dangerous due to the flooding of the basement. Saleh attempted to submit hand drawings and requested a permit. The Building Department was well aware of the flood situation and the application for the side entrance, but the request was not acknowledged and the duty of care owed by the Defendant to the Plaintiff was deliberately ignored by the Citys Building Departments clerk in the first week of September 2010. At this time no one at the counter mentioned a by-law that prohibits side entrances. Timing was the most crucial element in this case. Knowingly and deliberately, no advice was given except to bring proper drawings regarding the side entrance. The Plaintiff again emphasizes the fact that there was no intention to construct without the permit and every effort humanly possible was made to achieve the required permit. It is worthwhile mentioning that a few years ago, when the City was repairing or resurfacing the Plaintiffs road, they extended the Plaintiffs driveway. They accepted hand drawings and a permit was issued. At that time, no question was asked about proper drawings etc. The Plaintiff was relying on the same procedure at this time as well. 6. Contrary to the statement made at paragraph 10, 11, 13, 14, 15 and 17 of the Statement of Defence, Wesley knew from the first week of September 2010, that the Plaintiff was struggling for the permit that could not be achieved due to the By-law. Instead, he took action once the entrance was completed. The statement in Order to Comply, to remove the side entrance by December 21, 2010 was frivolous or vexatious. The City has the power to issue a Stop Work Order as soon as City was aware of the fact that there would be a side entrance construction which is not permitted by the By-law. In the first two weeks of September 2010, where
2

preparation for the side entrance was in process and not built, the Building Department was fully aware of this fact while dealing with the submitted hand drawings by Saleh. Mr. David Ryder, City inspector, inspected the property on November 19, 2010 and clearly indicated that there is no basement apartment or second dwelling. The purpose of this entrance was to fix the structural damage to the property and to have the basement bright and accessible to the outside in case of fire (safety). 7. Contrary to the statement made at paragraph 12 of the Statement of Defence, as mentioned in above paragraph # 5, information about the By-law that prohibits the side entrance was not provided by the City to the Plaintiff. The City only told the Plaintiff to get the proper drawings and the permit will be issued. To fix the cracks in the wall, a contractor had to cut the concrete blocks from different locations. It was determined that where there was a necessity to cut the concrete, installing a door and window in its place was more convenient. If the Plaintiff had received information about the By-law that prohibits the side entrance within the first two weeks of September 2010, there would not be a side entrance, since the Plaintiff believes in the Laws supremacy. This is by the fact that the Plaintiff has not been involved in any law infringement, including even a parking offense, in more than 30 years of residency in the City of Mississauga. 8. The Plaintiff states that contrary to the statement made at paragraph 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the Statement of Defence, that the application for the required building permit was accepted on October 29, 2010, after a considerable struggle of more than
3

one month. The Plaintiff first knew about the By-law that prohibits side entrances, on or about early November 2010 after reviewing the application status report online. This project was very small and took only approximately three days of work and was finished on or about the middle of September 2010.This structure occupied an area of approximately 10 square meters as per section 1. (1) (a). of the Building Code Act. Wesley failed to measure the occupied area and breached his duties on or about October 15, 2010. The information provided in the month of November 2010 was immaterial and useless because it cannot be used for any determination regarding the By-law. This information should have been provided in the first two weeks of September 2010, when the work was in process and the City was assessing the drawings. 9. With respect to paragraph 21, 22 and 23, it was told that with respect of 21(b), that the deposit amount is due once the permit would be ready and payable before the delivery of the permit. The Plaintiff is ready to pay this deposit as per the Citys demand. Saleh met with Martin approximately three times in between November 2010 and August 2011 to find out the procedure of the Committee of Adjustment and had very detailed conversations. Martin very clearly explained, after looking at the actual drawing of the property, that approval from the Committee of Adjustment would be impossible. He informed that no matter what the Plaintiff did, she would not obtain this approval, even if there were no objection letters from neighbors, since the City has never approved any side entrances in the past according to his knowledge. Martin specifically pointed out that the Committee may grant approval if the entrance would have been at the back side of the house. This is also confirmed by an e-mail
4

dated July 27, 2011from Matson. As you are now aware, this contravenes the Zoning By-law and may not be approved by the Committee of Adjustment.. Also please refer to an e-mail from Ms. Danielle Koehn Student at-Law, the Corporation of the City of Mississauga dated May 10, 2012. The Plaintiff states that if above mentioned information was not provided by Martin, the Plaintiff would have applied to the Committee of Adjustment since the Plaintiff had gone through all the other objections including providing a report from a structural engineer. There was no rational reason not to file an application with the Committee of Adjustment, if Martin had not provided misleading information. Martin breached his duty of care owed to the Plaintiff. The fact of this matter is that Martin is responsible for the Plaintiff not applying to the Committee of Adjustment, and that the Plaintiff had full intention to follow procedure, evident by the fact that Martin was contacted three times. If there was no intention to apply to the Committee of Adjustment, there would not have been any attempts to clarify and resolve this issue. 10. The Plaintiff states that, contrary to the statement made at paragraph 24 of the Statement of Defence, regarding the threatening letters dated April 27, 2011 and March 21, 2011. These letters do not offer any guidance, instruction, solution, suggestion or direction and had no meaningful weight under the situation. They offer a clear proof of how the Citys officials were misleading. On one hand, the City is notifying the Plaintiff that the order had not yet been complied with, and warned that this was an offence. On the other hand, Martin, who was in charge of the Committee of Adjustment, was stating that there was no possibility of getting approval from the Committee of Adjustment. The Plaintiff was led to a dead end with no solution in
5

sight. The City is fully responsible for putting the Plaintiff in this position. This is a proof of predetermined and deliberate malicious intent against the Plaintiff. 11. With respect to paragraph 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 , and 31 of the Statement of Defence, the Plaintiff states that when the Plaintiff realized that City and their official had trapped the plaintiff, another honest attempt to resolve the situation was to arrange a meeting with Matson and Wesley. This meeting request was accepted by Matson. Instead of solving the situation or providing any further direction, a Summon was served right away as soon as the meeting was started. The Citys action knowingly and deliberately provoked the situation. This Summon was served contrary to the Section 3. (3) of the Provincial Offences Act Service: The offence notice or summons shall be served personally upon the person charged within 30 days after the alleged offence occurred. This Summon was not served to the person charged. Also contrary to the Section 3. (6) Wesley lied under oath regarding Affidavit of Service by stating I could not conveniently find the Defendant and left the summons for him/her at his / her known or usual place of abode with Saleh Khalid an inmate thereof who appeared at least sixteen years of age; , which is a criminal offence under the Criminal Code. Wesley did not leave the Summons at the Plaintiffs residence. As mentioned above, the purpose of this meeting was to get help to resolve this matter. By accepting this Summons the way it was served, a legal challenge was accepted. This Summons should have been achieved and served to the contractor who built this project according to the Building Code Act and not the Plaintiff, Farhat Khalid. This is a normal practice to achieve and serve the Summons to the contractor and not to the property owner. Saleh overheard a conversation
6

between Wesley and Mr. Tim Gallangher of the building department, regarding this matter, on August 12, 2011 right after the meeting, on the 3rd floor. Wesley was saying, We should hang up the contractor. The City knew and had the contractors information on the application for the permit. The City had no justification to serve a Summons in a meeting, when they had more than two months left to take this action either before scheduling the meeting, and had the right to cancel the meeting or even one day after the meeting (August 13, 2011 to October 15, 2011 was within 2 months) Their excuse to have this Summons served before two months of expiry of limitation period by the Building Code Act is false and the Plaintiff puts the Defendants to the strict proof thereof. The Plaintiff repeats again that Matson and Wesleys action were unethical, an abuse of power, intentionally malicious, and instigated undue and undeserved hardship. The City and their officials had never demonstrated their help except providing misleading information to the Plaintiff under this situation. In this situation, the City and their officials had malicious intent to punish the Plaintiff, who had not showed any lack of effort to achieve this permit. The Plaintiff put the Defendants to the strict proof thereof. If instead of serving the Summons, they had given the Plaintiff just one day to apply for the Committee of Adjustment and properly informed the Plaintiff that there was a possibility to get the approval from the Committee of Adjustment, the Plaintiff would have accepted that offer since the Minor Variance application was ready for submission on or about August 12, 2011. The Plaintiff had full intention to apply on August 12, 2011 after the meeting and if there was no Summons served. The Plaintiff had no knowledge of Summons waiting to be served in this meeting. The previous record of the Plaintiff
7

speaks for itself. On the part of the City, this kind of behavior is not acceptable in our civilized society. The City officials were very much aware of the fact through the Plaintiffs e-mail dated July 25, 2011, and the previous telephonic conversation approximately in the month of June 2011, about the information provided by Martin. The City never denied or accepted this, and kept silence about it. The Plaintiff relied on the fact that silence means acceptance. On August 12, 2011, when the Summons was served, the purpose of the meeting was to mitigate and to find out if the information provided by Martin was correct or incorrect, or if there was any other way to handle the situation or get guidance, instruction or direction to resolve this issue. The purpose of the meeting was not to receive a Summons. The Plaintiff was relying on the information provided by Martin.
12.

The Plaintiff states that, contrary to the statement made at paragraph 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 of the Statement of Defence, a formal complaint regarding City Staff members Wesley and Matson was filed under Corporate Policy and Procedure on or about September 12, 2011. The purpose of this complaint was that the City and officials may learn from their mistakes and prevent this problem from happening again. Under the Citys policy and procedure, the deadline for Complaint Resolution was 30 days. A meeting was held on November 9, 2011 and there was no resolution until the Plaintiff requested the result of the complaint via e-mail dated February 6, 2012. An e-mail was received describing the result of their investigation on February 13, 2012, after 5 months, when according to the Citys policy, it should be resolved within 30 days of receipt. The City has no justification for the breach of their own Corporate Policy and Procedure. The outcome of their investigation was biased and
8

openly protected their employees against their unethical act. This is unacceptable. The Plaintiffs e-mail dated February 13, 2012, stated that the resolution should be an apology from the City regarding the conduct of its employees, and should withdraw the charges. The Plaintiff had full intention to apply for the Committee of Adjustment, but if, there was no incorrect information provided by Martin. The City was given 30 days to do this, otherwise legal action may commence against the City and its Officials. There has been no response to this e-mail to date. The Plaintiff maintains that this minor issue would have been very easily resolved with proper dialogue with the City, however this has not been possible due to the lack of cooperation by the Citys officials. The Plaintiff was forced to take this very expansive action based on values and principles. Date:__October 19, 2012__________________ Farhat Khalid 5200 Swiftcurrent Trail Mississauga, Ontario L5R 2H8 Tel: 905-712-0014 Plaintiff on her own behalf To: LOOPSTRA NIXON LLP Barristers and Solicitors 135 Queens Plate Drive, Suite 600 Toronto, Ontario M9W 6V7 Charles M. Loopstra LSUC No. 11598U Fiona Li LSUC No. 59862K Tel: (416) 746-4710 Fax: (416) 746-8319 Lawyers for the Defendants
9