City: Judge wrong in airport case

By Joel Wittnebel/The Oshawa Express

The city’s legal team is asking for a ruling calling for it to pay $125,000 in legal costs to be quashed, claiming the findings of the Justice of the Peace who handed down the decision to be “unreasonable” and that she “mixed fact and law, which were clearly not supported by evidence.”

In February, Justice of the Peace Maxine Coopersmith ordered the city to pay over $125,000 in legal fees to Philip Sciuk, the owner of a hangar at the Oshawa Executive Airport. In 2013, Sciuk constructed an addition to his unit without first obtaining a building permit from the city.

In her ruling, Coopersmith found the city had no jurisdiction to order Sciuk to obtain a permit as the aeronautics industry falls under federal jurisdiction.

On top of that, the justice did not mince words when she slammed the city’s legal tactics in the case, calling them  “coercion” and claiming the city’s “self-serving interests appear to have overtaken the broad public interest.”

However, in its appeal, the city’s legal team is attempting to turn the tables, claiming the judge misinterpreted several facts in the case and failed to apply proper precedents.

The most significant error in the judgement, the city claims, is that the judge appears to have given no consideration to the fact of who owns the airport.

According to the appeal, the land upon which the hangar sits, part of the Hangarminiums development, was sold to the owner in 2009 when the city declared it surplus. Part of that agreement stated the federal government would be removing that land as part of the airport.

“This clause is the clearest evidence of the intention of the federal government that the Respondent’s property would not form part of the Oshawa Municipal Airport,” the appeal reads.

Further, the appeal claims the sale agreement also requires the owner to obtain a building permit for any construction on the site, of which Sciuk’s unit it a part.

“This apparent neglect on the part of the Justice of the Peace is a marked omission and clear error in failing to consider relevant evidence,” the appeal states.

The city also claims the justice did not have the jurisdiction to grant the relief in legal fees that she did.

Additionally, the appeal claims the legal costs are too much and accuse Sciuk of “overlawyering.”

“By having a total of four lawyers actively working on the file, spending a total of 416 hours, with much of the work claimed being duplicative, including not having most often two and sometimes three lawyers attend court on behalf of the Respondent during the hearing of the trial and the Motion. The total hours claimed by the Respondent was clearly and obviously excessive,” the appeal reads.

The city is requesting the decision be reversed, the costs stayed, and for Sciuk to be found guilty. If that doesn’t happen, the city wants a new trial.

As the matter is before the courts, the city declined to comment for this story.

“I respectfully decline to comment on this appeal, which is pending before the Ontario Court of Justice,” states Jag Sharma, city manager in an emailed statement. “The city’s notice of appeal outlines the City’s position on each issue on the appeal.”