In the 2025 case of St Catharines v. Al-Kadhee, the City brought an application for a closing order in respect of a private residence pursuant to s. 447.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001. The Court confirmed that the legislation does not just apply to commercial properties and issued a closing order for 12 months.

The residence was referred to as a ‘drug house’ that constituted a public nuisance. There was evidence of violence, drug use, excessive noise, trespass, fire safety concerns, and accumulation of garbage (including biohazardous materials and used needles) that impacted the surrounding community’s use and enjoyment of their properties.

Within a 2-year period, the City issued 11 orders to comply with garbage by-laws and there were 20 fire department calls, more than 72 police calls, and 30 paramedic calls. The home owner was aware of the nuisance and did not provide evidence of improvement.

The City satisfied the statutory prerequisites for a closing order:

1. Activities or circumstances on or in the premises constitute a public nuisance or cause or contribute to activities or circumstances constituting a public nuisance in the vicinity of the premises;
2. The public nuisance has a detrimental impact on the use and enjoyment of property in the vicinity of the premises;
3. The owner of the premises knew that the activities or circumstances constituting the public nuisance were taking place and did not take adequate steps to eliminate the public nuisance;
4. The City received consent from the local chief of police to bring the application (which shall not be refused unless they are of the opinion that the applicant may have an impact on the operations of the police);
5. The City provided the Attorney General with 15 days’ notice of its intention to bring the application after obtaining police consent; and
6. The Attorney General did not oppose the application.

The Court noted that the 1999 Supreme Court of Canada case of Ryan v. Victoria defined ‘public nuisance’ as,

“any activity which unreasonably interferes with the public’s interest in questions of health, safety, morality, comfort or convenience.”  The conduct must constitute “an attack upon the rights of the public generally to live their lives unaffected by inconvenience, discomfort or other forms of interference.”

Ryan identified five factors to be considered in determining whether a particular activity rises to the level of a public nuisance:

1. the inconvenience caused by the activity;
2. the difficulty in lessening or avoiding the risk;
3. the utility of the activity;
4. the general practice of others; and
5. the character of the neighbourhood.

The City sought a closing order for 2 years being the maximum allowable; however, a closing order should not be any longer than reasonably necessary to provide a significant break in the use of the property to ensure the public nuisance does not resume and the Court determined that 12 months was sufficient.

The owner indicated that the tenants had already been removed and he did not have personal items to retrieve. On this basis it the Court deemed it appropriate to make the closing order effective immediately. In the 2018 case of Kenora (City) v. Eikre Holdings Ltd, the court provided almost four months for the tenants in an illegal boarding house to find new accommodations.

The effect of a closing order is that the property is ‘closed’ and may not be used for any purpose. Any person attending the property, including the owner, is deemed a trespasser and may be removed by the police.

However, the Court noted that the order did not prevent attendance by the City (or a person authorized by the City) to complete:

1. work needed to comply with the closing order,
2. repairs or maintenance to the property, or
3. any cleanup or remediation to the property to deal with current life safety, fire safety, or public health issues.