The Ontario Court of Appeal has brought a definitive end to a long-running dispute between the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio and two men over the state of a local property1. In a decision released on December 30, 2025, Justice L.B. Roberts dismissed a motion by the property owner and his tenant that sought to revive a previously dismissed appeal. The ruling effectively upholds a permanent injunction requiring the property to be cleared of abandoned vehicles, tires, trailers, and various debris that have cluttered the site for years.
The legal conflict originated more than seven years ago, tracing back to the first official complaint regarding the property’s condition on June 7, 2018. The site is owned by Timothy Saunders and occupied by his tenant, Alvin Lindhorst. According to court records, the Township spent years attempting to secure voluntary compliance with its Property Standards By-law, which was passed under the authority of the Building Code Act. When informal requests failed to produce results, the municipality was forced to issue formal orders to comply.
Mr. Saunders and Mr. Lindhorst did not take these orders lightly. They initially appealed a October 2018 order to the Property Standards Committee, which is a local body designed to hear such disputes. The committee confirmed the Township’s order, and the property owners chose not to appeal that specific decision further at the time. However, despite the legal requirement to clean the land, the debris remained.
As the years progressed, the Township’s efforts to enforce the law met with what the court described as steadfast resistance. The municipality eventually turned to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to seek a permanent injunction. During these proceedings, the Township reported significant difficulty even documenting the state of the land, alleging that the occupants barred municipal officials from entering the property to take photographs of the progress, or lack thereof.
The matter reached a turning point on December 9, 2024, when an application judge granted the Township the permanent injunction it sought. The judge ordered the residents to clear the property of the accumulated junk. In January 2025, the court also ordered the men to pay $7,500 in legal costs to the Township, an amount that remained unpaid as of the most recent hearing.
Unwilling to accept the injunction, Mr. Saunders and Mr. Lindhorst filed an appeal. However, the legal process for an appeal requires strict adherence to timelines and procedural rules, known as perfecting the appeal. On May 13, 2025, the Registrar of the Court of Appeal dismissed their case entirely because of significant delays and failures to meet these procedural requirements.
Several months later, the men moved to set aside the Registrar’s dismissal, asking the court for another chance to argue their case and an extension of time to get their paperwork in order. This led to the hearing before Justice Roberts in December 2025. During the hearing, Mr. Lindhorst represented himself and Mr. Saunders, while the Township was represented by a team of three lawyers. Given the complexities involved in self-representation, a lawyer from Pro Bono Ontario appeared as amicus curiae, or a friend of the court, to provide independent legal perspective.
In her review of the case, Justice Roberts applied a well-established legal test for setting aside a dismissal for delay. This test considers the length of the delay, the explanation provided, whether the other party would be unfairly prejudiced, and the overall merits of the proposed appeal. The justice found that the moving parties failed on every front.
The explanation for the delay was found to be inadequate. Justice Roberts noted that even after the Registrar issued a warning notice in April 2025, the men did not act with the urgency required. Instead, the court found they waited more than three months after the dismissal to even ask for the case to be reopened. Justice Roberts characterized this as part of a continuing pattern of vexatious behavior and unreasonable delay.
The court also took issue with the conduct of the moving parties during the motion process itself. Despite clear instructions from the judge to only file specific affidavits that were used in the previous hearing, Mr. Lindhorst attempted to file a new, lengthy affidavit addressing substantive issues. The court office rejected this document, and Justice Roberts cited this attempt as further evidence of an ongoing pattern of behavior intended to frustrate the legal process.
In assessing the merits of the appeal, Justice Roberts determined that the arguments were frivolous and lacked any real chance of success. The men had argued that the application judge ignored evidence that they had started cleaning the property. They also raised a limitations period defense and claimed they had a legal non-conforming use, essentially arguing that the property was allowed to be a junkyard because it had been used that way for a long time.
Justice Roberts disagreed with all these points. She noted that while the men may have made a recent show of progress, the evidence showed the cleanup was far from complete. The legal defenses were also found to be groundless. The limitations defense did not apply because the Township brought the case under a specific section of the Building Code Act intended for such enforcement. Furthermore, there was no evidence the property was used as a junkyard when the by-law was originally passed, and Mr. Lindhorst himself admitted that no actual business was being conducted on the site.
The court emphasized that the Township and the public interest suffered continued prejudice because of the ongoing state of the property. The justice noted that the municipality should not be forced to endure further delays in a matter that has already spanned the better part of a decade. The decision pointed out that the residents had reached the end of the line and that it was high time the property was cleaned up.
The final ruling dismissed the motions to set aside the dismissal and for an extension of time. This means the permanent injunction remains in full effect, and the Township can proceed with enforcement. The court also ruled that the Township is entitled to its legal costs for this motion, adding to the financial burden already facing the property owner and tenant.
The decision serves as a conclusion to a protracted local governance issue in Adjala-Tosorontio, a township located in Simcoe County. For the residents and the municipality, the ruling confirms that while the legal system allows for many avenues of defense, those avenues cannot be used indefinitely to avoid compliance with local property standards and environmental regulations.
Read more Ontario legal news here.
