The Manitoba Court of Appeal has upheld an order allowing the Rural Municipality of Lac du Bonnet to enforce a long-standing trailer-removal requirement against a property owner’s estate.
In Lac du Bonnet (Rural Municipality of) v Sarapu Estate, 2026 MBCA 83, the court dismissed the estate administrator’s appeal with costs to the municipality. The decision was pronounced on September 11, 2026.
The unanimous panel concluded that a 2015 order remained final and binding. An argument that the municipality’s zoning bylaw conflicted with that order came too late to prevent its enforcement.
Trailer dispute continued after owner’s death
The dispute began with a licence issued in 1986 under the municipality’s trailer bylaw. It permitted James Jacob Sarapu to have 19 designated mobile-home spaces on his property. The park later expanded by another 13 trailers without municipal approval.
In 2013, the municipality applied to court to secure compliance with the trailer bylaw. Sarapu argued that the zoning bylaw permitted trailers beyond the 19 designated spaces. The judge rejected that position and, on January 26, 2015, ordered removal of the additional trailers.
The municipality took a further enforcement step in 2023, issuing a notice of contravention and an order to remedy the breaches under section 242 of Manitoba’s Municipal Act. Sarapu appealed to municipal council, which denied his appeal.
Neither Sarapu nor the estate’s litigation administrator appealed the 2015 court order or sought judicial review of council’s decision.
Sarapu died in January 2025 without complying with the removal order. That June, the municipality moved to enforce it against his estate. On October 23, 2025, a motion judge declared the order enforceable, requiring the estate to remove the additional mobile homes and travel trailers.
Final order remained enforceable
On appeal, the administrator argued that the zoning bylaw should override the 2015 order and challenged the motion judge’s finding that the bylaw was not a statutory provision. The enforcement motion had focused primarily on an alleged conflict with section 2.9.3 of the zoning bylaw.
Justice James G. Edmond, writing for the panel, concluded that the motion judge had jurisdiction under rule 60.06(2) of Manitoba’s King’s Bench Rules to make the earlier order enforceable against the estate. The panel also agreed that it was too late to argue that the 2015 order was contrary to the zoning bylaw.
The ruling leaves the removal obligation enforceable against the estate. Its reasoning rests on the finality of the unappealed order and the court’s authority to enforce it against the estate; it does not resolve the bylaw’s interpretation afresh. The reasons award costs to the municipality without specifying an amount.
