Court orders Napanee property cleared as bylaw breaches deemed 'clear'

A Superior Court judge has ordered a Napanee property owner to remove trailers, structures, and debris from a rural Bridge Street property, finding “clear breaches” of multiple municipal bylaws and giving the Town sweeping powers to enforce compliance if the site is not cleaned up.

In a written decision released on Tuesday, Mar. 24, 2026, Justice Robyn Ryan Bell granted the Town of Greater Napanee a permanent injunction against the owner of 1388 Bridge Street, Jack Belanger, along with other occupants of the property. The ruling follows months of complaints and inspections, and marks a significant escalation by the municipality, which turned to the courts after ongoing concerns about how the property was being used — and the conditions on site. The case had been heard in the Superior Court of Justice at 5 Court Street in Kingston on Wednesday, Mar. 4, 2026.

“The Town’s evidence establishes clear breaches of its Zoning By-law, Property Standards By-law, and Yard Maintenance By-law,” Justice Ryan Bell wrote in her decision.

Trailers and makeshift dwellings not permitted

At its core, the case is how the property — located in a rural area west of Napanee’s main population centre — has been and continues to be used.

The land is zoned “Prime Agriculture,” which imposes strict limits on the types of residential uses allowed. The court heard that the site had become a cluster of informal dwellings, with multiple people living in trailers and other structures.

According to evidence from Greater Napanee Deputy Fire Chief James Feeney, the property contained eight to 10 “recreational vehicles,” some with structures built onto them, along with a Quonset hut (prefabricated structure with a semicircular shape) and a cinder block shed. Muddy pathways crisscrossed the site, connecting the various structures, and debris was scattered throughout.

“I find the current use of 1388 Bridge Street does not meet any of the permitted residential uses under the Zoning By-law,” Justice Ryan Bell wrote.

The bylaw is explicit that a dwelling does not include “a trailer, motor home or sea-can (shipping container),” and the judge noted there was no evidence that any of the structures on the property met the definition of a lawful dwelling unit. Nor was there any indication the site qualified as a group home, special care facility, or transitional housing — all of which are permitted under specific circumstances.

“Accordingly, I find 1388 Bridge Street is being used in a manner contrary to the Zoning By-law,” she concluded.

Safety, maintenance, debris concerns

The court also found the property fell well short of municipal standards for safety and maintenance. Photographic evidence filed by the Town showed muddy access routes between structures, with no proper surface.

“Photographs… show a lack of any gravel or coarse surface, and puddling on the muddy roads,” Ryan Bell wrote.

The judge also pointed to inadequate lighting between the structures, raising safety concerns for those on site.

Conditions on the property also included scattered debris and materials. The Town’s evidence described “empty propane tanks, scrap metal, and other materials strewn about the property,” which the judge accepted.

Despite claims from Belanger and another occupant that there was no garbage on site, Bell rejected that position outright, writing, “The only evidence before me plainly contradicts their assertion that there is no garbage present on the property.”

The court further found that the property violated the Town’s yard maintenance rules, which require properties to be kept free of refuse and hazards.

“The photographic evidence plainly shows refuse throughout 1388 Bridge Street,” the decision states.

Little evidence from property owner

A key factor in the ruling was the lack of evidence from the respondents.

At a first appearance before Justice Laurie Lacelle, Belanger and a longtime resident of the property, Michael Godfrey, were both present but chose to self-represent. Lacelle scheduled an appearance before Ryan Bell on January 22, 2026, for the matter to be heard.

On that day, the Town was ready to proceed. However, Belanger and Godfrey requested an adjournment to file responding materials, so Ryan Bell adjourned the application to March 4, 2026, with a new timetable.

Although Belanger and another occupant were given months to file responding materials, they did not submit any evidence before the hearing.

Ryan Bell notes that the only evidence before the court is the affidavit of Deputy Fire Chief Feeney.

"At the outset of his [March 4] submissions," writes Justice Ryan Bell, "Godfrey requested that I strike Mr. Feeney’s affidavit from the record because Mr. Godfrey was not 'invited' to cross-examine Mr. Feeney... I dismissed Mr. Godfrey’s motion on the basis that it was simply too late – Mr. Godfrey did not give the Town or the court any notice of his intended motion." 

"In addition, as I explained to Mr. Godfrey, a party is not 'invited' to cross-examine an affiant. The opportunity to conduct cross-examinations was expressly addressed in the detailed timetable I established for the hearing of the application. Mr. Godfrey did not avail himself of that opportunity."

The judge ruled the request was “simply too late,” noting the respondents had been given a clear opportunity to cross-examine the Town’s witness but did not take it.

As a result, the Town’s evidence — including photographs and observations from fire officials — was largely uncontested.

In her decision, Justice Ryan Bell emphasized, “Where a municipal authority seeks an injunction to enforce a bylaw… the courts will refuse the application only in exceptional circumstances,” citing prior case law that courts generally support municipalities seeking to enforce their bylaws.

In this case, she found no exceptional circumstances. “The evidence establishes… contraventions of the Zoning, Property Standards and Yard Maintenance By-laws. The Town is entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief.”

Deadline to comply — or face forced cleanup

The court has given Belanger, the property owner, until June 1, 2026, to bring the site “into compliance with the Zoning, Property Standards, and Yard Maintenance By-laws.” This would include: 

• removing all trailers or recreational vehicles located on the property;
• obtaining a permit for or removing the cinder block sheds and Quonset hut;
• removing all garbage, refuse, and construction materials to the satisfaction of the Town;
• ceasing to occupy, reside in, or enter any trailer located on the property; and
• ceasing to occupy or reside in any cinder block shed located on the property.

The order also prohibits anyone from continuing to use the property in violation of the Town’s bylaws, thereby extending the order's reach to anyone occupying the property, not just Belanger.

If the deadline is not met, the consequences escalate significantly. 

Ryan Bell has ordered that the Town has the court’s permission to enter the property and carry out the cleanup itself, with assistance from police if necessary. Should this happen, “the respondents and any person having notice of the order shall be enjoined from interfering with or preventing any actions taken by the Town, the police, or anyone acting under their authority.”

Furthermore, Ryan Bell writes, “The respondents shall be jointly and severally liable to the Town for all costs incurred in carrying out the provisions of my order, including clean up, removal and disposal costs.” Any costs incurred can be recovered from the property owner and added to the property’s tax roll.

Town says enforcement driven by safety concerns

In a statement following the ruling, Town officials said the decision confirms longstanding concerns about both the legality and safety of the property’s use. They sought the injunction after determining that individuals were residing on the property illegally and that the site posed several potential risks.

“The Town understood that the conditions at 1388 Bridge Street represented a health and safety risk to the individuals living there as well as to neighbouring property owners,” said the Town's Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), Matthew Grant.

Town officials noted that fire hazards had previously been identified at the property and removed by the fire department under a warrant.

The municipality also pointed to a broader complication: some individuals living at the site were receiving housing supplements through Prince Edward–Lennox and Addington Social Services (PELASS).

The Town had previously asked the provincial government to review how housing funding could be used in situations like this, after learning that those supports were being applied to housing arrangements that did not comply with local bylaws. That request was declined.

Following the court’s decision, the Town said it has contacted PELASS to help notify any affected clients that their current living arrangements have been deemed illegal. The Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) have also been notified, as they may be required to assist if enforcement becomes necessary.

Months of enforcement before court action

The issue unfolded over several months before reaching the courts. Town records show that after an initial complaint in September 2024, municipal staff conducted repeated site visits, issued fire and property orders, and set a compliance deadline in spring 2025 before ultimately proceeding with a court application.

The dispute also exposed a broader policy tension. The Town noted in a release that it asked both the province and PELASS to address how housing supplements were being used at the property, but those efforts were unsuccessful. The province declined to review the issue, while PELASS opted not to join an advocacy effort.

The Town estimates legal and enforcement costs related to the property at approximately $22,000 to date.

Preparing for compliance — or enforcement

The Town will first attempt to work with the property owner to meet the court’s deadline. Mayor Terry Richardson said, “The Town will now seek to work with the property owner to ensure the property is able to achieve compliance by June 1, as required in the order issued by the Superior Court of Ontario.”

“At the same time, the Town will immediately begin to make preparations to bring the property into compliance on its own starting June 2, should that become necessary, and to ensure it is done in a way that costs are not ultimately borne by Greater Napanee taxpayers.”

Grant said it is regrettable that the matter escalated to court, but he framed the outcome as necessary. “It is unfortunate that court action was required to achieve compliance and to ensure that the property was no longer considered suitable for housing vulnerable individuals by the various parties involved in this issue,” he said.

A long-running issue comes to a head

The case stems from complaints dating back to 2024 and reflects the Town's prolonged efforts to bring the property into compliance before turning to the courts.

The ruling now gives the municipality a clear legal pathway to resolve the situation if voluntary compliance does not occur, with a firm deadline in place and the authority to act if it is ignored.

For those currently living on the property, the decision also marks a turning point, as the court has made clear that the current use is not only non-compliant but unlawful.