Napanee bylaw case adjourned after respondents fail to file sworn evidence

A Superior Court judge has adjourned a bylaw enforcement application brought by the Town of Greater Napanee, after finding that the self-represented respondents had not filed admissible evidence.

The application was before Justice Robyn Ryan Bell of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on Thursday, Jan. 22, 2026, with the Town seeking court orders to enforce its bylaws regarding the current use of a rural property owned by one of the respondents, Jack Belanger. Belanger was accompanied by Michael Godfrey, who identified himself as another respondent along with his wife (who was not in court).

The property at 1388 Bridge Street in Napanee has been under scrutiny for two years or more due to safety and bylaw concerns. Town officials, with the assistance of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), Public Works, and the Fire Department, served the owner with a court notice and seized about six unsafe wood-burning stoves from the property on July 18, 2025. The property reportedly hosts illegal dwellings and makeshift shelters, some of which receive social assistance funds, raising concerns over fire hazards and other safety issues.

The Town has been trying since 2024 to achieve voluntary compliance through education and negotiation, but says the owner failed to act. The Town is seeking court authority to compel cleanup and enforce bylaws. 

Titled CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF GREATER NAPANEE et al v. BELANGER et al., court documents list the Corporation of the Town of Greater Napanee and the Chief Building Official of The Corporation Of The Town of Greater Napanee as the applicants. Jack Belanger, "John Doe," and "Jane Doe" are listed as the respondents. It is unclear at this time who is represented by the terms "John Doe" and "Jane Doe," or whether the terms refer to more than two people.

The hearing, originally scheduled for Thursday afternoon, was adjourned after Justice Ryan Bell determined that the respondents, who had chosen to proceed without legal representation, had not filed any sworn affidavit evidence and that they appeared confused about the procedural requirements of an application and the distinction between this case and other enforcement matters involving the property.

“This is not a trial,” Justice Ryan Bell repeatedly emphasized to the respondents, explaining that evidence in an application must be presented through sworn affidavits, not oral statements or loose photographs.

Civil legal disputes can be handled through a trial or an application. A trial is the familiar “day in court,” where witnesses give live testimony and a judge or jury decides the facts. An application is a “paper trial” --- it relies on written sworn statements called affidavits and is used when the facts are mostly agreed on. Applications are faster, often resolving in months, while trials can take much longer.

Service and filing issues raised

Belanger and Godfrey told the court they had not received application materials in time and were unprepared to proceed. Godfrey said he did not learn the hearing was scheduled for January 22 until the night before, and Belanger said he received the documents only the day prior. Godfrey also said he had attempted to file materials at the courthouse but was unable to do so, and he lacked access to the evidence he wanted to present.

James McCarthy, counsel for the municipality, responded that affidavits of service and attempted service were included in the record, showing multiple attempts to serve both respondents, and said the men were present at an August appearance at which the hearing date and filing timetable were set, with a follow-up letter later provided.

Justice Ryan Bell reviewed the prior endorsement and confirmed that the hearing date, location, and deadlines had been clearly set out in August.

The judge therefore rejected the respondents’ concerns, noting the timetable had been clearly set out by Justice Laurie Lacelle and that no admissible affidavit evidence had been filed by either respondent in advance of the hearing.

Distinction from other proceedings

During the exchange, Justice Ryan Bell and McCarthy both addressed confusion between the bylaw application before the court and other enforcement activity involving the property, including fire safety enforcement and the seizure of wood stoves, which Belanger called "theft."

McCarthy explained that those matters were separate proceedings under different legislation. Justice Ryan Bell confirmed that only materials filed in this application would be considered.

“What I’m giving you by way of explanation,” the judge told Belanger, “is what needs to be contained, from your perspective, in an affidavit… and then, based on the law, you argue whether or not there’s a contravention of the bylaw.” She cautioned that the court could not consider unsworn statements, witness allegations, or the informal photographs Belanger wished to pass to her.

Adjournment granted with strict timetable

After a brief recess, Ryan Bell adjourned the hearing, noting she wanted to ensure procedural fairness and allow the respondents an opportunity to properly place evidence before the court.

The matter was rescheduled to March 2026 to allow sufficient time for affidavit exchanges and any potential cross-examinations. The hearing will proceed in person in Kingston and is scheduled for a full day before Justice Ryan Bell.

The judge imposed a detailed timetable for submissions, warning the respondents that if that timetable wasn't adhered to, "it’s very possible that your materials will not be considered by this court on the next return date.”

Court accommodation for self-represented parties

Throughout the proceeding, Ryan Bell took time to explain court processes in plain language and directed court staff to print the necessary forms for the respondents, including affidavits of service and fee waiver applications. She also authorized service of documents by registered mail at the respondents’ request.

McCarthy agreed to provide hard copies of the application record and the factum (a document listing the details of the case) to Godfrey and Belanger that afternoon.

McCarthy raised the issue of costs for the adjourned hearing day, noting, "the Town had been prepared to proceed." Justice Ryan Bell ruled that the issue of costs would be addressed at the conclusion of the application.

“Given that I will be the one hearing the application,” she said, “I will deal with those costs at that time.”