Former GM site owners appeal city cleanup order to Ontario Superior Court

The owners of a former General Motors auto parts plant in St. Catharines are taking their fight against a city order to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The company is appealing the city's directive to repair or demolish the buildings on the property, arguing that the recently granted 120-day extension is insufficient.

Numbered company 2390541 Ontario Inc. filed a notice of appeal on July 14, seeking to overturn property standards orders issued in May for 282 and 285 Ontario St. These orders, which were upheld by the city's property standards committee on June 25, require the buildings to be repaired, replaced, or demolished to ensure public safety. The city issued the orders after receiving multiple complaints about one of the properties.

“

The timeline for compliance set out in the Orders, even as extended by the Committee to October 23, 2026, are not reasonable and do not allow the Owner a sufficient opportunity to fully assess the Orders and provide a substantive response.

Among the specific requirements, the owners must repair, replace, or board up all openings to prevent unauthorized entry and remove or repair damaged ceiling materials. Demolition is also an alternative. The company contends that the compliance timelines, even with the extension to October 23, 2026, are unreasonable and do not allow for a sufficient assessment and response to the orders. They argue the timelines do not align with the by-law's intent due to the complexity and sequencing of the required work, as well as the need to engage with various regulatory agencies.

In their appeal, the owners propose alternative solutions. They ask the court to set aside the city's orders entirely. If that fails, they request an extension of the compliance time to June 30, 2027, an additional eight months beyond the committee's extended deadline. They also suggest the court could modify the orders as it deems just. The company had previously appealed to the city's property standards committee, where their lawyer argued that more time was needed for an engineering assessment. While the committee declined to adjourn the hearing, they did grant the 120-day extension.

“

Further, the timelines do not maintain the general intent and purpose of the by-law given the complicated nature, extent and sequencing of the required work and, more specifically, given the need to engage competing regulatory agencies.