Thursday, January 17th, 2008 ::: Etobicoke

The Superior Court of Justice has better things to do. McMullen v. McMullen is a pathetic affair.

Ross McMullen is the father of Richard McMullen. The family owns a property at 35-37 Stoffel Drive in Etobicoke along Highway 401. No billboard has yet been developed on this lot, nor could a billboard be legally developed unless invisible to the 401. Ross sued Richard over a lease that Richard signed with CBS Outdoor for a billboard on their lot. On May 31, 2007, Justice Brown ordered the issues to go to trial.

We previously wrote about illegal signs at 32 Stoffel Drive and 34 Stoffel Drive in Illegal in Etobicoke: Along the 401, Third Party Signs Are Operating Under First Party Permits. The property that the McMullens own is just south of those two signs.

It is completely illegal to erect a third party sign on a property abutting the 401. All of the third party signs along the 401 are operating under first party permits. Here’s the thing - lot’s of those first party permits required variances which were only issued after City Councillors were convinced that the signs would only be used for first party purposes. But now we have Richard McMullen admitting under oath that the sign is to be used for third party purposes and that the sign is to face the 401, contrary to both municipal and provincial laws.

[15] On June 14, 2006 the Defendant’s counsel wrote to the Plaintiff’s asking that she prepare a re-draft of the Viacom lease to include his client’s rights, as set out in paragraph 8 of the Minutes. The letter continued: “Attached is a diagram showing where the sign can be erected. The sign is to be no larger than 4’ by 8’ and 12’ in height.” The diagram indicated that a sign could be erected on the north side of the building, that is on the side of the Property furthest away from Highway 401.

[16] That same day the Plaintiff’s counsel responded stating that her client would not permit the Defendant to alter the settlement terms by restricting the location and size of the sign. She continued:

We note that the ground sign will not be located at the back of the building, facing the hydro wires. Clearly the intention of a third party sign on the property is to attract the exposure to the 401 highway. As such, we will not accept…a ground sign at the back of the building which would be totally fruitless. We assume that Richard has plans for another ground sign at the front of the building. Ross is therefore prepared to settle this dispute by constructing a roof sign instead.

Looks like the son is trying to soak more money out of the father for the lease and is using legal proceedings as a leverage in negotiations. We will obtain copies of all documents filed with the court in this matter and we will certainly use these document against this pathetic family should a variance application be made for a first party sign. Note that even if Etobicoke York Community Council grants a variance for a third party sign, the City cannot issue a permit for a third party sign due to provincial law.

In fact, in light of the lease that has already been negotiated with CBS Outdoor, and in light of the facts set out in Justice Brow’s decision, if Etobicoke York Community Council granted a variance for first party use for this sign, we suggest that would be an act of considerable bad faith.

Perhaps some legal eagle out there can comment on whether the legality of the billboard in question should impact Justice Brown’s decision in the case.