A Decade-Long Legal Dispute Over a Chip Truck
In 2016, a dispute began between 2461351 Ontario Inc. and the Township of Brudenell, Lyndoch and Raglan. The disagreement was about whether a mobile chip truck should be considered a “building” under Ontario’s Building Code Act.
Since then, the issue has led to several court proceedings and is now scheduled for trial in 2026.
This summary is based on court documents filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
One of the defendants is currently Chief Building Official (CBO) for the Township of South Algonquin.
How the Dispute Started
According to the court record, the plaintiff purchased a chip truck in March 2016 and planned to operate it beside a convenience store in Palmer Rapids.
Before opening the business, the owner contacted the Township to ask what permits were required. A municipal clerk provided an application for a transient trader licence.
The truck was delivered to the property in April 2016. Soon after, the Township’s CBO visited the site and the Township took the position that the chip truck was a “building” under the Building Code Act and required a building permit.
Compliance Orders Issued
The record shows that on May 6, 2016, the CBO issued an Order to Comply.
Later, on May 24, 2016, two more orders were issued:
- a Stop Work Order
- an Order to Uncover
The plaintiff says these orders created confusion because instructions from the Township and its officials appeared to change over time. For example, the court filing alleges that the building official repeatedly changed the requirements for the chip truck, including requests for additional wheels, a welded towing tongue, and changes to drainage connections.
Disagreement Over Whether the Chip Truck Was a “Building”
The main legal issue is whether the chip truck legally counts as a building.
The plaintiff argues that the chip truck is mobile and can be moved by trailer. They also state that it has no permanent foundation or structural supports. Because of this, the plaintiff says it should not require a building permit.
The Township and its CBO took the position that the chip truck did qualify as a building and needed to follow building permit rules.
Allegations of Unfair Treatment
In the court filings, the plaintiff makes several allegations about how the situation was handled. These allegations have not been proven in court and will be decided at trial.
The plaintiff claims:
- Instructions from the CBO changed repeatedly.
- Orders did not clearly explain what was required to comply.
- Written directions were not provided despite requests.
- Different officials gave conflicting instructions.
- Other chip trucks in the Township were treated differently.
The plaintiff also alleges that the Township’s actions were arbitrary, unfair, and discriminatory, and that the orders were issued for improper reasons.
Business Impact
The plaintiff claims the dispute prevented the chip truck from operating and caused financial losses.
According to the statement of claim, the business losses exceeded $200,000.
The lawsuit seeks:
- a declaration that the chip truck is not a building
- cancellation of the compliance orders
- $200,000 in general damages
- $100,000 in punitive or aggravated damages
- additional special damages to be determined.
Later Developments
Court documents state that in 2018, the Township took the position that the three orders were null and void, and issued a transient trader licence to the plaintiff.
However, the parties did not agree on damages, and the civil lawsuit continued.
The Case Today
The legal action remains active in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
The court has scheduled:
- Pre-trial: January and March 2026
- Trial: April 2026
- Estimated length: about two weeks
The court has not yet ruled on liability or damages.
The trial is expected to determine:
- whether the chip truck legally qualifies as a building
- whether the orders were properly issued
- whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages.
Table of Contents
Sources:
- 2019-05-31 – Chiptruck vs Anderson – Decision on Motions – McNamara J.
- 2019-10-11 – Chiptruck vs Anderson – Order – James J.
- 2020-01-21 – Chiptruck vs Anderson – Endorsement – McNamara J.
- 2023-10-16 – Chiptruck vs Anderson – Endorsement – James J.
- 2023-10-16 – Chiptruck vs Anderson – Order – James J.
- 2024-12-06 – Chiptruck vs Anderson – Order – Holowka – CV18-31
- 2025-02-14 – Chiptruck vs Anderson – Trial Record – Plaintiff
- 2025-06-10 – Chiptruck vs Anderson – Civil Trial Management Court Endorsement – Hooper J.
- 2025-08-08 – Chiptruck vs Anderson – Endorsement – Somji J.
- 2026-01-09 – Chiptruck vs Anderson – Decision on Motion – Somji J.
