abutting lands in order to extend the main runway. This met
with community opposition and was subsequently withdrawn. In
response, Burlington investigated the matter and concluded that
work had not been performed as initially described in numerous
respects, including the amount of fill deposited, its cleanliness
and the purpose for which the fill was deposited.
 Burlington took the position that Airpark was depositing fill
as a commercial activity rather than as a planned expansion of its
aeronautical facilities. It issued an order for Airpark to comply
with the 2003 by-law. Burlington then issued a violation notice
but took no further enforcement proceedings. At that point, Airpark had completed 95 to 97 per cent of its proposed fill work.
 Airpark brought an application seeking a declaration that
its operations were governed by the Aeronautics Act and that
Burlington’s by-law did not apply to its activities. Burlington
brought its own application for a declaration that the 2003
by-law was binding on Airpark. A consent order was made pursuant to which Airpark ceased fill and grading operations pending the determination of the applications.
 Murray J. dismissed Airpark’s application and declared
that the by-law was binding on Airpark in respect of its fill operations at the airport. He noted that Burlington knew of the work
and took no steps to enforce the by-law, and he stated that this
“may have a bearing on Burlington’s ability to enforce its by-law
with respect to construction already completed”: Burlington
Airpark (S.C.J.), supra, at para. 13. Murray J. declined to make any
enforcement order, stating that “[t]he issue of enforcement is
properly left to the municipal authorities” (para. 26). This court
upheld that decision:  O.J. No. 2835, 2014 ONCA 468.
 In 2013, while those applications were pending before the
Superior Court and this court, Burlington undertook a review of
the airport that included a plan to pass a new by-law. In September 2014, after the release of this court’s 2014 decision, Burlington passed By-law 64-2014, repealing the 2003 by-law and
establishing a new regime prohibiting any dumping or removal
of fill or altering of grades without a permit. The 2014 by-law
contains a number of provisions that are more onerous than
those found in the 2003 by-law.
 Between the dismissal of Airpark’s appeal and the enactment of the new by-law in September 2014, Burlington made
several requests of Airpark to file an application for a site alteration permit under the 2003 by-law, which Airpark refused to do.
After the 2014 by-law was passed and the 2003 by-law was
repealed, Burlington made several more requests of Airpark to
file an application under the new by-law. Airpark again refused,