Advertisement

Nova Scotia appeal court denies wealthy Halifax couple oceanfront swimming pool

A person swims in a swimming pool in this file photo. There will be no swimming at home for a wealthy Halifax couple after Nova Scotia's Court of Appeal denied the couple their oceanfront swimming pool. Pixabay/Ben Kerckx

A wealthy Halifax couple who took their quest for an oceanfront swimming pool all the way to Nova Scotia’s highest court have lost.

John and Esther Ghosn built a mansion on the Northwest Arm, a picturesque inlet off Halifax harbour, and wanted a pool overlooking the water.

A ruling Wednesday from the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal made it clear why.

“It’s a lovely spot,” the court said about the Northwest Arm in a decision released Wednesday. “The Arm’s properties roll down to saltwater that laps on a sheltered shore just a stroll from the city’s amenities.”

For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen.

Get breaking National news

For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen.
By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.

The couple’s application was denied by the Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM). It said under land-use bylaws the pool was too close to the water’s edge, less than the required 30 feet, although the setback was deep enough under the city’s swimming pool bylaw.

Story continues below advertisement

The Ghosns undertook great expense to make room for the pool by extending their property into the Arm, which was allowed because their property includes an historic water lot.

“It seems the Ghosns decided that if HRM thought the shoreline was too close to their proposed pool, they would solve the problem by moving the shoreline farther away,” the province’s Utility and Review Board said in its earlier decision in the case.

But the city still wouldn’t issue a permit, saying any land changes past 2007, when the city updated its land-use bylaws, couldn’t be considered.

The Ghosns appealed to the Utility and Review Board, which denied them the permit, saying the land-use bylaw took precedence. They then took their case to the appeal court, saying the board’s interpretation was unreasonable.

The appeal court didn’t agree.

“The board’s decision was reasonable under this court’s standard of review,” the court said.

The court did, however, refuse to award the municipality its legal costs for the appeal.

Sponsored content

AdChoices