In Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, a man has been banned from using any fire-producing device on his property after repeated complaints about smoke from his backyard activities since May 2023 when an injunction was issued by the Superior Court of Justice. Despite attempts to allow limited use of a barbecue for cooking purposes, the court found that he violated the order multiple times in ways that affected his neighbors' enjoyment of their property, including extended smoking sessions and using smoke-producing machinery. The judge ruled in May 2024 that these actions were intentional violations of the injunction's purpose.
Written locally by qwen2.5:14b on 2026-10-07,
using this article's own text rather than the other coverage of the
same event (that is the story summary below).
Story summary
In May 2023, a Superior Court of Justice judge in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, issued an injunction banning a man from burning firewood or any other substances on his property due to repeated complaints about smoke from his backyard fires. The order was made "absolute and without exception" to prevent the defendant from circumventing its restrictions. In June 2023, the man's lawyer requested modifications to allow him to use a natural gas barbecue normally. However, in July 2023, the court found that he used his barbecue improperly by leaving it unattended and producing smoke for about 90 minutes on two occasions after cooking dinner. The judge warned the man against trying to interpret the order in ways that would undermine its purpose, emphasizing continued compliance with the injunction.
Written for “Backyard Burning Ban” on 2026-10-07,
grounded in this article and the 0 other(s) covering the same event.
An Ontario man at the centre of a three-year dispute with his neighbours has been barred from using a barbecue or any other fire-producing device on his property after repeated complaints about smoke.
asserted
man → bar → smoke
A Superior Court of Justice judge in Sault Ste. Marie issued an injunction in May 2023 prohibiting the man from burning firewood or “any other substances or materials” on or around his property.
uncertain
judge → issue → property
The order was made “absolute and without exception” after concerns that the defendant might circumvent its restrictions.
uncertain
defendant → make → restrictions
Court issues strict backyard fire ban
asserted
Court → issue → ban
The case initially focused on smoke from the man's backyard.
asserted
case → focus → backyard
In June 2023, his lawyer asked whether the injunction could be changed to allow him to use his barbecue.
uncertain
him → ask → barbecue
The plaintiffs opposed the request but told the court that the order was not intended to prevent normal use of a natural gas barbecue.
asserted
order → oppose → barbecue
The court later found that the man used the barbecue in ways that went beyond cooking.
asserted
that → find → cooking
On two occasions in July 2023, he cooked dinner and then left the barbecue burning and producing smoke for about 90 minutes without attending to it or preparing any food, according to the judgment, as cited by CTV News.
uncertain
he → cook → News
The smoke affected the neighbours' ability to enjoy their property without exposure to smoke, the judge said.
asserted
judge → affect → smoke
In September that year, the man also lit a propane-fuelled fire in his backyard without an apparent cooking purpose.
asserted
man → light → purpose
Barbecue use leads to further complaints
The neighbours later opposed another request to allow barbecue use, saying they had “no confidence your client will not use his barbecue to create a nuisance.”
In November, the man's lawyer asked the court to permit barbecue use solely for cooking and eating.
asserted
lawyer → lead → cooking
The request was not approved.
asserted
request → approve → ?
The dispute over the wording of the injunction continued.
asserted
dispute → continue → injunction
In February 2024, the man wrote to the plaintiffs' lawyer saying he intended to use his barbecue and other appliances powered by liquid petroleum gas.
asserted
he → write → gas
He argued that the injunction did not cover liquid petroleum gas because he considered it a mixture rather than a “substance”.
asserted
it → argue → gas
The man began representing himself later that month.
asserted
man → begin → himself
The complaints later extended beyond the barbecue.
asserted
complaints → extend → barbecue
In April 2024, the man started a piece of machinery on his patio six times during one day.
asserted
man → start → day
The equipment released a large amount of smoke, according to the court decision.
uncertain
equipment → release → decision
The activity was frequent enough that another neighbour submitted an affidavit raising concerns about the smoke.
asserted
neighbour → submit → smoke
In May 2024, the man was accused of revving a vehicle engine for about two hours while releasing a large amount of smoke.
uncertain
man → accuse → smoke
The plaintiffs' lawyer then asked the court to find the man in contempt.
asserted
lawyer → ask → contempt
The judge concluded that the man understood the injunction, even though he disagreed with it.
asserted
he → conclude → it
The court considered the prolonged barbecue use, propane fire, smoke-producing machinery and vehicle engine to be conduct that violated the purpose of the order.
“I can think of no reason the defendant did this except to intentionally disrupt the enjoyment of the plaintiffs,” the judge wrote.
asserted
judge → consider → plaintiffs
“The defendant used his barbecue as a weapon of nuisance, in direct violation of the injunctive order.”
asserted
defendant → use → order
Judge declines contempt finding
asserted
Judge → decline → finding
The judge found there were grounds for contempt but decided not to make a contempt finding.
asserted
judge → find → finding
The decision noted that the man had complied with the injunction for more than two years after learning that he could face contempt proceedings for violating it.
uncertain
he → note → it
The judge said that continued compliance was expected and warned the man against trying to interpret the order in a way that would undermine its purpose.
“It is the expectation of this court that the defendant will continue to comply with the injunction order and not resort back to playing games and interpreting the injunction order in ways that suit his intention to disrupt the enjoyment of the plaintiffs,” the judge said.
asserted
judge → say → plaintiffs
The injunction remains in force, leaving the man prohibited from burning materials or using fire-producing devices in the manner covered by the order.
asserted
injunction → remain → order
The Aporia
