Is an apartment house within a by-law restricting the use of land?

In the Hutterian case, supra, Brownridge J.A. at page 693 quoted with approval as follows: I am of the opinion that the standard used by Collins, L.J., in Rogers v. Hosegood [[1900] 2 Ch. 388] for the interpretation of a covenant in a conveyance is equally proper in the interpretation of a by-law restricting the use of lands and that standard is as stated by the learned Lord Justice to construe “in an ordinary or popular, and not in a legal or technical sense”. I am, therefore, of the view that what was contemplated in the erection of the proposed building was not private residences but many private residences under one roof plus communal accommodations, i.e., in plain and ordinary terms, an apartment house, and that an apartment house is not within the by-law any more than the apartment house was in Rogers v. Hosegood. I have come to this conclusion realizing that a by-law restricting the use of lands must be strictly construed and that any doubts as to the application of the by-law to prevent the erection of a specific building should be resolved in favour of such proposed use. No authority need be cited for each of these propositions. These principles, however, need only be applied when upon the reading of the whole by-law there is an ambiguity or difficulty of construction. Reading the whole by-law, I have, for the reasons which I have outlined, come to the conclusion that there is no such ambiguity or difficulty in interpretation and therefore the two canons are not applicable. [Emphasis added]