Simon's Legal Resources

JR - AAR (7)

. West Carleton Community Alliance v. City of Ottawa

In West Carleton Community Alliance v. City of Ottawa (Div Ct, 2026) the Divisional Court dismissed a JR, this brought against an Ottawa zoning by-law.

Here the court considers the conflicts that arise where the applicant seeks by JR to quash a municipal bylaw (under the JRPA in the Divisional Court), but also to quash the bylaw under MA s.273 ['Application to quash by-law'] - which should be brought in the Superior Court:

[39] The jurisdictional issue arises because the applicant has brought an application for judicial review but has also asked, in the alternative, for relief under s. 273 of the Municipal Act, 2001. The Divisional Court has jurisdiction to quash the Zoning By-law, as set out in s. 2(1) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c J.1. However, if the applicant wanted to proceed under s. 273 of the Municipal Act, 2001, it had to bring its application in the Superior Court, not the Divisional Court. It cannot be addressed, as suggested, in the alternative.

[40] This Court may exercise its discretion not to hear the judicial review because the applicant could have proceeded under s. 273: Yatar v. TD Insurance Meloche Monnex, 2024 SCC 8, 489 D.L.R. (4th) 181, at paras. 51 and 54. Several factors inform the question of whether that alternative process is adequate in this case: Yatar, at para. 64, citing Strickland v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 37, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 713, at para. 43. We have not been asked to dismiss this application in favour of that alternative process and, having considered the factors relevant to the exercise of our discretion, we would not do so. In the circumstances of this case, it is appropriate to proceed with the judicial review application, which can fully and efficiently address the issues raised.