|
Municipal - Enforcement of By-laws. Value Assets Inc. v. Downtown Brampton Development Corporation et al. [interlocutory injunction]
In Value Assets Inc. v. Downtown Brampton Development Corporation et al. (Ont Div Ct, 2025) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed a motion for an interim "injunction that would stop the enforcement or applicability" of a by-law - this within a JR proceeding seeking the quashing of the by-law, a restraining order and damages.
The court considers the 'irreparable harm' element of the RJR interlocutory injunction test, here for municipalities defending a bylaw:Balancing of Harms Test Favours the City
[54] When an injunction is sought to restrain the enforcement of a by-law, there are special considerations because the law presumes that staying enforcement of a law will harm the public interest. Courts are reluctant to enjoin a government from enforcing the law: Temagami, at paras. 28-29.
[55] The Supreme Court has held that the onus for a public authority to prove “irreparable harm to the public interest is less than that of a private applicant” and that the “... test will nearly always be satisfied simply upon proof that the authority is charged with the duty of promoting or protecting the public interest and upon some indication that the impugned legislation, regulation, or activity was undertaken pursuant to that responsibility: RJR-MacDonald, at pp. 346.
[56] There is thus a presumption of harm if the City’s new by-law is stayed.
[57] City Council is a democratically elected body that has exercised its discretion to enact new policies for the regulation of mobile businesses. Staying the revised by-law would do much more than simply permit Value Assets to continue to lease its property to Class C Refreshment Vehicles. It would also remove the new fire safety regulations, eliminate the requirement that Refreshment Vehicles obtain approval for the area in which they will operate, remove the prohibition on selling cannabis and remove peddlers of goods from the regulatory scheme entirely. In addition, there is harm to nearby restaurants that can lose business as a result of the operations of Class C Refreshment Vehicles within 50 metres.
[58] I find that those harms significantly outweigh the potential, unquantified loss of rental income to the applicant that might be incurred prior to the determination of this application. Moreover, a party seeking an interlocutory injunction is required to give an undertaking as to damages in the event the injunction is later found to have been unwarranted. Value Assets offers no undertaking to the City or the BIA for damages. . Leamington (Municipality) v. Ramirez
In Leamington (Municipality) v. Ramirez (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considered (and dismissed) an appeal of a statutory injunction under s.440 of the Municipal Act, here granted at the municipality's application - despite the fact that a POA charge was pending on the same basis and despite the fact that a related administrative re-hearing of an Appeal Committee had been ordered by a JR in the Divisional Court:[4] On October 28, 2021, the appellant was charged under the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, with operating a business without a licence, contrary to s. 9 of the Business By-law. This charge is pending in the Ontario Court of Justice. The relevant provision of s. 9 of the Business By-law reads that “No person shall: (a) operate a Business … (i) without a Business License”.
....
(iii) The permanent injunction was properly granted
[20] We see no basis to interfere with the application judge’s granting of a permanent injunction. The application judge properly applied the governing legal principles and considered and weighed all relevant factors.
[21] We are not persuaded by the appellant’s arguments about unfairness or irreparable harm. The appellant knowingly and unlawfully carried on business without a licence for several years until permanently restrained and enjoined by the order made by the application judge. The appellant’s clear and continuing breach of the Business By-law outweighed any issues of unfairness or irreparable harm to the appellant.
[22] As this court instructed in Newcastle Recycling Ltd. v. Clarington (Municipality), 2005 CanLII 46384 (ON CA), 204 O.A.C. 389 (C.A.), at para. 32, “Where a municipal authority seeks an injunction to enforce a bylaw which it establishes is being breached, the courts will refuse the application only in exceptional circumstances.”
[23] The application judge’s determination that there were no exceptional circumstances militating against the granting of the permanent injunction was based on his assessment of the evidence. His assessment is entitled to deference, absent error. We see none here.
[24] We do not agree that the Divisional Court’s decision changes this result. While the Divisional Court ordered a new appeal before the Appeals Committee because of procedural unfairness and the unreasonableness of the decision, it stopped short of finding bad faith and expressly refused to require the respondent to issue a business licence because, as it concluded, “[w]ith respect to remedy, this is not a case where a particular outcome is inevitable”: Paradise Night Club, at para. 4. . Syrowik v. Wheeler
In Syrowik v. Wheeler (Ont CA, 2021) the Court of Appeal commented on the requirements of s.440 of the Municipal Act, where private parties may make an application to enjoin breach of a by-law:[7] Section 440 of the Act reads as follows:If any by-law of a municipality or by-law of a local board of a municipality under this or any other Act is contravened, in addition to any other remedy and to any penalty imposed by the by-law, the contravention may be restrained by application at the instance of a taxpayer or the municipality or local board.” [Emphasis added.] [8] Both parties submit that the application judge erred in concluding that in order to succeed on an application to enforce a by-law under s. 440 of the Act, where a municipality has declined to do so, a taxpayer is required to show that the Municipality acted unreasonably or in bad faith in declining to enforce the by-law.
[9] We agree. The appellants were not seeking an order compelling the Municipality to enforce the Fence By-law. ...
|
