|
Municipal - Licensing. Tiny Township Association of Responsible STR Owners v. Tiny (Township)
In Tiny Township Association of Responsible STR Owners v. Tiny (Township) (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal, this brought under MA s.273 ['Application to quash by-law'] against a by-law that regulated 'short-term rentals' (STRs) by requiring "STR owners to apply for and obtain an annual licence, restricts how STRs can be used, regulates the duration of rental periods, and caps the total number of days each year that an STR can be rented".
Here the court reviews the statutory basis of an Ontario municipality's STR licensing bylaw:The statutory framework
[28] Section 8(1) of the Municipal Act mandates a liberal interpretation of municipal powers to allow municipalities to govern as they see fit:The powers of a municipality under this or any other Act shall be interpreted broadly so as to confer broad authority on the municipality to enable the municipality to govern its affairs as it considers appropriate and to enhance the municipality’s ability to respond to municipal issues. [29] A lower tier municipality such as the Township may pass by-laws on a wide range of matters, including “[e]conomic, social and environmental well-being of the municipality”, the “[h]ealth, safety and well-being of persons” and the “[p]rotection of persons and property, including consumer protection”: s. 11(2) of the Municipal Act. Under s. 11(3)11 of the Municipal Act, a lower tier municipality may enact by-laws respecting business licensing.
[30] By virtue of s. 8(3) of the Municipal Act, a by-law enacted respecting a matter in s. 11 may:(a) regulate or prohibit respecting the matter;
(b) require persons to do things respecting the matter;
(c) provide for a system of licences respecting the matter. [31] Municipal licensing schemes are addressed in Part IV of the Municipal Act. Section 151(1) expands upon a municipality’s power to regulate businesses through a licensing scheme:Without limiting sections 9, 10 and 11, a municipality may provide for a system of licences with respect to a business and may,
(a) prohibit the carrying on or engaging in the business without a licence;
(b) refuse to grant a licence or to revoke or suspend a licence;
(c) impose conditions as a requirement of obtaining, continuing to hold or renewing a licence;
(d) impose special conditions on a business in a class that have not been imposed on all of the businesses in that class in order to obtain, continue to hold or renew a licence;
(e) impose conditions, including special conditions, as a requirement of continuing to hold a licence at any time during the term of the licence; and
(f) license, regulate or govern real and personal property used for the business and the persons carrying it on or engaged in it. [32] Although these provisions contemplate the regulation of businesses, s. 151(5) recognizes that a licensing scheme may be enacted within any other sphere in respect of which a municipality may validly enact by-laws:Subsections (1) to (4) apply with necessary modifications to a system of licences with respect to any activity, matter or thing for which a by-law may be passed under sections 9, 10 and 11 as if it were a system of licences with respect to a business. ....
[49] STRs are premises that may be rented for money or other consideration. As was the case in Gentlemen’s Club, at para. 24, the STR licensing requirements are triggered by commercial activity occurring at the premises. It does not matter that the premises are not used for this purpose all the time or even most of the time. There is nothing in the definition of a “business” in s. 150 of the Municipal Act that requires that the business activity at issue must occur on a full-time basis. On the contrary, the definition recognizes that the hiring of goods may be “intermittent”, on a “one-time basis” or “transient”. It follows that the activity may also be seasonal.
....
[53] In my view, the definition of STRs does not include purely gratuitous arrangements. The words “concession” and “permit” must be read purposively and contextually, and courts must favour an interpretation of terms in a by-law consistent with its validity. A “lease”, “licence”, or “rental agreement” all involve the use of premises for consideration. The reference to a “similar arrangement” at the end of the list implies that “concession” and “permit” should be read to exclude arrangements that do not involve consideration. . Samhadana v. Toronto [taxi licensing]
In Samhadana v. Toronto (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed a JR application, this brought against "two decisions of the Toronto Licensing Tribunal ... imposing a six-month suspension of the applicant’s Vehicle-for-Hire (VFH) licence" and "revoking the applicant’s VFH licence".
Here the court illustrates license disciplinary and revocation proceedings in the Toronto taxi context:[3] Vehicle for Hire or VFH drivers (taxicab and limousine drivers) must obtain a licence and comply with applicable regulations in the City of Toronto. The Municipal Licensing and Standards Division (MLS) administers the licensing system under s. 546 of the Toronto Municipal Code.
[4] The applicant came before the TLT to determine whether his licence should be revoked, suspended or have conditions attached because of a failure to be civil and well-behaved under Chapter 546 of the Code. In a three-day hearing, the TLT heard testimony from witnesses and received documentary evidence and videos.
[5] The TLT found that the applicant had failed to be civil and well-behaved toward MLS officers and staff during in-person encounters (including raising his voice and using insulting and demeaning language) and in correspondence. The TLT considered the evidence and explanations put forward by the applicant. The TLT found on the evidence that the applicant had not been provoked nor that there was a deliberate campaign to harass him, or any other conduct on the part of the MLS that justified his behaviour. The TLT found that the applicant had subjected the MLS staff to foul, insulting language, and followed them around even though they tried to disengage from him (sometimes resulting in them having to call for police assistance).
[6] The TLT took into account the hardship to the applicant if his licence was revoked and that he was suffering from stress. The TLT concluded that the applicant’s licence would be suspended for six months, subject to him providing written verification that he had completed and benefitted from anger management counseling.
[7] The applicant completed the anger management program and requested a hearing to show that he had completed and benefited from the program. At that hearing, the TLT received testimony and other evidence of later events, finding that the applicant had used degrading language to insult MLS officers numerous times. The TLT found it was clear from the applicant’s testimony that he did not know what it meant to be civil even after anger management counselling. Again, the TLT considered the impact of a revocation on the applicant, but, having regard for its mandate to protect the public interest, the TLT revoked the applicant’s VFH licence. . Samhadana v. City of Toronto and Toronto Licensing Tribunal
In Samhadana v. City of Toronto and Toronto Licensing Tribunal (Ont Div Ct, 2025) the Ontario Divisional Court outlines the Toronto Licensing Tribunal:[2] The City of Toronto Act, 2006 S.O. 2006, c. 11 ("COTA") grants the City broad authority to pass by-laws respecting, inter alia: business licensing; the well-being of the City, and consumer protection.
[3] The City has exercised this authority to create Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 546, Licensing of Vehicles-for-Hire,2 which, among other things, requires vehicle-for-hire (taxicab and limousine) drivers to obtain a licence to operate and to comply with certain regulations.
[4] The City’s Municipal Licensing and Standards Division (“MLS”) has delegated authority to administer the licensing system under Chapter 546. However, where MLS seeks to revoke or place conditions on an existing licence, the matter must be referred to the TLT for a hearing.
[5] The TLT is an independent, quasi-judicial administrative body that has delegated authority to determine whether a business licence should be suspended, revoked, or have conditions placed upon it. The TLT may exercise these powers where it has “reasonable grounds to believe” that a licensee will not carry on their business with integrity and honesty, where the conduct of the business has breached or may breach the law, or where the conduct of the licensee has endangered or would endanger the rights, health, or safety or other members of the public.
....
[18] The standard on which the TLT’s decisions were to be based is “reasonable grounds for belief”, which “requires something more than mere suspicion, but less that the standard applicable in civil matters of proof on the balance of probabilities,”(Yarco Developments Inc. v. Home Construction Regulatory Authority (Registrar), 2024 ONSC 93 (Div. Ct.), at paras. 56-57). The ultimate standard of review of the TLT’s decision will be reasonableness (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, supra at para. 16).
|
