1786889 Ontario Inc. v. Toronto (City)
The appeal is dismissed because the application judge's findings were supported by evidence and the appellant failed to demonstrate any palpable or overriding error; additionally the by-law was not subject to reasonableness review under s.213 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2014 ONCA 286
- Parties
- Appellant: 1786889 Ontario Inc.; Respondent: City of Toronto
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 14 April 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision (oral Release)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- By Law Validity, Reasonableness Review, Nuisance, Licensing of Businesses, Standard of Appellate Review
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
1786889 Ontario Inc.
Appellant
City of Toronto
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision (oral Release)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a by-law restricting hours of licensed body rub parlours is reviewable on the ground of reasonableness given s.213 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006
- 2 Whether there was sufficient evidence that shortening hours would mitigate nuisance
- 3 Whether the evidence connected nuisance to licensed, as opposed to illegal, body rub parlours
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is dismissed because the application judge's findings were supported by evidence and the appellant failed to demonstrate any palpable or overriding error; additionally the by-law was not subject to reasonableness review under s.213 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Costs of the appeal to the respondent
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
1786889 Ontario Inc. v. Toronto (City) Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2014-04-14 Neutral citation 2014 ONCA 286 Docket numbers C57963 Judges Weiler, Karen Merle Magnuson; Lauwers, Peter D.; Pardu, Gladys I. Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: 1786889 Ontario Inc. v. Toronto (City), 2014 ONCA 286 DATE: 20140414 DOCKET: C57963 Weiler, Lauwers and Pardu JJ.A. BETWEEN 1786889 Ontario Inc. Applicant (Appellant) and City of Toronto Respondent (Respondent in appeal) Shawn Pulver and Lauren Sigal, for the appellant Ansuya Pachai and David Tortell for the respondent Heard and released orally: April 9, 2014 On appeal from the judgment of Justice Janet Wilson of the Superior Court of Justice, dated October 25, 2013. ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellant does not allege bad faith or procedural unfairness. [2] The appellant submits essentially that the City acted unreasonably in passing a by-law restricting the hours of licensed body rub parlours. The by-law is not reviewable on the ground of reasonableness. See s. 213 City of Toronto Act, 2006, S. O. 2006, c. 11. [3] The appellant further submits that there was insufficient evidence to show that shortening the hours would mitigate any nuisance attributed to the operations and that there was insufficient evidence to show that any nuisance could be connected to licensed as opposed to illegally operating body rub parlours [4] We disagree. The application judge referred to evidence in support of her findings and there is further evidence in the record that supports them. The appellant has failed to show that the application judge committed any palpable or overriding error in coming to the conclusion she did. [5] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Costs of the appeal are to the respondent. On consent, costs are fixed in the amount of $6000 inclusive of all applicable taxes and disbursements. “K.M. Weiler J.A.” “P. Lauwers J.A.” “G. Pardu J.A.”