Kerr v. Peterborough (City)
Where a by-law is enacted under s.220(26) the designated business improvement area comprises both the old and the expanded area; accordingly all persons in that entire designated area are entitled to notice and to the remedies in s.220(2)-(5), and a petition under s.220(3) must be signed by at least one-third of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C26129
- Parties
- Applicant/appellant: Thomas W. Kerr; Applicant/appellant: Bruce W. Wilton in Trust; Respondent: The Corporation of the City of Peterborough; Respondent: Peterborough Downtown Business Improvement Area
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 4 March 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Appeal (court of Appeal Decision)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed without costs.
- Legal Topics
- Business Improvement Area Designation, Notice and Petition Requirements Under S.220, Interpretation of Municipal Act S.220
- 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
Thomas W. Kerr
Applicant/appellant
Bruce W. Wilton in Trust
Applicant/appellant
The Corporation of the City of Peterborough
Respondent
Peterborough Downtown Business Improvement Area
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (court of Appeal Decision)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the petition required by s.220(3) must be signed by one-third of persons in the entire designated business improvement area including both old and expanded areas or only by one-third of persons in the expanded area
- 2 Whether all persons in the designated area are entitled to notice and the remedies in s.220(2)-(5) when a by-law is enacted under s.220(26)
Ratio Decidendi
Where a by-law is enacted under s.220(26) the designated business improvement area comprises both the old and the expanded area; accordingly all persons in that entire designated area are entitled to notice and to the remedies in s.220(2)-(5), and a petition under s.220(3) must be signed by at least one-third of the persons in the entire designated area.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed without costs.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed without costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Kerr v. Peterborough (City) Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 1999-03-04 Docket numbers C26129 Judges Brooke, John Watson; Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Rosenberg, Marc Subject Civil Decision Content DATE: 19990304 DOCKET: C26129 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: THOMAS W. KERR and BRUCE W. WILTON IN TRUST (Applicants/Appellants) v. THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PETERBOROUGH and PETERBOROUGH DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA (Respondents) BEFORE: BROOKE, ABELLA and ROSENBERG JJ.A. COUNSEL: John D. Nichols, for the appellants A. Scott Michael and John W. Hart, for the respondents HEARD: March 1, 1999 ENDORSEMENT [1] Where, as here, the proposed by-law is enacted under s. 220(26) of the Municipal Act, the new and the old area in the designated business improvement area are included. In our view, the wording of s. 220(2) to (5) is clear and all persons in this designated area are entitled to notice and to the other remedies in those provisions. Much clearer language than "with necessary modifications" in s. 220(27) would be necessary to deprive people, who may be affected by the by-law, of their right to notice and to the other remedies in these subsections. [2] It follows that Murphy J. was correct in holding that the petition contemplated by s. 220(3) must be signed by at least one- third of the persons in the entire designated area, not simply one-third of the persons in the expanded area. [3] To the extent that the obiter comments in para. 19 of the decision of the Divisional Court in Centre City Capital Limited v. The Corporation of the City of Mississauga (1996), 31 M.P.L.R. (2d) 271 are inconsistent with this holding, para. 19 should not be followed. [4] The parties have agreed that there should not be any costs of this appeal in view of the novelty of the point. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed without costs.