Interpreting a Municipal Bylaw: Difference between revisions

From Riverview Legal Group
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
VisualWikitext
mNo edit summary
 
(11 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[Category:By-Laws]]
==Grosvenor v. East Luther Grand Valley (Township), 2007 ONCA 55 (CanLII)==


===[http://canlii.ca/t/j2nfp Potusek v. Township of Alnwick-Haldimand, 2019 ONSC 5677 (CanLII)]===
[20] After a careful and detailed analysis of the facts, the applicable legislation and the law, the application judge made a critical finding: he found that in enacting By-law 2003-07 in the manner in which it was enacted, the Township had acted in bad faith. Recognizing that he must adopt the "generous deferential standard of review" towards the decision of a municipal council exercising its admitted authority, [See Note 3 below] and that he "must interpret [page352] the By-law benevolently and support it if possible", the application judge nonetheless concluded that the by-law must be quashed as it had been enacted in bad faith. The substance of his reasoning in this regard is found in paras. 70-73:


[22] I agree with the judge below that the task of interpreting a municipal bylaw, like statutes, involves both a broad and a purposive approach. Section 64 of the Legislation Act, 2006, SO 2006 c 21, sch F provides that statutes are to be given a “fair, large and liberal interpretation as best ensures the attainment of its objects”. In [http://canlii.ca/t/1fqwt Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), 1998 CanLII 837 (SCC)], the Supreme Court of Canada endorsed the modern approach to statutory interpretation as follows:
::The question is why was the By-law passed as stated? The Applicants contend that there was no reason for Council to pass the By-law, that it was passed in bad faith and the fact that Council failed to consider the interest of the Applicants at large and primarily to eliminate its own liability for the costs of the fencing, that it was illegal, because it was passed to eliminate the possibility of a proper decision by the line fence viewers and/or a proper application of the law under that Act.


::'''Today there is only one principle or approach, namely, the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament.'''


[25] The application judge accepted the respondents' position. I agree with that decision.


[23] In [http://canlii.ca/t/1kg3l Croplife Canada v. Toronto (City), 2005 CanLII 15709 (ON CA)], the Court of Appeal stressed that the approach to interpreting municipal bylaws is one of large and purposive construction. Moreover, it said that courts ought to be constrained in finding a bylaw invalid so as not to impinge on municipal democracy.
[26] While a municipal by-law is generally assumed to be valid, it may be set aside on grounds of illegality. Section 273(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 states:


==[http://canlii.ca/t/gwvnz Gladu v Robineau, 2017 ONSC 37 (CanLII)]==
273(1) Upon the application of any person, the Superior Court of Justice may quash a by-law of a municipality in whole or in part for illegality.


[266]     Pomerance J. had the following to say about the statutory duties imposed by the [http://canlii.ca/t/532d7 Building Code Act, 1992], in Essex Condominium Corp. No. 43 v. Lasalle (Town) (2009), 69 M.P.L.R. (4th) 44 (Ont. S.C.), at para. 8:
[27] " aeIllegality' is a generic term covering any act not in accordance with the law": Immeubles Port Louis Ltée v. Lafontaine (Village), 1991 CanLII 82 (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 326, [1991] S.C.J. No. 14, at p. 343 S.C.R. As I will explain, it encompasses by-laws that are passed in bad faith.


::The BCA was enacted in order to ensure that construction in the province meets standards assuring the health and safety of members of the public. The BCA, through the building code establishes minimum standards that must be met in order to satisfy safety concerns. As it was described by the Supreme Court of Canada in [http://canlii.ca/t/527s Ingles v. Tutkaluk Construction Ltd., 2000 SCC 12 (CanLII), (2000) 1 S.C.R. 298 (S.C.C.) at para. 23]:<blockquote>The legislative scheme is designed to ensure that uniform standards of construction safety are imposed and enforced by the municipalities…The purpose of the building inspection scheme is clear from these provisions: to protect the health and safety of the public by enforcing safety standards for all construction projects.</blockquote>
<ref name="Grosvenor">Grosvenor v. East Luther Grand Valley (Township), 2007 ONCA 55 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/1qbn4>, retrieved on 2020-08-20</ref>
 
==References==

Latest revision as of 05:28, 20 August 2020

Grosvenor v. East Luther Grand Valley (Township), 2007 ONCA 55 (CanLII)

[20] After a careful and detailed analysis of the facts, the applicable legislation and the law, the application judge made a critical finding: he found that in enacting By-law 2003-07 in the manner in which it was enacted, the Township had acted in bad faith. Recognizing that he must adopt the "generous deferential standard of review" towards the decision of a municipal council exercising its admitted authority, [See Note 3 below] and that he "must interpret [page352] the By-law benevolently and support it if possible", the application judge nonetheless concluded that the by-law must be quashed as it had been enacted in bad faith. The substance of his reasoning in this regard is found in paras. 70-73:

The question is why was the By-law passed as stated? The Applicants contend that there was no reason for Council to pass the By-law, that it was passed in bad faith and the fact that Council failed to consider the interest of the Applicants at large and primarily to eliminate its own liability for the costs of the fencing, that it was illegal, because it was passed to eliminate the possibility of a proper decision by the line fence viewers and/or a proper application of the law under that Act.


[25] The application judge accepted the respondents' position. I agree with that decision.

[26] While a municipal by-law is generally assumed to be valid, it may be set aside on grounds of illegality. Section 273(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 states:

273(1) Upon the application of any person, the Superior Court of Justice may quash a by-law of a municipality in whole or in part for illegality.

[27] " aeIllegality' is a generic term covering any act not in accordance with the law": Immeubles Port Louis Ltée v. Lafontaine (Village), 1991 CanLII 82 (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 326, [1991] S.C.J. No. 14, at p. 343 S.C.R. As I will explain, it encompasses by-laws that are passed in bad faith.

[1]

References

  1. ↑ Grosvenor v. East Luther Grand Valley (Township), 2007 ONCA 55 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/1qbn4>, retrieved on 2020-08-20
Retrieved from "https://riverview.legal/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Interpreting_a_Municipal_Bylaw&oldid=8560"