563080 Alberta Ltd. v. Calgary (City), (1996) 189 A.R. 166 (QB)

• Judge: Deyell, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: July 31, 1996
• Citations: (1996), 189 A.R. 166 (QB)

563080 Alta. Ltd. v. Calgary (1996), 189 A.R. 166 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

In The Matter Of Bylaw 34M96.

563080 Alberta Ltd. carrying on business as "The Body Shoppe" (plaintiff) v. The City of Calgary (defendant)

(Action No. 9601-09245)

Indexed As: 563080 Alberta Ltd. v. Calgary (City)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Deyell, J.

July 31, 1996.

Summary:

The City of Calgary passed a bylaw which prohibited any physical contact between an exotic entertainer and any other person during a performance. The plaintiff, an establishment in which lap dancing occurred, challenged the validity of the bylaw and applied for an interlocutory in­junction bar­ring enforcement of the bylaw pending the final resolution of the challenge.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dis­missed the application.

Injunctions - Topic 1606

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - Balance of convenience - The City of Calgary passed a bylaw which prohibited any physical contact between an exotic entertainer and any other person during a performance - The plaintiff, an establish­ment in which lap dancing occurred, chal­lenged the bylaw on the grounds that (1) the City breached natural justice in passing the bylaw (2) the City exceeded the au­thority granted to it under the Municipal Government Act, and (3) the bylaw regu­lated morality and was therefore ultra vires the municipality's jurisdiction - The plain­tiff applied for an interlocutory injunction barring enforcement of the bylaw pending the final resolution of the challenge - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - Despite the private fi­nancial damages the plaintiff might suffer, the public interest concerns which the City purported to address in the bylaw tipped the balance of convenience in the City's favour.

Injunctions - Topic 1610

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - Circumstances when injunction will not be granted - [See Injunctions - Topic 1606 ].

Injunctions - Topic 1616

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - Arguable issues of law involved or serious questions to be tried - [See Municipal Law - Topic 3208 ].

Injunctions - Topic 1802

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - Requirement of irreparable injury - What constitutes - [See Municipal Law - Topic 1705 ].

Municipal Law - Topic 1705

Liability of municipalities - Liability for damages flowing from invalid bylaw - The City of Calgary passed a bylaw which prohibited any physical contact between an exotic entertainer and any other person during a performance - The plaintiff, an establishment in which lap dancing occurred, chal­lenged the validity of the bylaw on several grounds and applied for an interlocutory injunction barring its en­forcement pending the resolution of the challenge - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the plaintiff had estab­lished irreparable harm - The general principle that munici­palities were not liable for damages flow­ing from invalid bylaws meant that the City might not be liable for the plaintiff's damages should the bylaw be found to be invalid - Therefore any dam­ages suffered might be irreparable - See paragraphs 13 to 21.

Municipal Law - Topic 3208

Bylaws - Presumption of validity - The City of Calgary passed a bylaw which prohibited any physical contact between an exotic entertainer and any other person during a performance - The plaintiff chal­lenged the validity of the bylaw on several grounds and applied for an interlocutory injunction barring its enforcement pending the resolution of the challenge - The City argued that there was no serious issue to be tried, because bylaws were generally presumed to be valid and because a similar bylaw had been challenged and upheld in Ontario - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected the City's argument - The court stated that if there was a presumption of validity, it was rebuttable and did not necessarily preclude a challenge to the bylaw's validity - Further, the Ontario situation differed from the Alberta situ­ation in several respects which might affect the outcome of the challenge - See paragraphs 11 and 12.

Cases Noticed:

Numbers Erotique Boutique Ltd. v. Calgary (City) et al., [1996] 2 W.W.R. 511; 174 A.R. 341; 102 W.A.C. 341; 35 Alta. L.R.(3d) 172; 31 M.P.L.R.(2d) 39 (C.A.), consd. [para. 8].

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311; 164 N.R. 1; 60 Q.A.C. 241; 111 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 54 C.P.R.(3d) 114, consd. [para. 8].

Metropolitan Stores (MTS) Ltd. v. Manitoba Food and Commercial Workers, Local 832 and Labour Board (Man.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 110; 73 N.R. 341; 46 Man.R.(2d) 241; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 1; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 18 C.P.C.(2d) 273; 25 Admin. L.R. 20, consd. [para. 8].

American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd., [1975] A.C. 396; [1975] 1 All E.R. 504 (H.L.), consd. [para. 9].

Super Sam Red Deer Ltd. and Dudley v. Lethbridge (City) (1990), 104 A.R. 291; 73 Alta. L.R.(2d) 85; 50 M.P.L.R. 153 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 9].

Ontario Adult Entertainment Bar Associ­ation v. Metropolitan Toronto (Munici­pality) (1995), 86 O.A.C. 161; 26 O.R.(3d) 257; 129 D.L.R.(4th) 81; 101 C.C.C.(3d) 491; 29 M.P.L.R.(2d) 141 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 11].

Welbridge Holdings Ltd. v. Greater Winnipeg (Municipality), [1971] S.C.R. 957; [1972] 3 W.W.R. 433; 22 D.L.R.(3d) 470, consd. [para. 14].

Windsor Motors Ltd. v. Powell River (District) (1969), 68 W.W.R.(N.S.) 173; 4 D.L.R.(3d) 155 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 16].

Peel (Regional Municipality) v. Ontario, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 762; 144 N.R. 1; 59 O.A.C. 81; 98 D.L.R.(4th) 140; 12 M.P.L.R.(2d) 229, consd. [para. 17].

Comeau's Sea Foods Ltd. v. Canada (Min­is­ter of Fisheries and Oceans), [1995] F.C. 467; 179 N.R. 241; 123 D.L.R.(4th) 180; 29 Admin. L.R.(2d) 264; 24 C.C.L.T.(2d) 1 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 18].

Costello and Dickhoff v. Calgary (City) (1995), 163 A.R. 241 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 20].

Ainsley Financial Corp. v. Ontario (Secu­rities Commission) (1993), 106 D.L.R.(4th) 507; 10 B.L.R.(2d) 173; 14 O.R.(3d) 280 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 27].

Lac La Biche (Town) et al. v. Alberta (1993), 141 A.R. 26; 46 W.A.C. 26 (C.A.), consd. [para. 29].

Morgentaler v. Ackroyd (1983), 42 O.R.(2d) 659; 150 D.L.R.(3d) 59 (H.C.), consd. [para. 36].

Counsel:

Adel Abougoush, Q.C., and John Gescher, for the City of Calgary;

Robert Wilkins, Q.C., and Alan Guty, for the Body Shoppe.

This application was heard before Deyell, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following deci­sion on July 31, 1996.