Air Ronge (Northern Village) v. Werchola, (2011) 378 Sask.R. 267 (QB)

• Judge: Rothery, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: June 20, 2011
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2011), 378 Sask.R. 267 (QB);2011 SKQB 237

Air Ronge v. Werchola (2011), 378 Sask.R. 267 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] Sask.R. TBEd. JN.053

Northern Village of Air Ronge (applicant/plaintiff) v. Larry Werchola and Violet Werchola, operating as La Family Taxi (respondent/defendant)

(2011 Q.B. No. 167; 2011 SKQB 237)

Indexed As: Air Ronge (Northern Village) v. Werchola

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Prince Albert

Rothery, J.

June 20, 2011.

Summary:

The plaintiff municipality sued the defendants for breach of a bylaw prohibiting a taxi operation as a home-based business. The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from operating a taxi business from their residential property and from having, parking or driving taxis on that property.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application.

Municipal Law - Topic 3983

Bylaws - Enforcement or prosecution - Injunction (incl. cease and desist or compliance order) - The plaintiff municipality sued the defendants for breach of a bylaw prohibiting a taxi operation as a home-based business - The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from operating a taxi business from their residential property and from having, parking or driving taxis on that property - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application - The plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case - This was all that was necessary - A municipality did not have to demonstrate irreparable harm where it set out a case that someone was violating a bylaw - Further, it was no defence that there might be other cases of infringement that the municipality had not addressed - The defendants were restrained from using the property as a headquarters or base of operation for the taxi business - Further, they were not to park taxis there, other than taxis driven by the residents of the property, and were not to use the site for implementing shift changes.

Cases Noticed:

Regina (City) v. Cunningham (1994), 119 Sask.R. 299; 20 M.P.L.R.(2d) 240 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 5].

Markham (Town) v. Eastown Plaza Ltd. (1992), 11 M.P.L.R.(2d) 134 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 6].

Toronto (City) v. Polai, [1973] S.C.R. 38, refd to. [para. 7].

Counsel:

J.R. Fafard, for the applicant/plaintiff;

T.W. Klassen, for the respondent/defendant.

This application was heard by Rothery, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Prince Albert, who delivered the following fiat on June 20, 2011.