Grosvenor et al. v. East Luther Grand Valley (Township), (2007) 219 O.A.C. 381 (CA)

• Judge: Sharpe, Blair and MacFarland, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: December 20, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2007), 219 O.A.C. 381 (CA)

Grosvenor v. East Luther Grand Valley (2007), 219 O.A.C. 381 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] O.A.C. TBEd. JA.060

Susan Grosvenor, Phil Bignell and Carmen Bignell, Thomas Williams and Patricia Williams, Stephen Tupling and Vereena Tupling, Max Scheiwiller and Dorly Scheiwiller, Josef Huber and Martha Huber and John Duffy (applicants/respondents in appeal) v. The Corporation of the Township of East Luther Grand Valley (respondent/appellant)

(C45197)

Indexed As: Grosvenor et al. v. East Luther Grand Valley (Township)

Ontario Court of Appeal

Sharpe, Blair and MacFarland, JJ.A.

January 29, 2007.

Summary:

The plaintiffs owned properties that bordered a township's recreational trailway. They submitted a demand for fencing under the Line Fences Act. The township enacted a bylaw designating the trailway as a highway, exempting it from the fencing obligation. The plaintiffs moved to quash the bylaw.

The Ontario Superior Court quashed the bylaw, finding that it had been enacted in bad faith. The township appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Municipal Law - Topic 3853

Bylaws - Quashing bylaws - Grounds for judicial interference - Lack of good faith - The plaintiffs owned properties that bordered a township's recreational trailway - They submitted a demand for fencing under the Line Fences Act - The township enacted a bylaw designating the trailway as a highway, exempting it from the fencing obligation - The bylaw was passed in one sitting without notice - The plaintiffs moved to quash the bylaw - The application judge quashed the bylaw, finding that it had been enacted in bad faith - The township appealed, submitting, inter alia, that courts were obliged to give great deference to municipalities acting within their statutory powers - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - Good faith was an essential characteristic of the valid exercise of bylaw enacting authority - The township's assertions that it had acted in the public interest and its hindsight attempts to justify the bylaw did not resolve the issue of whether it had acted in good faith - The application judge's findings that the township had acted for a collateral purpose and that the process followed had not been characterized by the frankness, openness, impartiality and regard for the rights of the plaintiffs that was required were all supportable.

Cases Noticed:

Winton (H.G.) Ltd. v. North York (Borough) (1978), 20 O.R.(2d) 737 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 22].

Pedwell et al. v. Pelham (Town) et al. (2003), 174 O.A.C. 147 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2004), 328 N.R. 398; 195 O.A.C. 397 (S.C.C.), appld. [para. 22].

Shell Canada Products Ltd. v. Vancouver (City), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 231; 163 N.R. 81; 41 B.C.A.C. 81; 66 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 24].

Equity Waste Management of Canada et al. v. Halton Hills (Town) (1997), 103 O.A.C. 324; 35 O.R.(3d) 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Immeubles Port Louis ltée v. Lafontaine (Village), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 326; 121 N.R. 323; 38 Q.A.C. 253, refd to. [para. 27].

Hamilton (City) v. Hamilton Distillery Co. (1907), 38 S.C.R. 239, refd to. [para. 29].

Kruse v. Johnson, [1898] 2 Q.B. 91 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 29].

Howard v. Toronto (City) (1928), 61 O.L.R. 563 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corp., [1948] 1 K.B. 223 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30, footnote 6].

Nanaimo (City) v. Rascal Trucking Ltd. et al., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 342; 251 N.R. 42; 132 B.C.A.C. 298; 215 W.A.C. 298, refd to. [para. 31].

Barrick Gold Corp. et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing) et al., [1999] O.T.C. 226 (Sup. Ct.), affd. (2000), 138 O.A.C. 386; 51 O.R.(3d) 194 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

Reference Re Validity of Regulations in Relation to Chemicals, [1943] S.C.R. 1, refd to. [para. 42].

Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121, refd to. [para. 42].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Rogers, Ian MacF., The Law of Canadian Municipal Corporations (2nd Ed. 1971) (Looseleaf), p. 1021 [para. 39].

Counsel:

Robert K. Brown, for the appellant;

Donald R. Good, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on December 20, 2006, by Sharpe, Blair and MacFarland, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. Blair, J.A., released the following judgment for the Court on January 29, 2007.