Canadian Institute of Public Real Estate Co.'s et al. v. City of Toronto, (1979) 25 N.R. 108 (SCC)
| Judge | Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson and Estey, JJ. |
| Court | Supreme Court (Canada) |
| Case Date | January 23, 1979 |
| Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
| Citations | (1979), 25 N.R. 108 (SCC);25 NR 108;[1979] 1 SCR 902;[1979] 2 SCR 2;103 DLR (3d) 226;95 DLR (3d) 25;7 MPLR 39;1979 CanLII 30 (SCC);1979 CanLII 203 (SCC) |
Cdn. Inst. of Public Real Est. v. Toronto (1979), 25 N.R. 108 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
Canadian Institute of Public Real Estate Companies, Toronto Medical Arts Building Company Limited and 150 Bloor West Limited v. City of Toronto and Attorney General for the Province of Ontario
Indexed As: Canadian Institute of Public Real Estate Co.'s et al. v. City of Toronto
Supreme Court of Canada
Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson and Estey, JJ.
January 23, 1979.
Summary:
This case arose out of an application by the City of Toronto to the Ontario Municipal Board for approval of by-law. The Board approved the by-law and the appellant companies appealed. In a judgment reported 70 D.L.R.(3d) 97 the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and a further appeal was dismissed by the Ontario Court of Appeal in a judgment reported 75 D.L.R.(3d) 379. The appellant appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and held that the by-law was ultra vires.
Statutes - Topic 5362
Operation - Delegated legislation - Regulations or by-laws - Validity of - General - S. 35(a) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 349, gave municipalities the power to prohibit or require the provision, maintenance and use of certain facilities - The City of Toronto passed a by-law which simply required the provision and maintenance of the same facilities in virtually the same terms as s. 35(a) of the Planning Act - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the by-law was ultra vires - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a city which is empowered to do something by statute does not act within its statutory authority by simply repeating the power in the statute in the words in which it was conferred.
Cases Noticed:
Brant Dairy Company Ltd. et al. v. The Milk Commission of Ontario et al., [1973] S.C.R. 131, appld. [para. 3].
Statutes Noticed:
Planning Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 349, sect. 35(a) [para. 6].
Counsel:
J.J. Carthy, Q.C. and G.J. Smith, Q.C., for the appellants;
J.J. Robinette, Q.C., for the respondent;
D.W. Brown, for the intervenant.
This case was heard on October 12 and 13, 1978, at Ottawa, Ontario, before RITCHIE, SPENCE, PIGEON, DICKSON and ESTEY, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On January 23, 1979, SPENCE, J., delivered the following judgment for the Supreme Court of Canada:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Suresh c. Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration) (C.A.),
...per La Forest J. whose analysis on this point is agreed to by the majority; see also Maple Lodge Farms Ltd. v. Government of Canada, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 2, at pages 7—8 and Glover v. [1999] 2 W.W.R. 219 (B.C.C.A.). suprême n’a pas fait preuve d’une retenue absolue à l’égard d’une décision discr......
-
Nielsen Estate et al. v. Epton et al., 2006 ABQB 21
...(1977), [1978] A.C. 728, [1977] 2 W.L.R. 1024, [1977] 2 All E.R. 492 (H.L.). 24. Nielsen v. Kamloops (City) and Hughes , [July 26, 1984] 2 S.C.R. 2, 66 B.C.L.R. 273, 29 C.C.L.T. 97, 26 M.P.L.R. 81, 8 C.L.R. 1, 10 D.L.R. (4th) 641, 54 N.R. 1, [1984] 5 W.W.R. 1, 11 Admin. L.R. 1, 1984 Carswel......
-
Sources of Authority: Municipal Planning Statutes
...ONCA 55. See also Entreprises Sibeca Inc v Frelighsburg (Municipality ), 2004 SCC 61. 162 [1985] 1 SCR 368. 163 [1952] 1 SCR 222. 164 (1979), 25 NR 108 (SCC) [ Canadian Institute ]. Following the Canadian Institute decision, the Ontario Legislature retroactively validated development agreem......
-
Table of cases
...OMBD No 215 ......................................................... 273 Canadian Institute of Public Real Estate Cos v Toronto (City), [1979] 2 SCR 2, 25 NR 108 , [1979] SCJ No 20 .......................................97, 335 Canadian National Railway Co v Fraser-Fort George (Regional D......
-
Suresh c. Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration) (C.A.),
...per La Forest J. whose analysis on this point is agreed to by the majority; see also Maple Lodge Farms Ltd. v. Government of Canada, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 2, at pages 7—8 and Glover v. [1999] 2 W.W.R. 219 (B.C.C.A.). suprême n’a pas fait preuve d’une retenue absolue à l’égard d’une décision discr......
-
Nielsen Estate et al. v. Epton et al., 2006 ABQB 21
...(1977), [1978] A.C. 728, [1977] 2 W.L.R. 1024, [1977] 2 All E.R. 492 (H.L.). 24. Nielsen v. Kamloops (City) and Hughes , [July 26, 1984] 2 S.C.R. 2, 66 B.C.L.R. 273, 29 C.C.L.T. 97, 26 M.P.L.R. 81, 8 C.L.R. 1, 10 D.L.R. (4th) 641, 54 N.R. 1, [1984] 5 W.W.R. 1, 11 Admin. L.R. 1, 1984 Carswel......
-
Snow v. Kashyap, (1995) 125 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 182 (NFCA)
...discoverability rule was first imported into Canadian law by the Supreme Court of Canada in Nielson v. Kamloops (City) and Hughes , [l984] 2 S.C.R. 2; 54 N.R. 1; [1984] 5 W.W.R. 1; 10 D.L.R.(4th) 641; 29 C.C.L.T. 97; 8 C.L.R. 1. This case involved an action against the City of Kamloops for ......
-
Ghermezian v. Corey Developments Inc. et al., 2001 ABQB 914
...2000) 133 O.A.C. 286 (Ont. C.A. No. C29106). 36. At para. 10 of 133 O.A.C. 286. 37. Nielsen v. Kamloops (City) and Hughes , [July 26, 1984] 2 S.C.R. 2; 54 N.R. 1; [1984] 5 W.W.R. 1; 10 D.L.R.(4th) 641; 29 C.C.L.T. 97; 8 C.L.R. 1 (S.C.C). 38. ITV Technologies Inc. v. WIC Television Ltd. , (F......
-
Sources of Authority: Municipal Planning Statutes
...ONCA 55. See also Entreprises Sibeca Inc v Frelighsburg (Municipality ), 2004 SCC 61. 162 [1985] 1 SCR 368. 163 [1952] 1 SCR 222. 164 (1979), 25 NR 108 (SCC) [ Canadian Institute ]. Following the Canadian Institute decision, the Ontario Legislature retroactively validated development agreem......
-
Table of cases
...OMBD No 215 ......................................................... 273 Canadian Institute of Public Real Estate Cos v Toronto (City), [1979] 2 SCR 2, 25 NR 108 , [1979] SCJ No 20 .......................................97, 335 Canadian National Railway Co v Fraser-Fort George (Regional D......
-
The Impact of the Charter
...R. v. Hawkins , 1993 2 S.C.R. 157 Hawkins , and R. v. Chaisson , 2006 SCC 11. 2 R. v. Grant , 2009 SCC 32 Grant . 3 R. v. Dedman , 1985 2 S.C.R. 2 Dedman . 4 R. v. Hufsky , 1988 1 S.C.R. 621 Hufsky . 5 R. v. Ladouceur , 1990 1 S.C.R. 1257 Ladouceur . 6 Ibid . at 1264. The Impact of the Char......
-
Some Leading Cases
.... . . be regulated. This is not what [the Cities and Towns Act ] authorizes.” 56 53 2001 SCC 57. 54 [1952] 1 SCR 222 [ Sun Oil ]. 55 (1979), 25 NR 108 (SCC). See also MacArthur v Charlottetown (City) , 2005 PESCTD 37. 56 Above note 54 at 229. Notes LAND-USE PLANNING 98 Saumur v Québec (City......