Namusa Enterprises Ltd. v. Etobicoke, Lottery Licencing Officer for Etobicoke and Etobicoke Board of Control, (1984) 6 O.A.C. 137 (DC)
|Judge:||Galligan, Labrosse and Montgomery, JJ.|
|Court:||Superior Court of Justice of Ontario|
|Case Date:||October 22, 1984|
|Citations:||(1984), 6 O.A.C. 137 (DC)|
Namusa Ent. Ltd. v. Etobicoke (1984), 6 O.A.C. 137 (DC)
MLB headnote and full text
Namusa Enterprises Ltd. v. Etobicoke, Corporation of the City of, Leach (Lottery Licencing Officer for the City of Etobicoke) and Board of Control of the City of Etobicoke
Indexed As: Namusa Enterprises Ltd. v. Etobicoke, Lottery Licencing Officer for Etobicoke and Etobicoke Board of Control
Ontario Divisional Court
Galligan, Labrosse and Montgomery, JJ.
October 22, 1984.
Namusa Enterprises was the lessee of a large hall in Etobicoke. Namusa rented the hall to licenced charitable organizations to run bingos. The City of Etobicoke passed a resolution terminating the granting of licences to organizations for bingos to be held in Namusa's bingo hall. Namusa applied to quash the resolution.
The Ontario Divisional Court allowed the application.
Administrative Law - Topic 2451
Natural justice - Procedure - Notice - Effect of lack of notice - A city's board of control passed a resolution which would effectively put the applicant out of business - The applicant received no notice of the board's meeting and only four days' notice of city council's intention to consider the resolution - There the applicant was permitted to make only written submissions - The Ontario Divisional Court held that there was no notice given in law and that the city breached its duty of fairness - See paragraph 26.
Municipal Law - Topic 412
Councils - Resolutions - Quashing of - Grounds - Discrimination - The lessee of a hall rented it to licenced charities for use as a bingo hall - Businessmen in the area complained of limited or no parking available for their customers whenever the hall was used - The city accordingly passed a resolution not to grant any further licences for bingos in the lessee's hall, thus putting it out of business - The Ontario Divisional Court held that by aiding particular businesses to the detriment of the lessee, the city exercised its powers discriminatorily - See paragraphs 23 to 24.
Municipal Law - Topic 413
Councils - Resolutions - Quashing of - Grounds - Purpose of resolution not authorized by empowering statute - The lessee of a hall rented it to licenced charities for use as a bingo hall - The city passed a resolution not to grant any further licences for bingos in the lessee's hall, thus putting the lessee out of business - The real purpose of the resolution was to correct parking problems in the area of the hall, rather than noncompliance by the charities with conditions in the licences - The Ontario Divisional Court held that the resolution was ultra vires, because it was not within the scope of the city's delegated power under s. 190 of the Criminal Code to regulate lottery bingos - See paragraphs 17 to 22.
Hollett v. City of Halifax (1975), 13 N.S.R.(2d) 403; 9 A.P.R. 403; 58 D.L.R.(3d) 747 (N.S.C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].
Nicholson v. Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Board of Commissioners of Police (1978), 23 N.R. 410; 88 D.L.R.(3d) 671, appld. [para. 26].
Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 190 [paras, 4, 21].
P.E. Harvey and M.P. Thompson, for the applicant;
J.C.L. Ritchie, for the respondents.
This application was heard before Galligan, Labrosse and Montgomery, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court on September 27 and 28, 1984. The decision of the Divisional Court was delivered orally by Galligan, J., and released on October 22, 1984.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP