R. v. Greenbaum (M.),

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Judge: Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ.
• Citation: (1993), 149 N.R. 114 (SCC),1993 CanLII 166 (SCC),10 Admin LR (2d) 161,19 CR (4th) 347,[1993] ACS no 24,61 OAC 241,18 WCB (2d) 533,[1993] SCJ No 24 (QL),79 CCC (3d) 158,100 DLR (4th) 183,[1993] 1 SCR 674,JE 93-463,14 MPLR (2d) 1,149 NR 114
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Date: 25 February 1993

R. v. Greenbaum (M.) (1993), 149 N.R. 114 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Morris Greenbaum (appellant) v. R. (ex rel. William Andrews, Inspector, City of Toronto) (respondent) and Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto (intervener)

(22506)

Indexed As: R. v. Greenbaum (M.)

Supreme Court of Canada

La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka,

Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and

Iacobucci, JJ.

February 25, 1993.

Summary:

Greenbaum, a street vendor, was convicted by the Ontario Provincial Court, in a judg­ment reported 6 W.C.B.(2d) 95, of exposing goods, wares and merchandise on a Metro­politan Toronto road allowance within the City of Toronto without lawful authority contrary to Metropolitan Toronto Bylaw 211-74, s. 11, which was directed at con­trolling obstructions. He appealed.

The Ontario District Court dismissed the appeal in a judgment reported 47 M.P.L.R. 59. Greenbaum appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in a judgment reported 44 O.A.C. 355; 77 D.L.R.(4th) 334; 62 C.C.C.(3d) 147; 3 C.R.(4th) 195; 3 M.P.L.R.(2d)1. Green­baum appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and held that s. 11 of the Metropoli­tan Toronto Bylaw 211-74 was ultra vires, because it was not specifically authorized by the enabling legislation and was also dis­criminatory.

Municipal Law - Topic 1496

Powers of municipalities - Particular powers - Licensing and regulation of businesses - Street vendors - Toronto prosecuted an unlicensed street vendor under s. 11 of Municipality of Metropoli­tan Toronto Bylaw 211-74, which was directed at preventing obstruction of road allowances (including sidewalks) by vendors - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 11 was ultra vires, because it discriminated between free-standing street vendors and owners or occupiers of busi­nesses abutting sidewalks without statutory authority and because its purpose was not authorized by ss. 102, 210(73) (respecting regulation of sales) or 210(140) (respecting nuisances) of the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.45, and was too broad in scope to be sheltered under s. 314(1) (respecting obstructions).

Municipal Law - Topic 3726

Bylaws - Construction or interpretation - General - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that municipal bylaws must be construed strictly to ensure that munici­palities act within their empowering legis­lation, particularly where common law or civil rights are affected - See paragraphs 24 to 28.

Municipal Law - Topic 3736

Bylaws - Construction or interpretation - Bylaws restricting common law or civil rights - [See Municipal Law - Topic 3726].

Municipal Law - Topic 3842

Bylaws - Quashing bylaws - Grounds for judicial interference - Ultra vires - [See Municipal Law - Topic 1496].

Municipal Law - Topic 3846

Bylaws - Quashing bylaws - Grounds for judicial interference - Discrimination - [See Municipal Law - Topic 1496].

Municipal Law - Topic 3860

Bylaws - Quashing bylaws - Grounds for judicial interference - Unauthorized by empowering statute - [See Municipal Law - Topic 1496].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Sharma (D.) (1993), 149 N.R. 161 (S.C.C.), appld. [para. 37].

R. v. Varga (1979), 51 C.C.C.(2d) 558, refd to. [para. 21].

Arcade Amusements Inc. v. Montreal, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 368; 58 N.R. 339; 14 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 29 M.P.L.R. 220, appld. [paras. 21, 39].

Hamilton (City) v. Hamilton Distillery Co. (1907), 38 S.C.R. 239, appld. [para. 25].

Verdun (City) v. Sun Oil Co., [1952] 1 S.C.R. 222, appld. [para. 26].

McKay v. R., [1965] S.C.R. 798, appld. [para. 27].

Merritt v. Toronto (City) (1895), 22 O.A.R. 205, appld. [para. 28].

Morrison v. Kingston (1937), 69 C.C.C. 251 (Alta. C.A.), appld. [para. 36].

Statutes Noticed:

Interpretation Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.11, sect. 10 [para. 24].

Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.45, sect. 102, sect. 210(73), sect. 210(140), sect. 308(3), sect. 314(1)(1) [para. 10].

Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Bylaw 211-74, sect. 11 [paras. 7, 29].

Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Bylaw 97-80, sect. 1(1), Schedule A [para. 8].

Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.62, sect. 90 [para. 39].

Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, SOR/83-74, rule 32 [para. 2].

Toronto (City) Bylaw 618-80, sect. 1(1) [para. 9].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Black's Law Dictionary (5th Ed.) [para. 30].

Makuch, Stanley, Canadian Municipal and Planning Law (1983), p. 115 [para. 26].

Rogers, The Law of Canadian Municipal Corporations (2nd Ed. 1971), p. 388 [para. 25].

Counsel:

Frank Addario and Shaun Nakatsuru, for the appellant;

Beverley A.B. Simpson, for the respon­dent;

Robert Avinoam, for the intervener.

Solicitors of Record:

Nakatsuru & Doucette, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

Dennis Y. Perlin, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent;

H.W.O. Doyle, for the intervener.

This case was heard on December 4, 1992, at Ottawa, Ontario, before La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On February 25, 1993, Iacobucci, J., delivered the following judgment for the court in both official languages: