R. v. Shrigley (G.), (2001) 301 A.R. 72 (ProvCt)

• Judge: Lefever, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: September 20, 2001
• Citations: (2001), 301 A.R. 72 (ProvCt);2001 ABPC 190

R. v. Shrigley (G.) (2001), 301 A.R. 72 (ProvCt)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] A.R. TBEd. OC.124

Her Majesty the Queen v. George Shrigley

(A03302375W; 2001 ABPC 190)

Indexed As: R. v. Shrigley (G.)

Alberta Provincial Court

Lefever, P.C.J.

September 20, 2001.

Summary:

Shrigley pleaded guilty to a charge of operating a motorcycle and small engine repair and mail order business for motorcycle parts within the City of Medicine Hat without having the required business license, contrary to s. 3.1 of the City's Licensing Bylaw. A fine was imposed. Following the conviction, the City applied for an order under s. 567 of the Municipal Government Act requiring Shrigley to comply with the City's Licensing Bylaw and to not operate a motorcycle or small engine repair business or a mail order distribution business for motorcycle parts within the City without a proper business license.

The Alberta Provincial Court dismissed the application.

Municipal Law - Topic 1496

Powers of municipalities - Particular powers - Licensing and regulating of businesses - Shrigley lived and operated a motel in the City of Medicine Hat - He obtained premises in Redcliff from which to operate his motorcycle and small engine repair and mail order business for motorcycle parts - Shrigley was not always able to be in Redcliff to receive deliveries of motorcycle parts, so once or twice a week he had them delivered to his motel, which took deliveries of supplies on a regular basis in any event - The Alberta Provincial Court held that by the receipt of parts at the motel, Shrigley had been conducting a "business" (mail order/distribution business for motorcycle parts) within the meaning of the City's Licensing Bylaw - The Bylaw did not say a business which was "exclusively" carried on in a particular premises offended the Bylaw - Rather it was any part of a business carried on at the subject property - Secondly, it was the nature of the business that was regulated, not activities which might be carried on in more than one business - The fact that deliveries were made to the licensed motel business did not exempt deliveries as a general activity from the requirement of a business license - See paragraphs 44 to 55.

Municipal Law - Topic 1496

Powers of municipalities - Particular powers - Licensing and regulating of businesses - Shrigley pleaded guilty to a charge of operating a business in the City of Medicine Hat without having the required business license, contrary to s. 3.1 of the City's Licensing Bylaw - A fine was imposed - Following the conviction, the City applied for an order under s. 567 of the Municipal Government Act requiring Shrigley to comply with the City's Licensing Bylaw and to not operate the business within the City without a proper business license - The Alberta Provincial Court dismissed the application - While the court found that Shrigley was carrying on an impermissible mail order/distribution business for motorcycle parts, it declined to exercise its discretion to issue a compliance order pursuant to s. 567 of the Act - The court considered, inter alia, that the "breach" consisted of one to two deliveries per week to a commercial establishment which received deliveries as part of its business and that the genesis of the problem in this case did not relate to that activity - See paragraphs 65 to 76.

Municipal Law - Topic 3983

Bylaws - Enforcement or prosecution - Injunction (incl. cease and desist or compliance order) - [See second Municipal Law - Topic 1496 ].

Municipal Law - Topic 3983

Bylaws - Enforcement or prosecution - Injunction (incl. cease and desist or compliance order) - Shrigley pleaded guilty to a charge of operating a business within the City of Medicine Hat without having the required business license, contrary to s. 3.1 of the City's Licensing Bylaw - A fine was imposed - Following the conviction, the City applied for an order under s. 567 of the Municipal Government Act requiring Shrigley to comply with the City's Licensing Bylaw and to not operate the business within the City without a proper business license - Shrigley argued that the application sought an injunction which the Provincial Court lacked jurisdiction to grant - The Alberta Provincial Court held that an order that directed a person to comply with the Licensing Bylaw was not in the nature of injunctive relief reserved to the Court of Queen's Bench - See paragraphs 38 and 59.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Klippert (Al) Ltd. (1996), 187 A.R. 241; 127 W.A.C. 241; 141 D.L.R.(4th) 80 (C.A.), revd. [1998] 1 S.C.R. 737; 225 N.R. 107; 216 A.R. 1; 175 W.A.C. 1, consd. [para. 24].

R. v. Chebib (Z.K.) (1998), 239 A.R. 373 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 31].

Nelson (City) v. Hansen (2001), 17 M.P.L.R.(3d) 283 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 36].

Linde Canadian Refrigerator Co. v. Sask. Creamery Co. (1915), 24 D.L.R. 703 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 45].

Mid West Television Ltd. v. S.E.D. Systems Inc. et al., [1981] 3 W.W.R. 560; 9 Sask.R. 199 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 61].

Robinson v. Adams, [1925] 1 D.L.R. 359 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 61].

Statutes Noticed:

Medicine Hat (City) Bylaws, Licensing Bylaw, Bylaw No. 2339, sect. 2 [para. 17]; sect. 3.1 [para. 2].

Municipal Government Act, S.A. 1994, c. M-26.1, sect. 567 [para. 21].

Counsel:

Benjamin D. Bullock, for the City of Medicine Hat;

Stewart R. Kennedy, for George Shrigley.

This application was heard before Lefever, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on September 20, 2001.