Sarnia (City) v. Trustees of River City Vineyard Christian Fellowship of Sarnia, (2015) 336 O.A.C. 373 (CA)

• Judge: Doherty, Epstein and Tulloch, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: October 28, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2015), 336 O.A.C. 373 (CA);2015 ONCA 494

Sarnia v. River City Vineyard (2015), 336 O.A.C. 373 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] O.A.C. TBEd. JL.002

The Corporation of the City of Sarnia (respondent/applicant) v. Trustees of River City Vineyard Christian Fellowship of Sarnia (appellant/respondent)

(C58676; 2015 ONCA 494)

Indexed As: Sarnia (City) v. Trustees of River City Vineyard Christian Fellowship of Sarnia

Ontario Court of Appeal

Doherty, Epstein and Tulloch, JJ.A.

July 3, 2015.

Summary:

The River City Vineyard Christian Fellowship of Sarnia (River City) was a church located in the Urban Residential Zone 1-27 in the City of Sarnia. River City had operated a men's homeless shelter in its church basement since 2006. The City of Sarnia opposed its operation on the basis that it breached Sarnia's zoning bylaw, Bylaw No. 85 of 2002. Sarnia applied for an injunction to stop River City's operation of the shelter. River City brought a counter-application seeking a declaration that it was not contravening the bylaw, or in the alternative, to the extent the bylaw prohibited the shelter, the bylaw unjustifiably infringed its freedom of religion as protected by the Charter.

The Ontario Superior Court issued an injunction against River City, prohibiting it from operating the shelter because it was in contravention of the bylaw. River City appealed, arguing that: 1. The bylaw, properly interpreted, permitted the shelter; and 2. In the alternative, if the bylaw prohibited the shelter, the application or enforcement of the bylaw infringed s. 2(a) of the Charter, and the infringement was not justified under s. 1.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the first ground and dismissed Sarnia's application for an injunction. The applications judge erred in his interpretation of the bylaw and incorrectly found that it did not permit River City to operate the shelter.

Land Regulation - Topic 2601

Land use control - Zoning bylaws - Enactment and interpretation - Interpretation of zoning bylaws - [See second Land Regulation - Topic 2665.1 ].

Land Regulation - Topic 2665.1

Land use control - Zoning bylaws - Permitted or discretionary uses - Churches - The River City Vineyard Christian Fellowship of Sarnia (River City) was a church located in the Urban Residential Zone 1-27 in the City of Sarnia - River City operated a men's homeless shelter in its church basement - Whether Sarnia's zoning bylaw, Bylaw No. 85 of 2002, prohibited or permitted River City's shelter turned on the interpretation of the bylaw's definition of "church" - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that River City's homeless shelter fell within the meaning of "church-sponsored community activities and projects" in the definition of "church" - River City's operation of the homeless shelter therefore did not contravene the bylaw - See paragraphs 39 to 54.

Land Regulation - Topic 2665.1

Land use control - Zoning bylaws - Permitted or discretionary uses - Churches - The application judge issued an injunction prohibiting the River City Vineyard Christian Fellowship of Sarnia (River City) from operating a men's homeless shelter in its church basement because it was in contravention of the City of Sarnia's zoning bylaw, Bylaw No. 85 of 2002 - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed River City's appeal - Whether the bylaw prohibited or permitted River City's shelter turned on the bylaw's definition of "church" - That definition was as follows "'CHURCH (PLACE OF WORSHIP)' means a building used by a religious organization for public worship and church-sponsored community activities and projects, and may include as accessory uses a rectory or manse, church hall, day nursery or religious school, offices, but shall not include a soup kitchen or food bank, unless otherwise permitted by this By-law" - The applications judge made three fatal errors in determining that the homeless shelter was not a church-sponsored community activity or project - First, the applications judge erred in concluding that the express prohibition on soup kitchens and food banks indicated an intention to narrowly prescribe the range of activities that constituted church use - The specificity of the words "shall not include a soup kitchen or food bank" implied that the express prohibitions were intended to be exhaustive - Further, the prohibition on soup kitchens and food banks related to accessory uses, and not church-sponsored community activities or projects - Second, the applications judge erred by concluding that the renovations to the church basement took the shelter outside of the word "use", as defined in the bylaw - There was no indication in the bylaw that the definition of "use" was limited to purposes that existed when the building was first constructed - The bylaw did not expressly provide or imply that "church-sponsored community activities and projects" were restricted to activities or projects that could be accommodated without renovations - Third, the applications judge erred by attaching relevance to the fact that the homeless shelter fit under the bylaw's definition of "emergency shelter" - There was no indication in the bylaw that "church-sponsored community activities and projects" could not include uses that were defined elsewhere in the bylaw - See paragraphs 25 to 38.

Land Regulation - Topic 2676.9

Land use control - Zoning bylaws - Permitted or discretionary uses - Emergency shelter - [See both Land Regulation - Topic 2665.1 ].

Statutes - Topic 1554

Interpretation - Construction where meaning is not plain - Implied meaning - Stating one thing implies exclusion of another (expressio unius est exclusio alterius) - [See second Land Regulation - Topic 2665.1 ].

Words and Phrases

Church-sponsored community activities and projects - The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of this phrase in the context of a municipal zoning bylaw - See paragraphs 39 to 54.

Cases Noticed:

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 22].

Donnell v. Joseph et al., [2012] O.A.C. Uned. 209; 94 M.P.L.R.(4th) 169; 2012 ONCA 240, refd to. [para. 22].

John Doe v. Ontario (Finance) - see Ontario (Minister of Finance) v. Smith et al.

Ontario (Minister of Finance) v. Smith et al., [2014] 2 S.C.R. 3; 457 N.R. 40; 320 O.A.C. 135; 2014 SCC 36, refd to. [para. 23].

Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 24].

1121472 Ontario Inc. v. Toronto (City) (1998), 39 O.R.(3d) 535 (Gen. Div.), dist. [para. 36].

Toronto (City) v. 1121472 Ontario Inc. (1995), 26 O.R.(3d) 25 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 36].

Lighthouse Niagara Resource Centre v. Niagara Falls (City) (2003), 177 O.A.C. 34 (C.A.), consd. [para. 49].

Binet v. Pharmascience Inc. et al., [2006] 2 S.C.R. 513; 353 N.R. 343; 2006 SCC 48, refd to. [para. 54].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes (6th Ed. 2014), § 8.92 [para. 27].

Counsel:

Murray Klippenstein and Kent Elson, for the appellant;

Joseph J. Hoffer and Laura M. McKeen, for the respondent;

Reema Khawja and Cathy Pike, for the intervener, Ontario Human Rights Commission.

This appeal was heard on October 28, 2014, before Doherty, Epstein and Tulloch, JJA., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Tulloch, J.A., and was released on July 3, 2015.