Soo Mill & Lumber Co. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), (1974) 2 N.R. 429 (SCC)

• Judge: Laskin, C.J.C., Judson, Ritchie, Pigeon and Dickson, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: May 27, 1974
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1974), 2 N.R. 429 (SCC);47 DLR (3d) 1;56 DLR (3d) 702;1974 CanLII 207 (SCC);[1976] 1 SCR 132;1974 CanLII 1358 (SCC);2 NR 429;1974 CanLII 17 (SCC);[1975] 2 SCR 78

Soo Mill & Lumber v. Sault Ste. Marie (1974), 2 N.R. 429 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

Soo Mill & Lumber Co. Ltd. v. City of Sault Ste. Marie

Indexed As: Soo Mill & Lumber Co. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City)

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Judson, Ritchie, Pigeon and Dickson, JJ.

May 27, 1974.

Summary:

This case arose out of an application by a landowner for a declaration that a zoning bylaw of the City of Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario was invalid. The bylaw in question implemented a "freeze" on development with respect to the applicant's lot of land except for certain agricultural uses. The zoning bylaw placed the land in a holding category in order to delay its development. The trial court declared the zoning bylaw invalid and described it as a temporary zoning bylaw not authorized by s. 35 of the Planning Act - see [1972] 3 O.R. 621.

On appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal the appeal was allowed and the judgment of the trial court was set aside. The Ontario Court of Appeal held that while the bylaw was temporary and indefinite in duration of operation it was a valid exercise of the powers conferred by the Planning Act - see [1973] 2 O.R. 111.

On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal was affirmed.

The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the bylaw was valid and that it was not legally objectionable to require a landowner to make an application to have his land removed from a holding category - see paragraph 8. The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the zoning bylaw in question did not amount to a total prohibition because the zoning bylaw permitted certain agricultural and pre-existing uses - see paragraph 9. The Supreme Court of Canada stated that there was no legal distinction between temporary and other bylaws - see paragraph 10.

The Supreme Court of Canada stated that bylaws implementing an official plan pursuant to the Ontario Planning Act should receive a liberal interpretation - see paragraph 7.

Land Regulation - Topic 2612

Land use control legislation - Zoning bylaw - Validity of a zoning bylaw which implemented a "freeze" on the commercial use of land except for certain agricultural uses - Ontario Planning Act, s. 35 - The Supreme Court of Canada declared valid the temporary "freeze" on development contained in a zoning bylaw of the City of Sault Ste. Marie.

Land Regulation - Topic 2601

Land use control legislation - Zoning bylaw - Interpretation of zoning bylaws - Ontario Planning Act - Zoning bylaws which implement an official plan approved under the Ontario Planning Act - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that such bylaws should receive a liberal interpretation - See paragraph 7.

Cases Noticed:

Sanbay Developments Ltd. v. City of London (1974), 2 N.R. 422, folld. [para. 6].

Statutes Noticed:

Planning Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 349, sect. 35.

Counsel:

G.E. Julian and J.F. Kelleher, for the appellant;

R.J. Rolls, Q.C. and L.P.D. Staples, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada on February 15 and 18, 1974. Judgment was delivered on May 27, 1974 and the following reasons for judgment were filed:

LASKIN, C.J.C. - see paragraphs 1 to 11;

PIGEON, J. - see paragraphs 12 and 13.

JUDSON, RITCHIE, and DICKSON, JJ., concurred with LASKIN, C.J.C.