Superior Propane Inc. and Propane Gas Association v. York (City), (1995) 80 O.A.C. 362 (CA)

• Judge: Morden, A.C.J.O., Griffiths and Abella, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: May 03, 1995
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1995), 80 O.A.C. 362 (CA)

Superior Propane Inc. v. York (1995), 80 O.A.C. 362 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Superior Propane Inc. and Propane Gas Association of Canada Inc. (applicants/appellants) v. The Corporation of the City of York (respondent)

(C12236)

Indexed As: Superior Propane Inc. and Propane Gas Association v. York (City)

Ontario Court of Appeal

Morden, A.C.J.O., Griffiths and Abella, JJ.A.

May 3, 1995.

Summary:

The City of York enacted Bylaw 1116-87 to restrict and regulate propane storage and dispensing facilities. The applicants claimed the bylaw was ultra vires because propane supply and distribution was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the province. The applicants also claimed a portion of the bylaw was uncertain and unenforceable. The Attorney General intervened in support of the applicants.

The Ontario Divisional Court, Holling­worth, J., dissenting, in a decision reported at 52 O.A.C. 340, held that the bylaw was intra vires the city. The applicants appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.

Municipal Law - Topic 3859

Bylaws - Quashing bylaws - Grounds for judicial interference - Conflict with statute - A city enacted a bylaw restricting and regulating propane storage and dispensing facilities - It was conceded that supply and distribution of propane fell exclusively under the comprehensive regulatory scheme under the Energy Act - The Ontario Divi­sional Court held that the bylaw was not invalid where, inter alia, there was no operative conflict between the bylaw and the provincial regulatory scheme - The bylaw merely enhanced the Energy Act scheme - The Ontario Court of Appeal disagreed - The court held that the Energy Act provided a comprehensive scheme and no conflict was required to invalidate the bylaw; in any event, an operative conflict did exist.

Municipal Law - Topic 3864

Bylaws - Quashing bylaws - Grounds for judicial interference - Field occupied by provincial legislature - [See Municipal Law - Topic 3859 ].

Cases Noticed:

Ontario (Attorney General) and Mississauga (City), Re (1981), 33 O.R.(2d) 395 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4 et seq.].

Union Gas Ltd. v. Dawn (Township) (1977), 15 O.R.(2d) 722 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 4].

Statutes Noticed:

Energy Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 139, sect. 29 [paras. 4, 5].

Energy Board Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 312, sect. 57(2) [para. 4].

Environmental Protection Act Regulations (Ont.), generally [para. 4].

Environmental Protection Act, S.O. 1971, c. 86, generally [para. 4].

Counsel:

Stanley B. Stein, for the appellants;

Stanley M. Makuch and Catherine Bray, for the respondent;

Linda McCaffrey, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Ontario.

This appeal was heard on April 18, 20 and 21, 1995, before Morden, A.C.J.O., Griffiths and Abella, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered orally on May 3, 1995, by Morden, A.C.J.O.