Xentel DM Inc. et al. v. Windsor (City), [2004] O.T.C. 785 (SC)

• Judge: Gates, J.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Case Date: April 01, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: [2004] O.T.C. 785 (SC)

Xentel DM Inc. v. Windsor, [2004] O.T.C. 785 (SC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] O.T.C. TBEd. SE.021

Xentel DM Incorporated, Outdoor Amusement Business Association, TZ Productions and Garden Brothers (applicants) v. The Corporation of the City of  Windsor (respondent)

(Court File No. 03-CV-000781)

Indexed As: Xentel DM Inc. et al. v. Windsor (City)

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Gates, J.

September 7, 2004.

Summary:

This headnote contains no summary.

Civil Rights - Topic 1801

Freedom of speech or expression - General principles - Expression or opinion - What constitutes - See paragraphs 126 to 138.

Civil Rights - Topic 1844

Freedom of speech or expression - Limitations on - Entertainment - See paragraphs 126 to 153.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law (Charter, s. 1) - See paragraphs 140 to 153.

Constitutional Law - Topic 6492

Federal jurisdiction (s. 91) - Criminal law - Respecting particular matters - Public morals - See paragraphs 108 to 125.

Municipal Law - Topic 1489

Powers of municipalities - Particular powers - Control or keeping of animals - See paragraphs 1 to 153.

Municipal Law - Topic 3283

Bylaws - Conditions precedent to enactment - Hearing - See paragraphs 67 to 69.

Municipal Law - Topic 3772

Bylaws - Particular bylaws (incl. scope of) - Animal control bylaw - See paragraphs 1 to 153.

Municipal Law - Topic 3842

Bylaws - Quashing bylaws - Grounds for judicial interference - Ultra vires - See paragraphs 1 to 154.

Municipal Law - Topic 3846

Bylaws - Quashing bylaws - Grounds for judicial interference - Discrimination - See paragraphs 45 to 66.

Municipal Law - Topic 3848

Bylaws - Quashing bylaws - Grounds for judicial interference - Uncertainty or vagueness - See paragraphs 70 to 107.

Cases Noticed:

Shell Canada Products Ltd. v. Vancouver (City), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 231; 163 N.R. 81; 41 B.C.A.C. 81; 66 W.A.C. 81; 110 D.L.R.(4th) 1; [1994] 3 W.W.R. 609; 88 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145; 20 Admin. L.R.(2d) 202; 20 M.P.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 19].

Merritt v. Toronto (City) (1895), 22 O.A.R. 205 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Hamilton (City) v. Hamilton Distillery Co. (1907), 38 S.C.R. 239, refd to. [para. 20].

Associated Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corp., [1948] 1 K.B. 223 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Sharma (D.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 650; 149 N.R. 161; 61 O.A.C. 161; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 142; 100 D.L.R.(4th) 167, refd to. [para. 25].

Nanaimo (City) v. Rascal Trucking Ltd. et al., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 342; 251 N.R. 42; 132 B.C.A.C. 298; 215 W.A.C. 298, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Guignard (R.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 472; 282 N.R. 365, refd to. [para. 26].

114957 Canada ltée (Spraytech, Société d'arrosage) et al. v. Hudson (Town), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 241; 271 N.R. 201; 200 D.L.R.(4th) 419, refd to. [para. 30].

Toronto (City) v. Goldlist Properties Inc. et al. (2003), 178 O.A.C. 11 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Lambert v. Whistler (Resort Municipality) et al., [2004] B.C.T.C. 342 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

Alberta Commercial Fishermen's Association v. Opportunity No. 17 (Municipal District) (2001), 289 A.R. 47 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Konakov (2004), 69 O.R.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

Old St. Boniface Residents Association Inc. v. Winnipeg (City) et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1170; 116 N.R. 46; 69 Man.R.(2d) 134; 75 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 35].

McGill v. Brantford (City) (1980), 111 D.L.R.(3d) 405 (Ont. Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 36].

Pedwell et al. v. Pelham (Town) et al. (2003), 174 O.A.C. 147 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

Winton (H.G.) v. North York (Borough) (1978), 20 O.R.(2d) 737 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Loscerbo (A.) (1994), 92 Man.R.(2d) 263; 61 W.A.C. 263 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. D.A.Z., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 1025; 140 N.R. 327; 131 A.R. 1; 25 W.A.C. 1; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 16 C.R.(4th) 133; 5 Alta. L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Sandler, [1971] 3 O.R. 614 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 78].

Good and Shantz (Jacob Y.) Son and Co., Re (1911), 23 O.L.R. 544 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 79].

Niagara Falls v. Chiu, (2003), 38 M.P.L.R.(3d) 254 (Ont. C.J.), refd to. [para. 82].

R. v. Zundel (1987), 18 O.A.C. 161; 31 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 83].

Ontario v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1028; 183 N.R. 323; 82 O.A.C. 241; 99 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society (No. 2), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606; 139 N.R. 241; 114 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 313 A.P.R. 91; 74 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 85].

Stadium Corp. of Ontario Ltd. v. Toronto (City) (1992), 10 O.R.(3d) 203 (Div. Ct.), revd. (1993), 62 O.A.C. 371; 12 O.R.(3d) 646 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 112].

R. v. Fink, [1967] 2 O.R. 132 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 112].

Rio Hotel Ltd. v. Liquor Licensing Board (N.B.), New Brunswick (Attorney General) and Saskatchewan (Attorney General), [1987] 2 S.C.R. 59; 77 N.R. 104; 81 N.B.R.(2d) 328; 205 A.P.R. 328, refd to. [para. 113].

Ontario Adult Entertainment Bar Association v. Metropolitan Toronto (Municipality) (1997), 104 O.A.C. 113 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott (1985), 11 O.A.C. 81; 48 C.R.(3d) 1; 22 D.L.R.(4th) 641; 52 O.R.(2d) 353; 22 C.C.C.(3d) 353 (C.A.), revd. [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1; 44 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 31 C.R.R. 1; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 62 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 116].

McNeil v. Nova Scotia Board of Censors, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 662; 19 N.R. 570; 25 N.S.R.(2d) 128; 36 A.P.R. 128; 84 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 121].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2; 58 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 25 C.P.R.(3d) 417, refd to. [para. 129].

605715 Saskatchewan Ltd. et al. v. Liquor and Gaming Licensing Commission (Sask.) et al. (1999), 181 Sask.R. 189; 192 D.L.R.(4th) 150 (Q.B.), leave to appeal dismissed (2000), 270 N.R. 198; 213 Sask.R. 291; 260 W.A.C. 291 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 133].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 19 C.R.R. 308, refd to. [para. 141].

R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; 71 N.R. 161; 19 O.A.C. 239; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 55 C.R.(3d) 193; 35 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 28 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 145].

R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd. - see R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al.

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81; 94 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 120 D.L.R.(4th) 12; 25 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 34 C.R.(4th) 269, refd to. [para. 152].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Hoehn, Felix, Municipalities and Canadian Law: Defining the Authority of Local Governments (1996), pp. 165, 166 [para. 124].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (4th Ed. 1997) (2002 Looseleaf), pp. 891 [para. 146]; 897 [para. 150]; 995, 996 [para. 128].

Rogers, Ian MacF., The Law of Canadian Municipal Corporations (2nd Ed.) (1971 Looseleaf), vol. 1, pp. 474 [para. 80]; 475, 476 [para. 81].

Counsel:

Stanley M. Makuch and Singe B. Leisk (Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP), for the applicant;

Mark P. Nazarewich (Office of the City Solicitor), for the respondent.

This application was heard on March 22-25, 30 and 31 and April 1, 2004, before Gates, J., of the Ontario Superior Court, who released the following decision on September 7, 2004.

Please note: The following judgment has not been edited.