Zivkovic v. Kitchener (City), (1999) 92 O.T.C. 321 (GD)

• Judge: Reilly, J.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: March 02, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1999), 92 O.T.C. 321 (GD)

Zivkovic v. Kitchener (1999), 92 O.T.C. 321 (GD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] O.T.C. TBEd. MR.227

Randy Zivkovic (plaintiff) v. The Corporation of the City of Kitchener (defendant)

(Court File No. 431/98)

Indexed As: Zivkovic v. Kitchener (City)

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Kitchener

Reilly, J.

March 2, 1999.

Summary:

The plaintiff was one of five body-rub parlours licensed to operate in the City of Kitchener. City council, concerned about the regulation of such parlours and about trying to limit their numbers, began a review of council policy in that regard. A staff report was prepared and public discussions took place over the next months. In September 1997, recommendations were made, including recommendations regarding permitted locations of body-rub parlours. Bylaw 97-142 was passed. It regulated locational criteria for body-rub parlours. Thereafter, council enacted bylaw 97-186 to licence and regulate body-rub parlours as "adult entertainment parlours" (as defined by the Municipal Act, s. 225). Bylaw 97-186 repealed Chapter 560 of the Municipal Code and all other bylaws regulating and licensing body-rub parlours with the exception of bylaw 97-142. The plaintiff, after several unsuccessful attempts to meet the locational criteria, was ordered to cease operations. He sought interim relief by way of mandatory order and injunction. By cross-motion, the City sought, inter alia, a determination before trial of certain questions of law. Consequently, the issues before the court were: (1) Was bylaw 97-186 valid and intra vires the City? (2) Were the locational criteria intra vires the City and had they been validly enacted? (3) Had the City properly exercised its decision making powers in considering the plaintiff's licence application?

The Ontario Court (General Division), answered the questions as follows: (1) Bylaw 97-186 was valid and it was intra vires the City. (2) The locational criteria was intra vires the City and the criteria had been validly enacted. (3) The City properly exercised its decision making powers when considering the plaintiff's application for a licence in every way but one. Particularly, the City failed to consider the plaintiff's request for an exemption from strict compliance with bylaw 97-186 regarding a proposed location at 1081 King Street East. The court ordered, inter alia, that the plaintiff be entitled to apply for a new licence and that the City give the plaintiff the same consideration that it gave to other successful licence applicants.

Municipal Law - Topic 411

Councils - Resolutions - Quashing of - Grounds - Bad faith - See paragraphs 23 to 74.

Municipal Law - Topic 412

Councils - Resolutions - Quashing of - Grounds - Discrimination - See paragraphs 30 to 35.

Municipal Law - Topic 413

Councils - Resolutions - Quashing of - Grounds - Purpose of resolution not authorized by empowering statute - See paragraphs 23 to 132.

Municipal Law - Topic 416

Councils - Resolutions - Quashing of - Grounds - Vagueness - See paragraphs 74 to 96.

Municipal Law - Topic 1496

Powers of municipalities - Licensing and regulating of businesses - See paragraphs 1 to 132.

Municipal Law - Topic 1577

Powers of municipalities - Exercise of powers - Requirement of authority for - See paragraphs 23 to 132.

Municipal Law - Topic 3208

Bylaws - General principles - Presumption of validity - See paragraphs 39 to 54.

Municipal Law - Topic 3737

Bylaws - Construction or interpretation - Relevant considerations - See paragraphs 39 to 54.

Municipal Law - Topic 3770

Bylaws - Scope of - Licensing bylaw - See paragraphs 1 to 132.

Municipal Law - Topic 3846

Bylaws - Quashing bylaws - Grounds for judicial inference - Discrimination - See paragraphs 30 to 35.

Municipal Law - Topic 3848

Bylaws - Quashing bylaws - Grounds for judicial inference - Uncertainty or vagueness - See paragraphs 75 to 94.

Municipal Law - Topic 3853

Bylaws - Quashing bylaws - Grounds for judicial interference - Lack of good faith - See paragraphs 23 to 74.

Cases Noticed:

Sharlmark Hotels Ltd. and Metropolitan Toronto (Municipality) (1981), 32 O.R.(2d) 129 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 28].

Forst v. Toronto (City) (1923), 54 O.L.R. 256 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Toronto (City) v. Mandelbaum, [1932] O.R. 552 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

Namusa Enterprises Ltd. v. Etobicoke, Lottery Licensing Officer for Etobicoke and Etobicoke Board of Control (1984), 6 O.A.C. 137; 47 O.R.(2d) 769 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 32].

Winton (H.G.) Ltd. v. North York (Borough) (1978), 20 O.R.(2d) 737 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 34].

Luxor Entertainment Corp. v. North York (City) (1996), 27 O.R.(3d) 259 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 35].

Equity Waste Management of Canada et al. v. Halton Hills (Town) (1998), 103 O.A.C. 324; 35 O.R.(3d) 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

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, refd to. [para. 37].

Howard v. Toronto (City), [1928] 1 D.L.R. 952 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

Verdun (City) v. Sun Oil Co., [1952] 1 S.C.R. 222, refd to. [para. 39].

Neon Products Ltd. v. North York (Borough) et al. (1974), 5 O.R.(2d) 736 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Greenbaum (M.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 674; 149 N.R. 114; 61 O.A.C. 241; 100 D.L.R.(4th) 183; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 158; 10 Admin. L.R.(2d) 161; 19 C.R.(4th) 347; 14 M.P.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 39].

Atkinson et al. v. Metropolitan Toronto (Municipality) (1976), 12 O.R.(2d) 401 (C.A.), revd. [1978] 1 S.C.R. 918; 16 N.R. 153, refd to. [para. 40].

Butterworth and Ottawa (City), Re (1918), 45 D.L.R. 426; 44 O.L.R. 84, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Stronach, [1928] 3 D.L.R. 216 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

Watt v. Drysdale (1907), 17 Man.R. 15 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

Doble v. Canadian Northern Railway (1916), 27 D.L.R. 115 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

Merritt v. Toronto (City) (1895), 22 O.A.R. 205, refd to. [para. 45].

Robinson v. Board of Commissioners of Police of Kingston (City) (1980), 29 O.R.(2d) 326 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 47].

Ultimate Relaxation Inc. v. Coquitlam (City) (1955), 30 M.P.L.R.(2d) 245 (B.C.S.C.)s, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Bell, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 212; 26 N.R. 457; 9 M.P.L.R. 103, refd to. [para. 56].

Kruse v. Johnson, [1898] 2 Q.B. 91, refd to. [para. 56].

Good and Shantz (Jacob Y.) Son and Co., Re (1911), 23 O.L.R. 544 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Sandler (1971), 3 O.R. 614 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

Oshawa (City) v. 505191 Ontario Ltd. (1986), 14 O.A.C. 217; 54 O.R.(2d) 632 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1986), 74 N.R. 316; 18 O.A.C. 320; 58 O.R.(2d) 535 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 59].

538745 Ontario Inc. v. Windsor (City) (1988), 25 O.A.C. 285; 64 O.R.(2d) 38 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1988), 88 N.R. 159; 30 O.A.C. 79 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 60].

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. 61].

Mariano v. Mississauga (City) (1992), 55 O.A.C. 68; 8 O.R.(3d) 657 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 61].

Canada et al. v. Winnipeg (City) (1984), 31 Man.R.(2d) 9; 15 D.L.R.(4th) 632 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].

International Escort Services Inc. v. Vancouver (City) (1988), 42 M.P.L.R. 181 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 63].

Adults Only Video v. Mississauga (City) (1996), 8 O.T.C. 241; 29 O.R.(3d) 655 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 64].

913719 Ontario Ltd. v. Mississauga (City) - see Adults Only Video v. Mississauga (City).

Blyth v. Northumberland (County) (1990), 75 O.R.(2d) 576 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 79].

Applewood Dixie Ltd. v. Mississauga (Town), [1969] 2 O.R. 467 (C.A.), affd. [1970] S.C.R. 691, refd to. [para. 79].

Sibley v. Fenelon (Township) (1972), 2 O.R.(2d) 737 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 88].

McGill v. Brantford (City) (1980), 28 O.R.(2d) 721 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 101].

French v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 767; 3 N.R. 410, refd to. [para. 102].

Ringrose v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 814; 9 N.R. 383; 1 A.R. 1, refd to. [para. 102].

Prince George (City) v. Payne, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 458; 15 N.R. 386, refd to. [para. 105].

Tomaro v. Vanier (City) (1978), 20 O.R.(2d) 657 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 129].

Statutes Noticed:

Kitchener (City) Bylaws, Bylaw No. 97-142, generally [para. 8]; Bylaw No. 97-186, sect. 13 [para. 14].

Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M-45, sect. 101(2) [para. 55]; sect. 102 [para. 23]; sect. 225.(1), sect. 225.(3), sect. 225.(9), sect. 225.(11) [para. 26]; sect. 257.2, sect. 257.3, sect. 257.6, sect. 257.7 [para. 25].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Maxwell, Peter Benson, Interpretation of Statutes (6th Ed.), p. 501 [para. 46].

Meredith and Wilkinson, Canadian Municipal Manual (1917), p. 254 [para. 43].

Counsel:

Graydon Sheppard, for the plaintiff;

Milena Protich, for the defendant.

This motion was heard before Reilly, J., of the Ontario Court (General Division), who released the following judgment on March 2, 1999.