The respondent operated a public parking garage as a legal non-conforming use under a new comprehensive zoning by-law.
The new by-law contained performance standards identical to those in the former by-law.
The respondent introduced valet parking, which contravened these performance standards, and was convicted of breaching the by-law.
The conviction was quashed on appeal, but the Court of Appeal allowed the municipality's appeal and restored the conviction.
The Court held that subjecting a legal non-conforming use to performance standards identical to those in place when the use was acquired does not prevent the use of the property within the meaning of the Planning Act.
