The appellants, owners and employees of a body-rub parlour, brought an action challenging a municipal by-law regulating such establishments.
They alleged the by-law was a colourable attempt to prohibit body-rub parlours, trenching on federal criminal law power, and that it violated ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter.
They also claimed damages for misfeasance in public office and intentional interference with economic interests.
The motions judge granted the City's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the action.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the appellants raised triable issues regarding the colourability of the by-law and the s. 8 Charter claim concerning warrantless searches.
However, the Court upheld the dismissal of the tort claims and the s. 9 Charter claim.
