The applicant moved to quash an interim control by-law and its extending by-law enacted by the respondent municipality, alleging illegality and bad faith.
The applicant also claimed damages for misfeasance in public office and misrepresentation.
The court found that the emergency meeting where the by-law was enacted met procedural and statutory requirements, including being open to the public.
The court held that the municipality's actions, including extending the by-law due to delays in adopting the Official Plan, were justified and did not demonstrate bad faith.
The motion was dismissed.
