Janice Lyn Page

Following dismissal of a motion for an interlocutory injunction, the respondent municipality sought costs against the unsuccessful applicant.

The applicant argued she should be treated as a public interest litigant and shielded from adverse costs due to limited financial means and alleged broader public importance of the litigation.

The court held that public interest status does not exempt litigants from ordinary cost rules and found the case did not meet the recognized criteria for public interest litigation.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01 and s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court awarded partial indemnity costs but reduced the claimed amount due to concerns that the municipality’s bill included costs related to other steps in the proceeding.

Costs were fixed at $4,700 payable forthwith.

An association representing taxicab owners and drivers applied under the Municipal Act, 2001 to quash a municipal taxi and limousine bylaw enacted by the city.

The applicant alleged the bylaw was passed in bad faith and discriminated against the taxicab industry by permitting limousine operators to compete without comparable restrictions.

The court held that municipalities possess broad authority under the Municipal Act to regulate and differentiate between classes of vehicles for hire, including setting fares and licensing regimes.

The evidence demonstrated extensive consultation, investigation, and debate prior to enactment of the bylaw.

The applicant failed to establish the high threshold required to prove municipal bad faith or unlawful discrimination.

A municipal resident brought a motion under s.273(4) of the Municipal Act, 2001 seeking an interlocutory order restraining the city from continuing stormwater management construction associated with the abandonment of a municipal drain.

The applicant argued that the by-law abandoning the drain was invalid because the city failed to follow public consultation procedures allegedly required by its Official Plan after an environmental impact study was prepared.

The court held that the traditional three-part test for interlocutory injunctions from RJR‑MacDonald applies to relief sought under s.273(4).

Although the applicant raised a serious issue to be tried, she failed to establish irreparable harm and the balance of convenience strongly favoured the municipality due to substantial financial and contractual consequences of halting ongoing construction.

The motion for interlocutory injunctive relief was dismissed.