Jean Rochette

The appellant municipality challenged a Court of Appeal decision annulling a by-law regulating amusement machines and amusement halls.

The Supreme Court held that, apart from severable age-based restrictions, the by-law was a valid regulatory scheme concerning local commerce, zoning, youth protection and local policing, and was neither disguised prohibitory legislation nor impermissibly vague.

The Court further held that the municipality lacked authority to enact discriminatory distinctions based on age absent express or necessarily implied statutory authorization, rendering the provisions excluding persons under eighteen from amusement halls and billiard halls ultra vires.

The constitutional division-of-powers challenge failed because the by-law did not trench on the federal criminal law power.

The appellant challenged a municipal by-law that prohibited remaining in a public place for the purposes of prostitution, arguing it was ultra vires as an invasion of federal criminal law powers.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, finding the case indistinguishable from Westendorp v. The Queen.

The Court set aside the Quebec Court of Appeal's decision and restored the trial judgment quashing the appellant's conviction.

The City of Montreal appealed a decision quashing By-law 4876, which increased the special tax on private parking grounds and calculated it based on square footage.

The respondents challenged the by-law on several grounds, including that the City lacked the authority under its Charter to calculate the tax based on area.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that municipal corporations must exercise only those taxing powers expressly conferred by the legislature.

Because the Charter did not expressly authorize the City to impose a variable tax based on area for parking lots, the by-law was ultra vires.