Kristen Franz

The applicants, owners of hookah lounges in Toronto, challenged a City of Toronto by-law prohibiting hookah smoking in licensed establishments.

They argued the City lacked the power to pass the by-law, that it was confiscatory, conflicted with provincial legislation (Occupational Health and Safety Act), and was passed in bad faith.

The court dismissed the application, finding the by-law was validly enacted under the City of Toronto Act's broad health and safety powers, was not confiscatory, did not create an operational conflict with the OHSA, and that there was no evidence of bad faith on the part of City Council.

The court emphasized the broad and purposive interpretation of municipal powers and deference to democratic decisions of municipal councils.

The City of Toronto appealed a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board finding that it had jurisdiction to determine whether site plan control applied to the respondent's proposed interior alterations.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Board's jurisdiction under s. 114(7) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 is limited to resolving disputes about what types of features or design elements should be included in a site plan application, not the threshold question of whether site plan control applies at all.

The standard of review was determined to be reasonableness, and the Board's interpretation was found to be unreasonable as it undermined the overall legislative scheme.

The Toronto District School Board appealed a decision dismissing its appeal from the City of Toronto's Chief Building Official.

The CBO had determined that a zoning by-law exemption for school board lands used 'only for teaching or instructional purposes' did not permit a private company to operate a commercial sports facility on school property.

The Divisional Court found that while the application judge erred in interpreting the by-law to restrict the 'user' rather than the 'use', the CBO's conclusion was reasonable.

The proposed private recreational use was not 'only' for teaching or instructional purposes, nor was it an 'accessory use' naturally and normally incidental to school use.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a civil action alleging assault and excessive force by police officers during an arrest that resulted in a shoulder injury.

The plaintiff conceded that the officers had reasonable and probable grounds for arrest but argued that the arresting officer used excessive force.

The court found that the officer used only a simple grab to pull the plaintiff away from discarded drugs and another suspect, causing the plaintiff to fall and injure his shoulder.

Applying principles under s. 25 of the Criminal Code and relevant case law on justified use of force, the court held that the force used was reasonable in the circumstances.

The action for damages was dismissed.