3 total
Interim injunction to stay new municipal mobile licensing by-law dismissed for failing RJR-MacDonald test.
The applicant, a property owner leasing space to food trucks, sought an interim injunction to stay the enforcement of the City of Brampton's new Mobile Licensing By-law pending a judicial review application.
The new by-law removed a previous exemption that allowed food trucks to operate in the downtown area with the local BIA's consent, instead permitting them anywhere downtown provided they are 50 metres from a fixed food premise.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, applying the RJR-MacDonald test.
The court found no serious issue to be tried as municipal by-laws cannot be challenged for unreasonableness and the City owed no duty of procedural fairness when acting legislatively.
The applicant also failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured the public interest in enforcing the validly enacted by-law.
Municipal board decision quashed for procedural unfairness after revoking food district approval without a hearing.
The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Downtown Brampton Development Corporation (BIA) to withdraw its support for a pilot Food District operating on the applicants' property.
The BIA had previously endorsed the project subject to certain conditions but later revoked its approval after receiving complaints from competing businesses, without giving the applicants notice of the motion or an opportunity to be heard.
The Divisional Court applied the Baker factors and found the BIA's process was procedurally unfair.
The application was granted and the BIA's decision was quashed.
The court dismissed an urgent motion by condominium owners to halt an AGM over unpaid special assessments.
The plaintiffs, condominium unit owners, brought an urgent motion seeking to remove criteria for participating in director elections (payment of a special assessment), reschedule the Annual General Meeting (AGM), remove a director, and obtain court supervision of the Board.
The court found no urgency for most of the relief sought, noting the plaintiffs had prior knowledge of the issues.
While a prima facie case was established regarding the special assessment's propriety due to the Corporation's failure to investigate the unit 35 owner's liability, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favored them.
The motion for injunctive relief (items a, b, d) was dismissed.
The request to remove a director (item c) was adjourned as it lacked urgency and could be scheduled as a regular motion.
