COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE: PAUL REID (Plaintiff/Appellant) – and – THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF JOLY (Defendant/Respondent)
BEFORE: LASKIN, CHARRON and LANG JJ.A.
COUNSEL: Ian McLean for the appellant
Michael Miller for the respondent
HEARD: June 29, 2004
RELEASED ORALLY: June 29, 2004
On appeal from the judgment of Justice Norman M. Karam of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting without a jury, dated October 27, 2003.
E N D O R S E M E N T
1The applications judge made findings of fact which were supported by the evidence and which are determinative of the issues.
2The 2000 bylaw, which mandated fencing for kennels, was passed six months after the appellant’s competitor was elected to council. The 2001 bylaw, which regulated commercial animal kennels, was not alleged by the appellant to be discriminatory.
3In any event, both bylaws were passed for the general regulation of dog kennels. The appellant failed to establish that, in passing either bylaw, the township acted with “illegality” (the Act, s. 136): that it acted in bad faith or arbitrarily. The appellant also failed to establish that the bylaws were discriminatory or in restraint of trade. The applications judge found the appellant’s allegations of ulterior motive to be speculative.
4The applications judge was persuaded that both bylaws are reasonable and in the public interest; they were responsive to community concerns. He was correct in refusing to quash the bylaws.
5Given our view of the merits, there is no need to consider the limitation period issue.
6Costs are awarded to the respondent, payable by the appellant, fixed in the amount of $5,679.03, inclusive of G.S.T. and disbursements.