Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-25-00000341-0000
Date: 2025-03-11
Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between:
The Corporation of the City of Waterloo, Applicant
– and –
Persons Unknown, Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant: Susan Smith and William J.L. Stevenson
Heard: 6 March 2025
Judge: M. Gibson

Corrected Decision: March 12, 2025 – In paragraph 37 the citation of the case of RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) has been corrected to RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 SCR 311

Reasons for Decision

Overview

[1] The Corporation of the City of Waterloo (the “City”) brings an ex parte motion for an Order granting an interlocutory statutory injunction, and an interlocutory quia timet injunction, to restrain the Respondents from violating the City’s By-law No. 2011-125, Being a By-law to Prohibit or Regulate Public Nuisances Within the City of Waterloo (the “By-law”).

[2] On 6 March 2025, I granted the City’s motion, and issued an Order granting the interlocutory statutory injunction and an interlocutory quia timet injunction. I indicated at that time in my brief Endorsement that more detailed reasons would be forthcoming. These Reasons for Decision now explain why I have done so. This is a matter of significant public importance, and it is appropriate that the Court provide detailed reasons to explain the basis for such an Order.

Background

[3] Illegal street parties related to St. Patrick’s Day are scheduled or may be scheduled to occur on March 14, 15, 16, and 17, 2025 (the “Event”). The Event will be a “Nuisance Party” as defined under the By-law. The By-law prohibits the sponsoring, conducting, continuing, hosting, creating, allowing, causing, permitting and/or attending of a “Nuisance Party.” The injunction seeks to prevent that activity.

[4] The Respondents are persons unknown, consisting of “faceless” online social media accounts that, inter alia, sponsor, create, and cause Nuisance Parties, and include the attendees, who have historically numbered in the thousands to tens of thousands.

[5] The injunction would be limited in its scope both temporally and geographically: it would cover only a period of days during which the Event may be held and would be limited to a geographic area where the Event may and has occurred.

[6] Since 2014, the City has been tracking attendance during St. Patrick’s Day (“SPD”), a day observed annually on March 17th, and the days leading up to it. The City has experienced crowds as high as tens of thousands of individuals present over the course of days leading up to and including SPD. These are large outdoor gatherings that are primarily centred in and near neighbourhoods around Wilfrid Laurier University (the “WLU”), the University of Waterloo (the “UW”), and Conestoga College (the “CC”) to a lesser extent. With the high volume of individuals in attendance, these unsanctioned events involve nuisance behaviour, property damage, road blockages, public safety risks, and leave the City with unrecoverable costs amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Facts

[7] In its comprehensive Motion Record for the motion, the City provided the affidavits of Nicole Papke (Director of Municipal Enforcement Services with the Community Services division of the City), Alexandra von Solm (Deputy Fire Chief and Alternate Emergency Management Coordinator, Waterloo Fire Rescue Division of the City), and Brenna Bonn (Superintendent, Operational Support, Waterloo Regional Police Service (“WRPS”)). I accept the evidence presented in all three affidavits, and they form the factual underpinning for my analysis and decision.

[8] The City’s Motion Record also included letters from WLU, UW, CC, Grand River Hospital and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, fully supporting the City’s Application for an injunction.

[9] Large outdoor unsanctioned gatherings in communities that have post-secondary institutions are a growing area of concern across Ontario, with the City experiencing one of the largest unsanctioned SPD gatherings in the country. This phenomenon is of course not confined solely to Kitchener-Waterloo. Such events have also occurred in Kingston, Ottawa, Guelph, London and Hamilton, to name a few locations. These events, which are largely—though not exclusively—attended by local university students involve outdoor parties that occur in the streets of neighbourhoods in proximity to the post-secondary institutions. Attendance is typically in the thousands.

[10] The events have often resulted in public disturbances, property damage, cases of bodily harm, and leave cities with substantial response costs. The events are typically organized through social media and the dates for these types of unsanctioned events are advertised online via social media by accounts operated by unidentifiable individuals or entities. One of the more prolific such accounts, “CanadianPartyLife,” has over 505,000 “followers”. In addition to advertising dates for these unsanctioned events, this account regularly posts photographs and videos of activities that occur at such events.

[11] With the exception of 2020 and 2021 which were subject to public health restrictions arising from the COVID-19 Pandemic, the unsanctioned events in Waterloo have historically occurred on the dates advertised online by the social media accounts.

[12] “Nuisance Party” is a defined term under the City’s By-law, and essentially applies to unsanctioned events that give rise to public nuisance, such as public disorderly conduct, public drunkenness, damage to property, elevated noise levels, impeding traffic, and public urination and defecation. The City has been experiencing these types of large-scale outdoor street parties since before 2014, which occur in the neighbourhoods centred around WLU, UW, and CC (the “Neighbourhoods”). The Neighbourhoods are home to many students that attend WLU, UW, and CC (collectively the “Institutions”), though they are also home to residents without any affiliation to the schools. The street parties have also attracted considerable numbers of persons who have no affiliation with WLU, UW or CC, and may even have even come from locations distant from Waterloo Region.

[13] The most prolific Nuisance Parties that have occurred in the City since before 2014 are WLU Homecoming (or “HOCO”) and the SPD event. The HOCO event historically occurs in late September, and the SPD event historically occurs around the 17th of March. The SPD event in 2015 drew an attendance of approximately 8,000 individuals to the Neighbourhoods. There were issues with open alcohol consumption, property damage, public urination, impeding emergency vehicles, noise amplification, and glass bottles and other objects being thrown. The SPD event that occurred in March of 2019 had an attendance of more than 33,000 people, the culmination of a steady increase in attendance between 2015 and 2019. In 2019, the Waterloo Regional Police Service (the “WRPS”) laid 232 charges and made 18 arrests related to SPD gatherings. The City’s Municipal Enforcement Service (“MES”) issued 32 noise and nuisance related penalty notices that same year. The City, WRPS, and Paramedic Services’ costs in responding to the 2019 SPD event totalled approximately $750,000.

[14] Events did not occur from March 2020 to March 2021 due to COVID-19 Pandemic restrictions.

[15] In response to the 2019 SPD event, the City established a Large Public Gathering Task Force, which brought together stakeholders to investigate through research and community outreach how to best address unsanctioned street gatherings. The recommendations provided by the Large Public Gathering Task Force in 2020 have been pursued by the City. However, these measures have not prevented attendance at these unsanctioned gatherings from increasing from Pandemic lows. Attendance following the Pandemic restrictions were lower than the last pre-Pandemic SPD Street Party in 2019, but have had a steep upwards trajectory since, with estimated attendance in 2022, 2023, and 2024 being 4,000, 8,000, and 9,500, respectively.

[16] Given this trend, WRPS expects SPD unsanctioned gatherings to draw over 10,000 people this year. In 2022, St. Patrick’s Day fell on a Thursday. While the largest crowds formed on March 17th, there were additional parties and crowds over the weekend. On Thursday/Friday, the WRPS received 328 calls for service. 147 charges were laid, and 19 arrests were made. Over the weekend, between March 18th and March 20th, an additional 224 calls for service were received. 46 charges were laid, and an additional 3 arrests were made. The total cost for WRPS staffing for this event was $141,177.00. The following year in 2023, St. Patrick’s Day fell on a Friday. WRPS received 497 calls for service. 232 charges were laid, and 18 arrests were made. The total cost for WRPS staffing for this event was $266,114.00. In 2024, SPD fell on Sunday, but the weather was better on Saturday and that was the day the largest crowds formed. The WRPS responded to 282 calls on Saturday, March 16, and 105 calls on Sunday, March 17. In total, 238 charges were laid over the weekend, with 10 arrests being made. The total cost for WRPS staffing for this event was $317,531.00. The escalation of attendance to beyond 2015 levels is despite the considerable amount of effort expended by the Large Public Gathering Task Force’s partners to mitigate or eliminate these unsanctioned gatherings. Many efforts to geographically disincentivize attendees from Ezra Avenue, the epicentre and most congested area, has only resulted in displacing and relocating attendees to nearby areas on Marshall Street and Regina Street.

[17] The City’s total costs in responding to such unsanctioned public gatherings are estimated to have now exceeded $1,000,000.00.

The 2025 St. Patrick’s Day Event

[18] Between March 1st and 15th each year is when the WRPS has noticed social media posts coordinating and planning unsanctioned SPD gatherings start to proliferate, and as such, assign a member to monitor social media sites. In 2023 and 2024 these postings and polls on Reddit and Instagram discussed and coordinated what day(s) the unsanctioned gathering should be on, where deterrent fencing is likely to be located, and where the street parties should be held. The social media accounts "CanadianPartylife" and "WLUPartyLife” contributed to this coordination. While in the WRPS’ opinion, most of the planning and coordination has yet to occur due to timing, they expect social media accounts will begin promoting SPD events and advertising dates and locations over the next few weeks.

[19] Neighbouring jurisdictions have held school-sanctioned events that have not prevented the occurrence of large-scale unsanctioned street parties, as advertised for on social media by CanadianPartylife and other accounts.

[20] There is a very strong likelihood that the street parties will occur in the Neighbourhoods on the date(s) advertised for by the Online Accounts, given that unsanctioned events have historically occurred on the advertised-for dates. The City will once again be required to respond to the unsanctioned SPD street parties. The City's costs to respond to these street parties are estimated to be approximately $105,000.00, excluding WRPS, Waterloo Fire Rescue, and Paramedic Services – in keeping with past events. At no time have the Respondents made any efforts to contact the City to arrange for the hosting of a lawful public event.

The Street Parties Violate the City's By-laws and Threaten Public Safety

[21] The Nuisance Parties that have occurred in the City of Waterloo since before 2014, and the advertising of those Nuisance Parties, have consistently breached the Nuisance By-Law. The nature of those events, as described above, makes those events "Nuisance Parties" which are prohibited. The Nuisance Parties that have occurred since 2014 likewise breach other City by-laws, such as the Noise By-law. The upcoming SPD street parties will likewise breach those by-laws.

[22] The Nuisance Parties that have occurred since 2014 have repeatedly created issues with respect to public safety. The events have caused harm to attendees, interfered with roadway traffic (including access to nearby Grand River Hospital), and tied up vital emergency resources.

The City's Response Costs are Unrecoverable

[23] The entities that are responsible for the City's Nuisance Parties since 2019 are faceless online social media accounts and largely unidentifiable attendees (who number in the thousands to tens of thousands). Beyond the small amounts that the City can recover through the issuance of fines, the City's response costs—which are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars per event—are unrecoverable from the entities most responsible for causing them.

Issues

[24] The issues on this motion are:

1. Should the City be granted an interlocutory statutory injunction pursuant to section 440 of the Municipal Act, 2001?
2. Should the City be granted an interlocutory quia timet injunction pursuant to section 101 of the Courts of Justice Act, and Rules 40.01 and 40.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure?

Law and Analysis

The Motion Can Be Heard on an Ex Parte Basis

[25] Courts in Ontario have ordered injunctions on unknown persons in similar circumstances, including in cases where unsanctioned events are in breach of a municipality's by-laws: The Corporation of the Town of Wasaga Beach v. Persons Unknown, 2023 ONSC 4929. In 2024, in City of Hamilton v. Persons Unknown, CV-24-00087165-0000 (ONSC), 3 October 2024, Krawchenko J. granted an injunction on an ex parte basis, against the same sort of "persons unknown" that are involved in the present case, namely the faceless online social media accounts that sponsor, create, and cause nuisance parties, and the unidentifiable anticipated attendees.

[26] The standard for procedural fairness is met in issuing the injunction on an ex parte basis so long as there is urgency for the Order, the moving party has provided full and frank disclosure, and the three parts of the test in RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 SCR 311, are satisfied. Further, an injunction can be brought against non-parties on the basis of the long-standing principle that "non-parties may be seen as being, if not technically bound by the Order, bound to obey the Order": City of Ottawa v. Persons Unknown, 2022 ONSC 1151, at para 29 (“Ottawa”).

Issue 1 - The Statutory Injunction

[27] Statutory injunctions may be granted under s.440 of the Municipal Act, 2001. The standard common law test for an injunction requires the moving party to show (1) there is a serious issue to be tried, (2) irreparable harm will arise absent an injunction, and (3) the balance of convenience favours the moving party. There is a modified test to be applied where a statutory injunction is sought by a municipality pursuant to s. 440 of the Municipal Act, 2001 (“Municipal Act”), to restrain a person or persons from contravening its by-laws. Section 440 reads:

If any by-law of a municipality or by-law of a local board of a municipality under this or any other Act is contravened, in addition to any other remedy and to any penalty imposed by the by-law, the contravention may be restrained by application at the instance of a taxpayer or the municipality or local board.

[28] A municipality that seeks an injunction under s. 440 of the Municipal Act need only satisfy the first branch of three-part common law test (i.e., there is a serious issue to be tried). There is no need to prove that it will suffer irreparable harm, nor is there any need to consider the balance of convenience; this is because the public authority is presumed to be acting in the best interests of the public, and a breach of the law is considered to be irreparable harm to the public interest.

[29] When applying this modified test, greater emphasis is placed on whether there is a serious issue to be tried: a strong prima facie case must be established.

[30] Where a clear breach of a municipal by-law has been established, the Courts retain the residual discretion to decline the injunction only in exceptional circumstances: Ottawa, at para. 17. Exceptional circumstances in the context of a statutory injunction are limited, but could include: (a) circumstances where the right to conduct the impugned activity pre-existed the by-law; (b) the injunction is moot and would serve no purpose; (c) there is uncertainty regarding whether the offending party is flouting the law; (d) the conduct at issue is not the type of conduct that the enactment was intended to prevent; or (e) the offending party has ceased the activity and/or has provided clear and unequivocal evidence that the unlawful conduct will cease: Oglaza v. J.A.K.K. Tuesdays Sports Pub Inc., 2021 ONSC 7473, at para. 25.

[31] Many of the other considerations that apply to common law or equitable injunctions are not applicable in the context of a statutory injunction. These differences include: (a) an applicant will not have to prove that damages are inadequate or that irreparable harm will result if the injunction is refused; (b) proof of damages or proof of harm to the public is not an element of the legal test; (c) there is no need for other enforcement remedies to have been pursued or exhausted; and (c) the court retains a discretion as to whether to grant injunctive relief, but hardship from the imposition and enforcement of an injunction will generally not outweigh the public interest in having the law obeyed; that said, an injunction will not issue where it would: Retirement Homes Regulatory Authority v. In Touch Retirement Living for Vegetarians/Vegans Inc., 2019 ONSC 3401, at para. 47.

There has been a breach of the Nuisance Party By-Law

[32] The postings made by the Online Accounts on 23 February 2025, which advertised a poll for planning the SPD unsanctioned street parties on either the 15 March 2025 date or an alternate undecided date, breach the Nuisance By-law. A similar finding was made by the Court in October of 2024 with respect to the CanadianPartylife account making online posts setting dates for the unsanctioned St. Patrick's Day and Homecoming events in Hamilton; those posts were, for all intents and purposes, identical to those relating to the subject 2025 SPD event in Waterloo. Section 2.1(i) of the Nuisance By-law states that "no Person shall sponsor, conduct, continue, host, create, allow, cause or permit a Nuisance Party”.

[33] A "Nuisance Party" is defined by section 1 of the Nuisance By-law, and includes gatherings on public or private property that results in any one or more of the following: a) public disorderly conduct; b) public intoxication or public drunkenness; c) the unlawful sale, furnishing, or distribution of alcoholic beverages or controlled substances; d) the deposit of refuse on public or private property; e) damage to or destruction of public or private property; f) pedestrian traffic, vehicular traffic, or illegal parking that obstructs the free flow of traffic or could interfere with the ability to provide emergency services; g) unreasonable noise, or Nuisance Noise, including loud music or shouting that is of such a volume or nature as likely to disturb the inhabitants of the City; h) unlawful open burning or fireworks; i) use of smoke grenades or similar device; j) public disturbances, including public brawls or public fights; k) outdoor public urination or defecation or other bodily emissions; or l) use of entry upon a Roof not intended for such occupancy.

[34] Since before 2014, the unsanctioned SPD events that have occurred in the City of Waterloo in the Neighbourhoods have involved conduct or activities that satisfy the definition of a "Nuisance Party”. Since before 2014, there is a demonstrated history of Nuisance Parties occurring on the dates advertised through social media within the City of Waterloo. Unsanctioned events in neighbouring municipalities with post-secondary institutions have likewise occurred on the dates advertised via social media. The CanadianPartylife account (and other similar accounts) is directed towards the demographic that attends the Nuisance Parties – predominantly university-aged individuals – and has an online following in excess of 505,000 accounts.

[35] I accept the City’s submission that, through its social media postings, the Online Accounts are sponsoring, creating, and causing the unsanctioned 2025 SPD street parties, and that these, like those arising from past years' unsanctioned events, will be a "Nuisance Party" as defined by the Nuisance By-law.

[36] No exceptional circumstances exist in this case that might negate the Court's ability to grant an injunction. The Online Accounts are breaching the Nuisance By-law, and I find that an interlocutory statutory injunction should be granted prohibiting the breach of the By-law in the Neighbourhoods for the relevant period of time.

Issue 2 - Quia Timet Injunctive Relief

[37] A quia timet injunction restrains wrongful acts which are threatened or imminent, but have not yet commenced. This Court has undoubted jurisdiction to award a quia timet injunction. It is sought literally "because [the plaintiff] fears"; that is, injunctive relief is sought in apprehension of future harm. There is a three-part test for a common law injunction. This test was set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 SCR 311, and requires consideration of the following factors:

a. Is there a serious question to be tried? In other words, has the moving party presented a case which is not frivolous or vexatious?
b. Will the moving party, if unsuccessful, suffer irreparable harm which cannot be compensated other than through the granting of an injunction?
c. Does the balance of convenience favour the moving party? In other words, who will suffer the greater harm from the granting or refusal of an interlocutory injunction, pending a decision on the merits?

[38] On the first prong of the test, the party requesting an injunction has the onus of demonstrating there is a serious issue to be tried. The determination of whether the threshold of a "serious issue to be tried" is met is based on common sense and an extremely limited view of the case on the merits. So long as the claim is not frivolous or vexatious, this factor of the test will be satisfied.

[39] On the second prong of the test, and specifically with respect to quia timet injunctions, the court will consider whether there is a high degree of probability that the moving party will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted, and that the harm is about to occur imminently or in the near future. "Irreparable harm" refers to the nature of the harm suffered, rather than its magnitude. It is a harm which either cannot be quantified in monetary terms, or which cannot be cured, usually because the applicant cannot collect damages.

[40] Lastly, for the third prong of the test, in order to assess the balance of convenience, the Court must determine which of the parties will suffer the greater harm from the granting or refusal of an interlocutory injunction.

The City has met the RJR-MacDonald test for an injunction

[41] A recent decision from October of 2024 in Hamilton involving the same "Unknown Persons" and relating to unsanctioned St. Patrick's Day events found that the three-part test for an injunction was satisfied. The facts of the present case are essentially identical to those before the Court in Hamilton in October of 2024.

[42] Turning to the first prong of that test, the City's evidence establishes that it has a strong prima facie case that its By-law is being breached, and will continue to be breached, should the planned SPD street parties proceed. The City's Nuisance By-law is being breached by the social media postings made on 23 February 2025, which advertised for the 15 March 2025 (or alternate date(s)), unsanctioned SPD street parties. This would be in keeping with recent decisions dealing with the same parties and subject matter. Furthermore, in light of the documented history of unsanctioned events or "Nuisance Parties" that have occurred in the City of Waterloo since before 2014, there is a significant likelihood that the 2025 SPD street parties will breach the Nuisance By-law, give rise to a public nuisance, and result in significant response costs to the City.

[43] As for the second prong of the test, there is substantial evidence supporting a high probability of irreparable harm to the City should the street parties take place. The breach of its Nuisance By-law is itself an irreparable harm. There is an opportunity cost in terms of the distraction or diversion of public and first responder resources, that might directly contribute to tragic outcomes. There is a very significant financial cost. Municipal Enforcement Services, as a division within the City, has alone spent more than $940,000.00 addressing these unsanctioned gatherings since 2017, arising from having to respond to the unsanctioned SPD Nuisance Parties. The unsanctioned events or "Nuisance Parties" are sponsored, created, and caused by "persons unknown" – namely, the Online Accounts that are operated by unknown entities. Similarly, the unsanctioned events or "Nuisance Parties" are attended by "persons unknown" numbering in the thousands to tens of thousands. The City is unable to recover its costs of responding to the unsanctioned events or Nuisance Parties from the unidentifiable parties that sponsor, cause, or create the events – who are essentially faceless online entities – or from those who attend the events. Any small amount that the City is able to recover from issuing tickets is significantly offset by the overall costs to respond to the event.

[44] The Nuisance Parties in the City of Waterloo that are advertised for by the social media accounts have historically occurred on the dates advertised. The Online Accounts have advertised for unsanctioned 2025 SPD event dates in Waterloo for 15 March 2025, as well as potential alternate dates that same weekend – namely March 14, 16, and 17, or any combination thereof. I accept the City’s submission that the 2025 SPD street parties will occur imminently, and that the City will suffer irreparable harm if an injunction is not granted against those events.

[45] Lastly, for the third prong of the test: on a balance of convenience, the City will suffer the greater harm from a refusal of the granting of an injunction. The Nuisance Parties that have occurred in the City of Waterloo since before 2014 have given rise to significant and unrecoverable response costs, breached City by-laws, resulted in public disturbances, public and private property damage, illegal activity, and have usurped a disproportionate amount of public resources. No efforts have been made by the Respondents to coordinate with the City of Waterloo to legally host an event.

[46] The City stands to suffer significant harm in the absence of an injunction being issued against the unsanctioned 2025 SPD event. In contrast, the Respondents will not suffer any harm from the granting of an injunction. The injunction sought is limited both spatially and temporally, and does not prohibit events that are compliant with the Nuisance By-law, other by-laws, and the law, more generally.

Charter Considerations

[47] In considering such a request, it is always incumbent upon Courts to have regard to the rights of citizens under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Respondents’ rights under s.2 of the Charter to freedom of peaceful assembly or freedom of association are not a factor that might tilt the "balance of convenience" test in their favour. Charter rights are not absolute or unqualified; the Charter does not give any person the legal right to unlawfully trample on the legal rights of others, to threaten public safety, or to disregard lawful municipal enactments: Ottawa, at para. 49. (Contrary to the notorious Beastie Boys song, there is no “right to party.”) Moreover, even if there were considered to be some prima facie infringement of s.2 Charter rights by the proposed injunction, it is patent that such an infringement would be justified under s. 1 of the Charter, as a reasonable limit prescribed by law demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Conclusion

[48] The Respondents have sought to arrogate to themselves the determination of public safety in the City of Waterloo. Immaturity and youthful exuberance do not excuse this. The selfishness and indifference to public safety and the welfare of other citizens manifest in the show of defiance of the By-Law and Bacchanalian excess without regard to the consequences to others that the SPD gatherings have been in the past, and are likely to be in the proximate future in 2025, are disturbing. This is no laughing matter. It is not harmless frivolity. People who have a stroke or heart attack, or victims of accidents or fires, might well die because ambulances and paramedics or other first responders are preoccupied or delayed by dealing with the deliberate and voluntary stupidity of those amongst the Respondents who have engaged in the excessive consumption of alcohol or drugs and who thus require urgent medical attention arising from this. Or from burns they suffered from setting fire to a sofa in the street, or injuries sustained from falling off roofs, which has happened on previous occasions. The waste of finite public resources occasioned by the gatherings is disheartening. Moreover, the anarchic nature of the Nuisance Parties risks making another undeserved casualty: the reputation of the schools those attending are affiliated with.

[49] The injunctions requested by the City are fully warranted.

Order

[50] An Order will go, in accordance with the draft Order submitted by the Moving Party City signed by me on 6 March 2025, providing for interlocutory statutory and quia timet injunctions against the Respondents, which are to be limited both geographically and temporally.

M. Gibson
Date: 11 March 2025