COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: 1786889 Ontario Inc. v. Toronto (City), 2014 ONCA 286

DATE: 20140414

DOCKET: C57963

BEFORE: Weiler, Lauwers and Pardu JJ.A.

BETWEEN

1786889 Ontario Inc.

Applicant (Appellant)

and

City of Toronto

Respondent (Respondent in appeal)

COUNSEL: Shawn Pulver and Lauren Sigal, for the appellant Ansuya Pachai and David Tortell for the respondent

Heard and released orally: April 9, 2014

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Janet Wilson of the Superior Court of Justice, dated October 25, 2013.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant does not allege bad faith or procedural unfairness.

[2] The appellant submits essentially that the City acted unreasonably in passing a by-law restricting the hours of licensed body rub parlours. The by-law is not reviewable on the ground of reasonableness. See s. 213 City of Toronto Act, 2006, S. O. 2006, c. 11.

[3] The appellant further submits that there was insufficient evidence to show that shortening the hours would mitigate any nuisance attributed to the operations and that there was insufficient evidence to show that any nuisance could be connected to licensed as opposed to illegally operating body rub parlours

[4] We disagree. The application judge referred to evidence in support of her findings and there is further evidence in the record that supports them. The appellant has failed to show that the application judge committed any palpable or overriding error in coming to the conclusion she did.

[5] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Costs of the appeal are to the respondent. On consent, costs are fixed in the amount of $6000 inclusive of all applicable taxes and disbursements.

“K.M. Weiler J.A.”

“P. Lauwers J.A.”

“G. Pardu J.A.”