Rosanne Giulietti

The defendants brought a Rule 21.01 motion to strike a Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim alleging unlawful interference with a towing and parking enforcement business and seeking reinstatement of a licence suspended by police.

The plaintiffs alleged that police deliberately failed to enter tow cards into CPIC, resulting in theft charges and business losses.

The court held that municipalities exercising regulatory powers in good faith enjoy relative immunity unless their conduct is irrational, and the pleadings failed to properly particularize allegations of malice.

The court also found that the challenge to the licence suspension constituted a matter for judicial review before the Divisional Court rather than an action in the Superior Court.

The statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was struck.

A natural gas distributor applied to quash a municipal by-law imposing a pavement degradation fee on entities excavating city roads, arguing the fee was ultra vires under the City of Toronto Act, 2006 and O. Reg. 595/06.

The applicant contended the fee impermissibly targeted gas distributors, was unrelated to permit issuance costs, and improperly related to the transportation of natural resources.

The municipality argued the fee formed part of a broader regulatory scheme governing road excavation and utility cuts and was authorized as a permit-related charge.

The court applied a broad and purposive interpretation of municipal powers and held the fee was reasonably connected to a regulatory scheme managing road infrastructure and excavation permits.

The application to quash the by-law was dismissed.