Sara J. Premi

The applicant moved to quash an interim control by-law and its extending by-law enacted by the respondent municipality, alleging illegality and bad faith.

The applicant also claimed damages for misfeasance in public office and misrepresentation.

The court found that the emergency meeting where the by-law was enacted met procedural and statutory requirements, including being open to the public.

The court held that the municipality's actions, including extending the by-law due to delays in adopting the Official Plan, were justified and did not demonstrate bad faith.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant sought declarations that a regulation prohibiting abusive or insulting language in Niagara Parks infringed his freedom of expression under the Charter, after he was charged for swearing at police officers while holding a profane political sign.

The court held that the regulation was not vague or overbroad, and that given the historical and actual function of the park as a natural and tourist attraction, abusive language was likely not protected speech.

Alternatively, any infringement was justified under section 1 of the Charter.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicants' initial application was dismissed, leading to a costs endorsement.

The respondent Town sought substantial indemnity costs of $21,547.21.

The applicants argued against costs or for partial indemnity, asserting the issues were valid and counsel's time excessive.

The court, applying Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, determined that the respondent, as the successful party, was entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis.

Despite delays attributed to the applicants, the court found no conduct warranting substantial indemnity costs under the "reprehensible, scandalous or outrageous" threshold established in Young v. Young.

Costs were fixed at $18,112.80, all-inclusive, payable by the applicants within 30 days.

The applicants sought a permanent injunction to prevent the municipality from removing derelict vehicles and debris from their property pursuant to a property standards order.

The applicants argued that the tenant was not properly served, that the vehicles constituted a legal non-conforming use, and that a Crown Patent exempted the property from municipal regulation.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the property owner was properly served under the Building Code Act, that legal non-conforming use applies to zoning rather than property standards, and that a Crown Patent does not displace valid provincial and municipal legislation.