Canada Post Corporation v. City of Hamilton

[Indexed as: Canada Post Corp. v. Hamilton (City)]

Ontario Reports

Ontario Superior Court of Justice,

Whitten J.

June 11, 2015

126 O.R. (3d) 501 | 2015 ONSC 3615

Case Summary

Municipal law — By-laws — Validity — By-law which required Canada Post to obtain permits for community mailboxes and which imposed moratorium on placement of mailboxes void for vagueness, of no force or effect under s. 14 of Municipal Act, and ultra vires municipality — Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, s. 14.

Canada Post ("CP"), a federal Crown corporation, decided to transition from home mail delivery to community mailboxes. The Hamilton City Council disapproved of that decision, and passed a by-law which subjected CP to a permit acquisition process at the discretion of the director of engineering services of the Public Works Department and which imposed a moratorium on the placement of community mailboxes to run for 120 days from whenever CP paid the city $100,000. CP brought an application for a declaration that the by-law was of no force or effect.

Held, the application should be allowed.

The by-law was void for vagueness. It was also of no force or effect under s. 14(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 as it was in conflict with a federal Act or regulation. Finally, the by-law was ultra vires the city as it trespassed on the ability of CP to carry out its mandate to deliver the mail in a fashion deemed appropriate by CP.

R. v. Greening, [1993] O.J. No. 2827, 47 M.V.R. (2d) 167, 1993 CarswellOnt 46, 20 W.C.B. (2d) 481 (Prov. Div.), distd

Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canadian Owners and Pilots Assn., [2010] 2 S.C.R. 536, [2010] S.C.J. No. 39, 2010 SCC 39, 75 M.P.L.R. (4th) 113, 407 N.R. 102, 2010EXP-3290, J.E. 2010-1826, 324 D.L.R. (4th) 692, EYB 2010-180513, 193 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1147, consd

Other cases referred to

British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Lafarge Canada Inc., [2007] 2 S.C.R. 86, [2007] S.C.J. No. 23, 2007 SCC 23, 281 D.L.R. (4th) 54, 362 N.R. 208, [2007] 6 W.W.R. 197, J.E. 2007-1107, 241 B.C.A.C. 1, 66 B.C.L.R. (4th) 203, 34 M.P.L.R. (4th) 1, EYB 2007-120168, 157 A.C.W.S. (3d) 300; Burlington Airpark Inc. v. Burlington (City), [2014] O.J. No. 2835, 2014 ONCA 468, 23 M.P.L.R. (5th) 1, 241 A.C.W.S. (3d) 106; Canadian Western Bank v. Alberta, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 3, [2007] S.C.J. No. 22, 2007 SCC 22, 281 D.L.R. (4th) 125, 362 N.R. 111, [2007] 8 W.W.R. 1, J.E. 2007-1068, 75 Alta. L.R. (4th) 1, 409 A.R. 207, [2007] R.R.A. 241, 49 C.C.L.I. (4th) 1, [2007] I.L.R. I-4622, EYB 2007-120167, 157 A.C.W.S. (3d) 299; Croplife Canada v. Toronto (City) (2005), 2005 15709 (ON CA), 75 O.R. (3d) 357, [2005] O.J. No. 1896, 254 D.L.R. (4th) 40, 198 O.A.C. 35, 14 C.E.L.R. (3d) 207, 10 M.P.L.R. (4th) 1, 139 A.C.W.S. (3d) 368 (C.A.); Dhillon v. Richmond (Municipality), 1987 2623 (BC SC), [1987] B.C.J. No. 1566, 16 B.C.L.R. (2d) 80, 37 M.P.L.R. 243 (S.C.); East Durham Wind Inc. v. West Grey (Municipality), [2014] O.J. No. 3742, 2014 ONSC 4669, 28 M.P.L.R. (5th) 1, 85 C.E.L.R. (3d) 340, 324 O.A.C. 191, 243 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1012 (Div. Ct.); Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), 1989 87 (SCC), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927, [1989] S.C.J. No. 36, 58 D.L.R. (4th) 577, 94 N.R. 167, J.E. 89-772, 24 Q.A.C. 2, 25 C.P.R. (3d) 417, 39 C.R.R. 193, 15 A.C.W.S. (3d) 121; Lawrence v. Muskoka Lakes (Township), [2005] O.J. No. 1925, [2005] O.T.C. 418, 11 M.P.L.R. (4th) 200, 139 A.C.W.S. (3d) 182 (S.C.J.); LSUC v. OPSEU (2014), 120 O.R. (3d) 24, [2014] O.J. No. 1949, 2014 ONSC 270 (S.C.J.); Prostitution Reference Case, 1990 105 (SCC), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123, [1990] S.C.J. No. 52, 109 N.R. 81, [1990] 4 W.W.R. 481, J.E. 90-907, 68 Man. R. (2d) 1, 56 C.C.C. (3d) 65, 77 C.R. (3d) 1, 48 C.R.R. 1, 10 W.C.B. (2d) 191; R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society, 1992 72 (SCC), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606, [1992] S.C.J. No. 67, 93 D.L.R. (4th) 36, 139 N.R. 241, J.E. 92-1019, 114 N.S.R. (2d) 91, 74 C.C.C. (3d) 289, 43 C.P.R. (3d) 1, 15 C.R. (4th) 1, 10 C.R.R. (2d) 34, 34 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1092, 16 W.C.B. (2d) 460; R. v. Sandler, 1971 478 (ON SC), [1971] 3 O.R. 614, [1971] O.J. No. 1684, 21 D.L.R. (3d) 286 (H.C.J.); Sparling v. Quebec (Caisse de depot et placement), 1988 26 (SCC), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1015, [1988] S.C.J. No. 95, 55 D.L.R. (4th) 63, 89 N.R. 120, J.E. 89-62, 20 Q.A.C. 174, 41 B.L.R. 1, 13 A.C.W.S. (3d) 13, 1988 CarswellQue 29; Wheeler v. Ontario (Minister of Natural Resources) (2005), 2005 13039 (ON SCDC), 75 O.R. (3d) 113, [2005] O.J. No. 1544, 197 O.A.C. 117, 138 A.C.W.S. (3d) 738 (Div. Ct.)

Statutes referred to

Canada Post Corporation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-10, ss. 5(1)(a), (2)(b), (e), 16(1), 19, (k), (p)

Constitution Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Vict., c. 3, s. 91(5)

Financial Administration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.F-11, ss. 83(1), 89

Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. 1-23 [rep. by R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21], s. 16

Legislation Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 21, Sch. F, s. 71

Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, ss. 2, 8(1), (3), 10(4), 14(1), (2)

Rules and regulations referred to

Mail Receptacles Regulations, SOR/83-743, s. 3

Authorities referred to

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (Scarborough, Ont.: Carswell, 2014)

Hogg, Peter W., Liability and the Crown in Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom (Melbourne: Law Book Co., 1971)

McNairn, Colin H.H., Governmental and Intergovernmental Immunity in Australia and Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977)

APPLICATION for a declaration that a by-law was of no force or effect.

John Laskin and Yael Bienenstock, for applicant.

Justyna Hidalgo and Lindsay Picone, for respondent.

WHITTEN J.: —

I. Introduction

[1] The City Council of Hamilton passed By-Law No. 15-091 To Regulate the Installation of Equipment or Roads and to Delete Portions of the Corporation of the City of Hamilton By-Law No. 86-77 and the Regional Municipality of Hamilton Wentworth By-Law No. R77-109 (the "by-law") on the April 15, 2015. The by-law arrested the Canada Post ("CP") implementation of the transition from mail delivery to private homes to that of community mailboxes ("CMB"). The City, by this by-law, subjected CP to a permit acquisition process at the discretion of the "director", defined as the Director of Engineering Services of the Public Works Department for the City and his or her designate or successor. A moratorium upon the placement of CMBs was imposed to run for 120 days, from whenever CP paid the City $100,000, representing a permit application fee of $200 multiplied by 500 such applications.

II. Issue

[2] The core question is whether or not a municipality is acting within its authority or power in enacting such a by-law which profoundly affects the operation of a federal Crown corporation. Obviously, if the City has acted in an ultra vires fashion (out of its jurisdiction), the by-law is of no effect and inapplicable to CP proceeding with its implementation.

... (continues exactly as in the source text) ...

Application allowed.

End of Document