CITATION: Zulynik v. The Corporation of the Township of Tiny, 2026 ONSC 2150
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: KAREN ZULYNIK, Applicant
AND:
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF TINY, Respondent
BEFORE: The Hon. Madam Justice A.A. Casullo
COUNSEL: Laura Dean, Christopher Williams, Jasmine Fraser, for the Applicant Emerson Wargel, for the Respondent
HEARD: April 1, 2026
ENDORSEMENT
Overview
1The plaintiff, Karen Zulynik (“Ms. Zulynik”) brings this urgent motion for an interim and interlocutory injunction:
(a) staying enforcement of a Notice of Trespass issued by the respondent on November 11, 2025; and
(b) directing that the respondent take no further steps under the Citizen Code of Conduct enacted through By-law 2025-043 in June 2025, until the pending application to (i) quash the By-law for illegality; and (ii) seek a declaration that the Notice of Trespass contravenes the applicant’s right to freedom of expression guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11, is determined by this court.
2The respondent, The Corporation of the Township of Tiny (“Township”) opposes the injunction.
Background
3Ms. Zulynik has owned property in the Township since 2004 and has lived full time in the Township since 2018.
4Ms. Zulynik is an active participant in public discourse regarding municipal affairs in the Township. She has attended, in person, every Township Council meeting since December 2023.
5Ms. Zulynik intends to run for municipal office in 2026. In past elections, the Township has required candidates to file nominations in person. The first day for filing a nomination for the municipal election is on or after May 1 in the year of the regular election.
6The Township’s municipal offices are located at 130 Balm Beach Road West, Tiny, Ontario (“Township Offices”).
7The Township is constructing a new administration centre located at 255 Concession 9 East, Tiny, Ontario (“Premises”).
8The construction of the Premises appears to be a matter of public controversy for some residents.
9On October 17, 2025, Ms. Zulynik arranged a protest at the groundbreaking ceremony of the Premises, at which there were about 100 attendees. Ontario Provincial Police and Township by-law enforcement officers were in attendance.
10Ms. Zulynik submits that the protest was peaceful and respectful, with protesters chanting and expressing their frustrations at the costs the Premises posed to taxpayers.
11Matters took a turn when the mayor left the ceremony, although precisely what happened remains unclear. Suffice to say that at this juncture, law enforcement was not required to intervene.
12On October 23, 2025, the Township posted a statement on its website which Ms. Zulynik believed mischaracterized what transpired at the protest. On November 10, 2025, Ms. Zulynik asked that the statement be removed. The Township did not reply.
13Instead of replying, on November 11, 2025, the Township served a Notice of Trespass on Ms. Zulynik, the relevant portions of which are reproduced below:
Our firm represents the Township of Tiny, and has been retained to prohibit your trespass at the Township's new administration centre, located at 255 Concession 9 East, Tiny, Ontario (the "Premises") and at the Township of Tiny municipal office, located at 130 Balm Beach Road West, Tiny, Ontario (the ''Township Offices"), and to demand that you cease and desist your unlawful and threatening communications towards municipal staff and Members of Council.
In that regard, and pursuant to section 3 of the Trespass to Property Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, as amended (the "Act"), this letter serves as formal notice to you that you are prohibited from entering on the Premises, until such time as the Premises is commissioned and open to the ·general public.
The Township takes this action and provides this notice as a result of your violations of sections 4.10.3, 4.15, 4.18 and 10.1 of By-Law No. 25-043, being a by-law to authorize a Citizen Code of Conduct for the Township of Tiny, in that you have engaged in inappropriate behaviour, including harassment, bullying or intimidating behaviour directed at a staff member, member of Council, Township volunteer or an identifiable group or person at the Premises.
In particular, at the groundbreaking ceremony at the Premises on October 17, 2025, you failed to keep control of your protest, directly endangering the public, private property and the health and safety of all participants. You intentionally attempted to intimidate staff members by telling them they will be fired. Your transgressions violated the Township's Workplace Harassment Policy, Psychological Health and Well-being Policy, and Citizen's Code of Conduct.
Moreover, you are prohibited from attending all meetings held in the Council Chambers, including meetings of Council, Committee of the Whole and any other Committees of Council, at the Township offices and banned from all Township Events until June 1, 2026. Your attendance at the Township offices is restricted to the payment of taxes, the purchase of permits, or by preapproved meeting request with a specific employee to deal with your own personal property issues.
Failure to obey this Notice constitutes an offence under the Act and you may be subject to arrest and prosecution. Moreover, contravention of this notice and/or these conditions will result in your being prohibited from attending at the Premises and the Township offices and/or communicating with staff and Members of Council, for a further six months.
14The Notice of Trespass is in effect until June 1, 2026.
15Ms. Zulynik appealed the Notice of Trespass to no avail.
16The Township’s sole affidavit on this motion, sworn by Chief Administrative Officer Haley Leblond, simply confirms that Ms. Zulynik attended council meetings in person, and that residents can attend council meetings virtually. The record is devoid of any evidence as to what occurred at the protest and, more significantly, what actions of Ms. Zulynik were so egregious to provoke the Township into issuing the Notice of Trespass.
17Unfortunately, in the climate we find ourselves in, Citizen Codes of Conduct may be entirely necessary in a variety of applications. However, any such code must be used for good, not evil.
Positions of the Parties
18Ms. Zulynik intends to run as a candidate in the Township’s upcoming October 2026 election. She submits that the Notice of Trespass prohibits her from accessing common municipal resources in the same manner as other citizens, including her running mates. The Notice of Trespass hinders her ability to develop her election platform. She is denied access to sub-committee meetings that are not broadcasted on YouTube or recorded for public viewing.
19The Notice of Trespass strips her of her right to perform deputations or engage in the public “open mic” sessions, effectively neutralizing her ability to hold local government accountable by questioning fiscal decisions or the introduction of policy at council meetings, in person.
20Most importantly, the Notice of Trespass will prevent Ms. Zulynik from attending the Township Offices on May 1, 2026, to file her nomination with the Township.
21The Township submits that Ms. Zulynik violated the Citizen Code of Conduct and, as such, is subject to consequences. Pursuant to s. 22.1 of the Citizen Code of Conduct, where “an incident is particularly egregious, or Inappropriate Behaviour is prolonged or repeated, the Chief Administrative Officer or, in his/her absence, the Deputy Chief Administrative Officer or designate, may issue a Trespass Notice against the individual.”
22While Ms. Zulynik is estopped from filing her nomination in person, she can do so via an agent or, as set out in the Notice of Trespass, she may request a meeting with Township staff in order to file her nomination papers. She may also do so once the Notice of Trespass expires on June 1, 2026.
23Finally, despite the Notice of Trespass, Ms. Zulynik remains free to participate in local government virtually, like the vast majority of Township residents.
Issues
24For the purposes of the within motion, I need only determine whether:
a) Ms. Zulynik meets the test for injunctive relief vis-à-vis the Notice of Trespass; and
b) The court should direct that nothing be done under the By-law pursuant to s. 273(4) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25.
Analysis
25The leading authority in respect of injunctions remains RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 1994 CanLII 117 (SCC), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311, which provides that the following three-part test must be met:
a) Is there a serious issue to be tried;
b) Will the applicant suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted; and
c) Where does the balance of convenience lie?
Serious Issue
26In RJR-MacDonald, the Supreme Court held that a “serious issue to be tried” is a low threshold, and this aspect of the test is satisfied as long as the action is neither frivolous nor vexatious.
27The Township agrees that Ms. Zulynik has proven there is a serious issue to be tried with respect to whether the Notice of Trespass violates her right to freedom of expression pursuant to s. 2(b) of the Charter.
Irreparable Harm
28Turning to the second step of the RJR-MacDonald test, the plaintiff must prove they will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted. “Irreparable” refers to the nature of the harm suffered, rather than its magnitude. This is harm that cannot be quantified in monetary terms, or cured by an award of damages.
29The Notice of Trespass forbids Ms. Zulynik from filing her nomination at the commencement of the Nomination Period, May 1, 2026. There is an inherent symbolism in filing one’s nomination. It is the proclamation to the public of one’s hope to represent them where it matters – their local government. To force Ms. Zulynik to send an agent to achieve this for her, or wait a full month to file her nomination, will cause irreparable harm. She would be deprived of participating in the election process on equal footing with other would-be candidates.
30I understand that members of the public are aware of the Notice of Trespass. If the injunction is not granted, this same public may be led to believe that Ms. Zulynik has committed acts anathema to the holder of municipal office. This reputational harm may in turn affect Ms. Zulynik’s chances on election day.
31It is impossible to quantify the deleterious effects the Notice of Trespass will have on Ms. Zulynik’s election campaign. I am satisfied that this will cause Ms. Zulynik irreparable harm.
Balance of Convenience
32The final step asks which of the two parties will suffer the greater harm if the interlocutory injunction is granted or refused. Put another way, does the benefit Ms. Zulynik will gain if the injunction is granted outweigh the inconvenience to the Township if the motion fails?
33If the injunction is not granted, Ms. Zulynik will not only suffer the inability to fully participate in the upcoming municipal election, but her reputation will remain a question mark for the voting public.
34The Township submits that the balance of convenience weighs in its favour, given the Township’s interest in preserving civil behaviour and enforcing its by-laws.
35Once again, there is no evidence of what civil misbehaviour Ms. Zulynik achieved beyond organizing the protest. The Township alleges that Ms. Zulynik’s “actions, and the actions of some of the other protestors at the event, endangered public and private property by striking both Township-owned and privately-owned vehicles with signs (of which there is video evidence), and the health and safety of all those in attendance at the event.” When I asked Mr. Wargel what evidence there was of Ms. Zulynik endangering public or private property, he conceded there was none.
36I am satisfied Ms. Zulynik would suffer the greater harm if the injunction were not granted.
Conclusion
37I find overwhelmingly for Ms. Zulynik.
38Codes of conduct are an unfortunate reality as our world evolves. Such a tool, which in this case effectively silences legitimate public discourse, must be applied fairly and objectively. In my view the Township’s actions were anything but objective.
39Ms. Zulynik is a vocal critic of certain municipal council’s decisions, which is her democratic right. As Miller J.A. held in Bracken v. Fort Erie (Town), 2017 ONCA 668, 137 O.R. (3d) 161, at para. 82:
Finally, on a comparative analysis of the salutary and deleterious effects of the Town's actions, the effects on Mr. Bracken were disproportionate to any benefit that was achieved, given the finding that the expulsion of Mr. Bracken did not in any way advance the common good. The statutory obligation to promote workplace safety, and the "safe space" policies enacted pursuant to them, cannot be used to swallow whole Charter rights. In a free and democratic society, citizens are not to be handcuffed and removed from public space traditionally used for the expression of dissent because of the discomfort their protest causes.
40Ms. Zulynik had been attending council meetings in person for over two years, without incident. She organized a protest over a council decision that has generated public controversy. By all accounts, the protest got out of hand when the mayor tried to leave the Premises. However, there is no evidence that Ms. Zulynik participated in that scuffle, or did anything that would justify the issuance of a Notice of Trespass.
41Accordingly, Ms. Zulynik’s motion for an interlocutory injunction is granted.
Section 273(4) of the Municipal Act
42In the broader litigation, Ms. Zulynik seeks to quash the by-law enacting the Citizen Code of Conduct. Pursuant to s. 273(4) of the Municipal Act, a court may direct that nothing shall be done under the by-law until the application is disposed of.
43Ms. Zulynik is facing increased attention from the municipality. Given this heightened scrutiny, I am prepared to order that the Township do nothing under By-law 2025-043 until the application has been heard and a determination made. This direction applies solely to Ms. Zulynik.
Costs
44Costs reserved to the application judge.
45I am not seized.
CASULLO J.
Date: April 10, 2026