Superior Court of Justice

Cour supérieure de justice

Welland

Endorsement Sh d’inscription

Short title of proceeding

Intitulé abrégé de l’instance

Wainfleet Association of STRs v. Wainfleet (Township)

Appearances

Comparaissent

Keith Juriansz and M. Stoiko for the applicant

Jennifer Sturton for the respondent

March 18, 2026 - corrected

Ramsay J.

The applicant, an association of short-term rental owners, applies under s.273 of the Municipal Act, 2001 (“the Act”) to quash the Township of Wainfleet’s Short-Term Rental By-law, By-law 026-2023.

The by-law was passed after public consultation, which the Township must have taken into account, because it re-drafted the by-law six times before passing the final version. It heard delegations from short-term rental operators, who may charge $400 a night, and like the money. It also heard from neighbours, who dislike the chaos.

The by-law requires a licence to operate a short-term rental and limits the granting of licences to owners who have owned the property for at least two years. It requires a safety plan among other things. It adopts the fines for non-compliance that are set out in the Provincial Offences Act. In addition the Township has another option to compel compliance: it applies administrative penalties as envisioned by s.434.1 of the Act and by-law 027-2019. Finally, it applies demerit points for contravention of it and other by-laws (such as the Fire Protection and Prevention by-law, the Noise by-law and so on) and provides that accumulation of a certain number of demerit points results in a three-month licence suspension.

A by-law can be quashed for illegality if it is ultra vires the municipality or enacted in bad faith. The implementation, operation or administration of the by-law cannot be grounds for quashing it: Dumoulin v. The Corporation of the Town of Deep River, 2014 ONSC 5393, paragraph 7.

Wainfleet is a lower-tier municipality. The by-law was enacted under the Township’s power to provide a system of licensing for business under section 11(3) and 15(1) of the Act. The Township enacted the by-law after extensive public consultation. The by-law does not have

the effect of prohibiting short term rentals or making them unreasonably difficult. There is no evidence of bad faith.

The by-law does not conflict with the Act. The applicant claims that the penalties prescribed for contraventions conflict with the Act in that the go beyond what is reasonably required to

promote compliance. That is not a conflict. A conflict exists where it is impossible to comply with both enactments or where the by-law frustrates the purpose of the other enactment: 1736095 Ontario Ltd v. Waterloo (City) 2015 ONSC 6541.

The administrative penalties are permitted by the Act and are in line with Prince Edward County’s. They are also in line with the profit often produced by short-term rentals. The applicant’s affiant, Mr Wilson admitted on cross-examination that in his case a week’s rental would pay the penalty. The penalties are coercive, as opposed to punitive. They are not disproportionate.

I do not draw the inference that the penalties were intended to be punitive from a few ill-chosen words by a councillor spoken during debate. It is the words of the by-law that have the most weight.

The P.O.A. fines and the demerit points are unremarkable.

The applicant also says that the Township has applied administrative penalties to joint property owners, by assessing the monetary penalty against each, not jointly and severally. It is submitted that the by-law does not permit this. This is a question of interpretation and application of the by-law. It does not go to its validity. This question should be decided in the administrative review process and judicial review.

Nor is the by-law in conflict with the Planning Act. As in Tiny Township Association v. Township of Tiny, 2025 ONSC 1578, the by-law applies throughout the township. It regulates how a business operates, not what land use is permitted in what location. The zoning concept of legal non-conforming use has no application. The property remains residential. It is a new type of business that is subject to regulation. Someone who operated a barber shop as a legal non-conforming use could not expect to operate a restaurant without complying with a restaurant by-law. Mr Wilson deposed that he did not apply for a licence because he only wanted to honour bookings that had been made before the by-law came into force. First, that makes no sense. He intended to operate while the by-law was in force. Second, it is disingenuous: he operated the short-term rental in 2025.

Finally, the by-law is not discriminatory. Requiring the owner to own the property for two years before applying for a licence promotes stability of ownership and makes absenteeism by landlords less desirable. Operators who live in the community have a stake in the liveability of the neighbourhood.

The application is dismissed.

The successful respondent is entitled to partial indemnity. I order the applicant to pay costs to the Township fixed at $50,000 $5,000.