The appellants, operators of an adult entertainment parlour, challenged the validity of a 2002 regional anti-smoking by-law that prohibited smoking in bars but exempted casinos.
They argued the by-law was invalid because the underlying 1997 approvals from local municipalities were done by resolution rather than by-law, no new approvals were obtained for the 2002 by-law, and the exemption for casinos was discriminatory.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that resolutions were sufficient to convey approval, the original approvals authorized the general exercise of the power to regulate smoking, and the distinction between bars and casinos was expressly authorized by the enabling statute.
The Court allowed the respondent's cross-appeal on costs, finding the motion judge erred in denying costs based on his personal disapproval of the political decision to exempt casinos.
