Tim Carre

The applicant brought an application challenging the validity of the 2018 Toronto municipal election.

The respondent municipalities and provincial government brought motions to strike the application.

Over the course of nearly three years, the applicant failed to file any evidence in support of her application and did not appear at the peremptory hearing of the motions.

The court granted the respondents' unopposed motions and dismissed the application for failure to provide proof.

The City of Toronto brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to shut down several medical cannabis dispensaries operating in violation of its zoning by-laws.

The dispensary operators brought a cross-motion seeking an interlocutory exemption from the by-laws and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, arguing that the existing regulatory scheme failed to provide reasonable access to medical cannabis.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found that the balance of convenience favoured the City, as there is a presumption that validly enacted laws serve the public interest.

The court granted the City's injunction but declined to issue an order directing police enforcement, noting the lack of statutory authority for such an order in a civil proceeding.

The operators' cross-motion was dismissed.

Municipal authorities brought a motion under s. 38 of the Building Code Act seeking an order compelling compliance with outstanding building and fire safety orders relating to a residential structure.

Evidence established that the respondents constructed and modified the building contrary to permit plans, ignored multiple inspection orders, and used the property for multi‑residential purposes despite authorization only for a single-family dwelling.

Fire authorities had also issued orders after identifying life‑safety hazards and deficiencies under the Fire Prevention and Protection Act and the Ontario Fire Code.

The respondents filed no evidence and did not attend the hearing.

The court found the requested relief necessary to ensure compliance with building and fire safety legislation and to protect public safety.

The applicant sought declaratory relief that it was exempt from a parkland levy imposed as a condition of obtaining a building permit for redevelopment of a restaurant on municipal lands.

The municipality argued the application improperly circumvented the statutory appeal mechanism under s. 25(1) of the Building Code Act, 1992, which provides a 20‑day appeal period from decisions of a chief building official.

The court held that the proper procedure was a statutory appeal, not an application for declaratory relief, and that the applicant had failed to pursue the appeal within the prescribed timeframe.

The court declined to convert the application into a statutory appeal or extend the appeal deadline, finding the delay unreasonable and prejudicial to the municipality.

The application was dismissed and costs were awarded to the respondent.