The court highlighted the public interest in enforcing municipal zoning by-laws
The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld an injunction restricting commercial activities on a Lake Temagami property, citing a lack of evidence of irreparable harm and underscoring the public interest in enforcing municipal zoning by-laws.
The appellants, a barge company and its principal, sought a stay of an injunction barring specific commercial activities on their lakeside property. The business offers services primarily to local cottage-owners. The municipality obtained the injunction under zoning by-laws to enforce proper land use and protect environmental interests around Lake Temagami.
The injunction permits the business to continue lawful barge operations, use the property for aggregate and outdoor storage, and maintain a propane dispensary at its 2006 level of service. However, it prohibits activities such as expanded sewage waste disposal and an increased propane dispensary service.
The appeal court considered whether to grant a stay based on three factors: whether there was a serious issue to be tried, whether the appellants would suffer irreparable harm without a stay, and whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the stay.
The court acknowledged a serious issue existed, meeting the low threshold required at this stage. The appeal concerns whether the disputed activities represent new uses of the property or an intensification of pre-existing uses, a determination involving legal principles from previous court decisions.
The appellants argued that if the court refused to grant a stay of the injunction, they risk losing customers who might seek alternative service providers during the appeal process. However, the court found this claim vague and unsupported. The evidence provided did not establish a high probability of permanent harm to the business.
The Court of Appeal also noted that the immediate impact of the injunction might be limited since the lake freezes over in winter, reducing the business’s operational needs during this period. Claims of harm to customers—such as difficulties obtaining sewage or propane services—were countered by evidence that other providers could meet these needs. The court emphasized that third-party harm is generally irrelevant at this stage of the legal analysis.
The court concluded that the balance of convenience weighed against granting a stay. It highlighted the public interest in enforcing municipal by-laws and noted that courts typically presume harm to the public interest when enforcement of the law is delayed. The ruling stressed the importance of allowing local authorities to maintain the orderly application of zoning regulations.
