A lawyer representing the town of Milton says the decision sets a precedent for municipal regulation
Milton’s short-term rental bylaw does not conflict with Ontario’s Municipal Act or Residential Tenancies Act, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled Monday, affirming the town’s decision to order a man to either obtain a short-term rental license or stop operating his Airbnb.
Konstantine Stavrakos, a partner at O'Connor MacLeod Hanna LLP who represented Milton and its fire department in the case, told Law Times that the appellate court’s decision “sets an important precedent for municipal regulation.
“It makes clear that Ontario municipalities are within their authority to regulate short-term rental accommodation and puts to bed any notion that such regulation conflicts with the Residential Tenancies Act,” Stavrakos says.
The underlying dispute in the case began in 2024, when the owners of a three-bedroom townhouse in Milton discovered that their tenant was listing and renting the property on Airbnb without obtaining a license, as required under Milton’s short-term rental bylaw, which has been in force since July 2022.
The owners complained to the town of Milton, which ordered the tenant, Zaafir Ahmed Munir, to either obtain a short-term rental license or stop operating his Airbnb. Milton Fire Services also issued a compliance order against Munir, stating that his rental property violated the provincial Fire Code.
Munir rejected the orders, asking the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to declare that the bylaw exceeded the legislative authority set out in Ontario’s Municipal Act and was inconsistent with the Residential Tenancies Act. He also alleged that the town and Milton Fire Services violated his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and sought $3.9 million in damages.
An application judge dismissed Munir’s allegations. In her ruling, the judge rejected Munir’s argument that Milton’s bylaw conflicts with the Residential Tenancies Act because the latter gives tenants the right to use the property they rent for residential purposes, including having occupants or guests stay indefinitely. The application judge responded that Milton has “broad legislative authority” under the Municipal Act to require residential rental businesses to operate with a license.
The application judge also rejected Munir’s allegations that Milton and its fire department violated ss. 7 and 15 of the Charter, which cover the right to life, liberty, and security of the person as well as equality before the law.
The judge noted that there were “no particulars of the alleged breaches identified by Mr. Munir other than the threat of excessive fines and other enforcement actions will result in financial ruin and the posting of an inspection order caused him public embarrassment and psychological harm.
“These concerns do not constitute Charter breaches under either s. 7 or s. 15 of the Charter,” the judge concluded.
The OCA agreed with the application judge’s assessment, finding that Munir failed to identify any errors in the judge’s ruling. “Instead, he repeats the same arguments he advanced below and simply asserts that the application judge erred in his factual and legal findings,” the OCA said.
The appellate court ordered Munir to pay the costs of the appeal to Milton, its fire department, and his landlords, who “had been unnecessarily dragged into the litigation.”
Munir and his landlords could not be reached for comment.
