|
Judicial Review - Public v Private (8). Eritrean Cultural Centre v. Toronto (City)
In Eritrean Cultural Centre v. Toronto (City) (Ont Div Ct, 2025) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed a JR brought against a municipality, here where the municipality "revoked the Special Event Permit “as a result of violent events that have unfolded in relation to your organization’s permitted time at Earlscourt Park” and because the situation had “become a matter of public safety”".
The court cites doctrine on the public-private distinction, here in a JR context (though the matter was not decided):1. Is the Decision Amenable to Judicial Review?
[12] Toronto argues that the City’s decision to withdraw a permit is not subject to judicial review because the impugned decision was not of a sufficiently public nature to engage the court’s judicial review jurisdiction (Toronto Factum, paras. 36-43). As stated by McLachlin J. (as she then was) in Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada v. Ontario, 1991 CanLII 119 (SCC), [1991] 1 SCR 139, para. 263: “[u]nder the Civil Code of Quebec (or the common law of other provinces) the Crown as property owner is entitled to withdraw permission from an invitee to be present on its property, subject always to the Charter.”
[13] In advancing this argument, Toronto states, at para. 41 of its Factum:The City’s permission at issue concerns only the private use of the Park and expressly does not relate to the public use of the Park. For example, the City did not set new rules as to how the public can use the park as a public park on an ongoing basis, as was the case in Ross v. City of Toronto [2012 ONSC 5947, para. 36] cited by the applicants. [14] The “public/private” categories – fundamental to the justiciability issue here – are undoubtedly fraught near the edges of the categories. Here, the Applicants obtained a permit from the City for an event to which “the public” was invited. A permitting process has been established by the City, and the Applicants argue that the City failed to follow the process it had established. Only one case cited by the City would appear to have direct application to the facts of this case: Redeemed Christian Church of God v. New Westminster (City), 2021 BCSC 1401, 55 BCLR (6th) 158, which is persuasive, but not binding, authority in this court.
|
