Top 5 Civil Appeals From The Court of Appeal (September 2015)

1. Sarnia (City) v. River City Vineyard Christian Fellowship of Sarnia, 2015 ONCA 494 (Doherty, Epstein and Tulloch JJ.A.), July 3, 2015

2. Frank v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 ONCA 536 (Strathy C.J.O., Laskin and Brown JJ.A.), July 20, 2015

3. Kassian Estate v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 ONCA 544 (Hoy A.C.J.O, Sharpe and Benotto JJ.A.), July 22, 2015

4. Abuzour v. Heydary, 2015 ONCA 565 (Laskin, Pardu and Brown JJ.A.), July 30, 2015

5. Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Society of Essex v. Windsor (City), 2015 ONCA 572 (Strathy C.J.O., LaForme and Tulloch JJ.A.), August 12, 2015

1. Sarnia (City) v. River City Vineyard Christian Fellowship of Sarnia, 2015 ONCA 494 (Doherty, Epstein and Tulloch JJ.A.), July 3, 2015 This appeal arose from a dispute between a church and a municipality over the church's operation of a homeless shelter on its premises.

   The River City Vineyard Christian Fellowship of Sarnia, located in Urban Residential Zone 1-27 in the City of Sarnia, has been operating a homeless shelter in its basement since 2006, despite the municipality's claim that it was doing so in breach of a zoning by-law. By-law No. 85 of 2002 lists the permitted uses in UR1-27 as "Church, school and parking only", with "Church" defined as:

   a building used by a religious organization for public worship and church-sponsored community activities and projects, and may include as accessory uses a rectory or manse, church hall, day nursery or religious school, offices, but shall not include a soup kitchen or food bank, unless otherwise permitted by this By-law. When the City of Sarnia applied to the Superior Court for an injunction to prohibit River City's operation of the shelter based on its alleged violation of the by-law, River City brought a counter-application seeking a declaration that it was not contravening the by-law. River City further submitted that to the extent the shelter was prohibited by the by-law, the by-law unjustifiably infringed its freedom of religion as protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

   The application judge issued an injunction against River City, prohibiting it from operating the shelter. River City appealed, submitting that the by-law, properly interpreted, permitted the shelter both under "church-sponsored community activities and projects" and as an "accessory use" to the church, and, in the alternative, that if the by-law did prohibit the shelter, its application or enforcement infringed section 2(a) of the Charter and was not justified under section 1.

   Writing for the Court of Appeal, Tulloch J.A. found that the shelter fell within the meaning of "church-sponsored community activities and projects" and was therefore permitted as a "church" under UR1-27.

   Justice Tulloch observed that the application judge made three errors in his interpretation of the by-law. The first was the conclusion that the express prohibition on soup kitchens and food banks indicated an intention to prohibit other activities of a similar nature. Tulloch J.A. found that the application judge further erred by concluding that the renovations to the church basement took the shelter outside of the meaning of "use", defined in the by-law as "the purpose for which a lot, building or structure, or any combination thereof is designed, arranged, occupied or maintained". In fact, there was no indication in the by-law that the definition of "use" was limited to purposes that existed when the building was first constructed. The by-law neither expressly provided nor implied that "church-sponsored community activities and projects" are restricted to activities or projects that can be accommodated without renovations. Finally, the application judge erred by attaching significance to the fact that the shelter fell within the by-law's definition of "emergency shelter". Nowhere in the impugned by-law was it suggested that "church-sponsored community activities and projects" may not include uses that are defined elsewhere. Justice Tulloch concluded that the application judge's finding that River City's shelter did not fall within the meaning of "church-sponsored community activities and projects" was based on flawed reasoning and accordingly not entitled to deference.

   Tulloch J.A. found that River City's homeless shelter fell within the scope of the words "church-sponsored community activities and projects", properly interpreted. While he cautioned that the language of the by-law must be interpreted in a manner consistent with its objective, which is to circumscribe the use of land in the City of Sarnia, Tulloch J.A. observed that the drafters chose fairly broad and permissive language to describe the uses churches were entitled to make of their premises. The inclusion of the words "community activities and projects", and "community" in particular, revealed their intention to allow churches to engage in socially beneficial conduct and respond to the needs of the public. In operating the shelter, River City did just that.

   Tulloch J.A. concluded that the words "church-sponsored community activities and projects" are broad enough to permit River City to operate a homeless shelter on its premises without contravening the impugned by-law.

2. Frank v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 ONCA 536 (Strathy C.J.O., Laskin and Brown JJ.A.), July 20, 2015

   The right of every Canadian citizen to vote is enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This case challenged the constitutionality of legislation that denies more than one million Canadian citizens that right.

   The respondents, Gillian Frank and Jamie Duong, are Canadian citizens who live and work in New York State. After being denied the right to vote in the 2011 federal election, they brought an application in the Superior Court of Justice to declare unconstitutional provisions of the Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2000, chapter 9, denying the vote to most Canadian citizens who have resided outside of Canada for more than five years.

   The application judge held that Parliament cannot take away the voting rights of non-resident Canadian citizens, including long-term non-residents. He concluded that the...