Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The appellant challenged the validity of the Town of Milton’s short-term rental (STR) bylaw after being cited for operating an Airbnb without a license.

• He argued the bylaw exceeded municipal authority under the Municipal Act and conflicted with the Residential Tenancies Act.

• Charter rights violations under sections 7 and 15 were claimed in relation to bylaw enforcement and fire code inspections.

• The application judge upheld the bylaw as valid and found no conflict with provincial tenancy legislation or Charter breaches.

• Fire code violations discovered during inspections were addressed through a compliance order, which was under review.

• The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible legal or factual errors and awarded costs to all respondents.

Facts and legal background

Zaafir Ahmed Munir rented a three-bedroom townhouse in the Town of Milton from Mahesh and Shama Garg under a one-year lease starting December 1, 2023. During the tenancy, Munir listed and rented the property on Airbnb, operating it as a short-term rental (STR) without obtaining a municipal license, as required by the Town's STR bylaw. This activity was reported by the landlords, the Gargs, leading the Town to issue a compliance order demanding that Munir either obtain a license or cease STR operations.

Subsequently, Milton Fire Services conducted an inspection under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, identifying several Fire Code violations. This resulted in a separate compliance order. Munir requested a review of that order by the Ontario Fire Marshall, temporarily staying its enforcement.

Application and allegations by the tenant

Munir filed a legal application challenging the Town’s STR bylaw on several grounds. He claimed the bylaw was ultra vires (beyond the Town’s legal authority) under the Municipal Act, and that it conflicted with protections under the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA). He also alleged that the Town and Fire Services violated his Charter rights under sections 7 (life, liberty, and security of the person) and 15 (equality rights), and sought $3.98 million in damages.

Findings of the application judge

The application judge dismissed Munir’s arguments, concluding that the Town of Milton acted within its statutory powers when it enacted the STR bylaw. She found no legal inconsistency between the bylaw and the RTA. The judge also rejected the Charter claims, stating there was no evidence of any breach of fundamental rights by the Town or Fire Services in how the bylaw or fire inspection was enforced.

She further criticized Munir for drawing the landlords into unnecessary litigation and awarded costs to both sets of respondents—$15,504.86 to the Town and Fire Services, and $9,000 to the Gargs.

Appeal and outcome

Munir appealed the decision, repeating the same arguments presented at trial and alleging the application judge made legal and factual errors. The Court of Appeal, however, found no merit to the appeal. It affirmed that the application judge’s findings of fact were entitled to deference and her legal conclusions were sound. It also upheld the finding that no Charter rights had been violated. The Court rejected the claim that there was any conflict between the STR bylaw and the RTA.

The Gargs attempted to seek additional relief on appeal, but the court declined to address it because they had not filed a cross-appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, denied leave to appeal the costs order, and ordered Munir to pay $10,700 in costs to the Town and Fire Services, and $5,000 to the Gargs.

Conclusion

This case affirms municipalities’ authority to regulate short-term rentals through licensing bylaws and underscores that such regulations, even when enforced against tenants, do not automatically conflict with tenancy protections or Charter rights. The ruling reinforces the validity of local zoning and safety compliance mechanisms as applied to rental properties used for short-term accommodations.