Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The City revoked a special event permit mid-Festival citing public safety concerns following violent protests.

• The applicants argued the decision violated their rights under sections 2(b) and 2(c) of the Charter.

• The court found the matter moot, as the event had already concluded and future events were unaffected.

• It declined to rule on constitutional and jurisdictional issues due to the absence of a live controversy.

• The City’s decision was deemed substantively reasonable based on police information and safety risk.

• No evidence supported claims of bad faith or systemic unfairness in the City’s permitting process.

Background and event disruption

Since 2000, the Eritrean Cultural Centre and associated community organizations have hosted an annual three-day cultural celebration in Toronto known as “Festival Eritrea.” For the 2023 iteration of the Festival, held at Earlscourt Park, the City of Toronto issued a Special Use Permit on August 3, 2023, for use of picnic and sports areas.

However, on the Festival’s opening day, August 5, violent protests erupted at the event site, resulting in several injuries, including one reported stabbing. Toronto Police intervened, and due to safety concerns, the City revoked the permit later that evening, citing ongoing public safety risks. The remainder of the Festival was cancelled as a result.

Applicants seek judicial review

On September 1, 2023, the Eritrean Cultural Centre and its affiliated groups filed an application for judicial review, asking the court to quash the City’s decision and issue declaratory relief. They also raised Charter claims under sections 2(b) and 2(c), alleging infringements on freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. The City argued the application was moot and that its decision was a reasonable response to a serious public safety threat.

Court’s finding on mootness

The Divisional Court found the matter to be clearly moot. The 2023 Festival had concluded, and any court order could not undo the cancellation. Furthermore, the applicants had successfully obtained a permit for the 2024 Festival, which occurred without incident. Since the impugned decision had no ongoing effect on the applicants’ rights or future permits, the court determined there was no live controversy warranting judicial intervention.

The applicants urged the court to rule on broader issues, including future implications for community permits. However, the court rejected this invitation, noting the absence of systemic concerns or an evasive pattern that would justify hearing a moot case.

Assessment of the City's decision

Despite declining to decide the constitutional and vires questions, the court affirmed that the City acted reasonably in revoking the permit. The City had relied on information from the Toronto Police Service, which indicated that allowing the event to continue posed a real and ongoing risk to public safety. The court found no indication that the City acted with animus or bias toward the applicants. The decision was made in good faith and aligned with the terms of the permit, which allowed for revocation if safety became an issue.

The court acknowledged that the City's communication could have been better worded to avoid implying the applicants were at fault, but held that fault was not a requirement for the City to act. The focus was properly on safety risk, not blame.

Conclusion and outcome

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding no basis to quash the City’s decision or issue declaratory relief. It ordered the applicants to pay $20,000 in costs to the City of Toronto. The case reaffirmed the principle that courts will not engage in hypothetical or moot disputes, particularly where no future harm is demonstrated and the original decision was substantively reasonable.