Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Judicial review was sought to quash a newly enacted municipal licensing by-law that removed prior operational exceptions for food trucks.

• The applicant challenged the by-law as unreasonable and harmful to its business interests but failed to allege any illegality.

• No procedural fairness obligation applied since the City was acting in a legislative capacity, not making an administrative decision.

• The claim of irreparable harm was unsupported by concrete evidence, relying instead on speculation and general business impact.

• The request for an interim injunction was denied because the balance of convenience favoured upholding a democratically enacted law.

• Prior involvement of the BIA was rendered irrelevant by the new by-law, eliminating any basis for claims against it.

Facts of the case

Value Assets Inc. owns two adjacent commercial properties located at 25 and 27 Main Street North in Brampton, Ontario. These lots were used to host Class C Refreshment Vehicles, which are stationary food trucks that operate in a fixed location. Under a previous municipal by-law, these trucks could operate in the downtown area if written consent was obtained from the Downtown Brampton Business Improvement Area (BIA), the successor to the Downtown Brampton Development Corporation.

In early 2023, the BIA supported the development of a “Food District” pilot project at the Value Assets properties. This district was populated by a mix of food vendors, including refreshment vehicles requiring BIA approval. However, in April 2024, the BIA withdrew its support, rendering the refreshment vehicles non-compliant with the applicable by-law. Value Assets challenged the BIA's withdrawal in court and succeeded in having it quashed due to a lack of procedural fairness.

Separately, in May 2025, the City of Brampton repealed the prior by-law and enacted a new one (By-law No. 101-2025), removing the requirement for BIA consent and introducing a general prohibition on refreshment vehicles operating within 50 metres of a fixed food establishment. This change directly impacted Value Assets’ business model since its properties were located within this restricted buffer zone.

Value Assets then brought a new application for judicial review, seeking to quash the new by-law and requesting an interim injunction to stop its enforcement. The applicant also sought damages and a restraining order against the BIA. The motion for injunctive relief was heard in August 2025.

Court’s analysis and outcome

The court firmly rejected the applicant’s request for an injunction. It held that courts are reluctant to interfere with the enforcement of municipal by-laws passed by elected councils unless there is evidence of illegality. The court emphasized that municipal by-laws are not subject to judicial review simply for being unreasonable.

It was also found that the City of Brampton had conducted a proper and inclusive process in revising the by-law, which involved public consultations and Council deliberation. The BIA, for its part, no longer had any role in the licensing scheme following the repeal of the prior by-law, rendering any relief against it moot.

The applicant's claims of procedural unfairness and bad faith were dismissed as unfounded. Since the City was acting legislatively, not administratively, it owed no duty of procedural fairness in passing the by-law. Furthermore, the claim of irreparable harm failed due to the absence of specific, supported evidence. The applicant's assertions about financial loss and job impact were speculative, unsubstantiated, and insufficient to justify an injunction.

Finally, the court held that the balance of convenience strongly favoured the City. Enjoining the by-law would undermine fire safety rules, cannabis sale prohibitions, and other public interest elements embedded in the new regulation. The City was entitled to enforce its law, and the applicant’s business losses, if any, could be addressed through damages in a proper action.

As a result, the motion for injunctive relief was dismissed. The court preserved the validity and enforceability of the newly enacted municipal by-law and affirmed the City’s legislative authority.