The Adult association of Canada filed a case against the City of Ottawa in regard to the by-laws that were enacted. The by-law restricted touching and dancing between club dancers and customers. Operators, owners, and performers of clubs filed a case against the City, however, the case was dismissed on the grounds that they had to appreciate the proposed by law and meet its requirements. The appellants decided to appeal the ruling which was also dismissed with an argument that there lacked a ground for interference with the finding of the application judge. Some of the reasons why Judge R.A Blair J.A dismissed the application include the city had to ensure their by-laws were in harmonization with those of its former municipalities, the City staff made consultations with all stakeholders before enacting the by-law as well as the prohibition of touching between dancers and customers since they arouse sexual appetites.
Issues
The issues raised by the applicants included whether the City had the authority to impose the AEP by-law. Secondly, is if there was any sound basis which the City used to conclude that consumer protection was of any great concern. Third, if the City of Ottawa exercised its authority in a way that is against the Municipal Act 2001. Fourth is whether this By-law was vague. The fifth was if the judge was right by awarding costs to the City. The sixth issue is whether the By-law attempted to cover issues that were to be dealt by the Liquor License Act 1990 and the Health Protection and Promotion Act 1990. Another issue was if the application judge erred when he failed to find that the By-law violates ss.2 (b), 7 & 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. Also, the appellants raised the issue of whether ss.151 (3) and ss.99 of the Municipal Act 2001 were void for vagueness. Finally is whether the AEP Bylaw was awarding to its enabling legislation due to various reasons including it permitting illegal discrimination against license holders, between dancers and operators and it allowing the discriminatory and arbitrary application.
Analysis
Despite the fact that the applicants submitted that the City lacked the power to enact AEP Bylaw, it is evident that the City had the authority to enact a by-law that regulated, licensed and governed the operation of the adult entertainment parlors. The authority was derived from ss. 150 which deals with licensing powers and ss.151 which deals with AEP. According to ss. 150, a local municipality can exercise its licensing authority over matters concerning consumer protection, health, and safety as well as nuisance control.
Also, it is evident the city engaged in a proper exercise of its regulating power since the appellants were given notice of the by-law through consultative meetings that were held with the involved stakeholder before enacting the law. This was done by placing the notice in the Ottawa Sun, Ottawa Citizen, and Le Droit in regard to the proposed by-law. Regarding the vagueness of the advertising device as argued by the appellants was dismissed since language cannot be used as an exact tool of attack because a law is not expected to predict the legal outcomes of all conduct possible courses. The by-law was termed not to be vague since with judicial interpretation it could give reasonable standards of conduct.
In addition, The AEP by-law did not violate the sections contended by the appellants including ss. 2(b), 7 and 8 of the charter. This is because the local municipalities have authority under section 99 of the Municipal Act to prohibit and regulate the content, message, and nature of signs as well as advertising devices used in the adult entertainment parlor. Besides, limiting the content of AEP signs was fully supported by the public since the signs are put in public where even children can see them hence ruining their moral standards. Also, with regard to the appellants’ submission regarding awarding costs to the respondents, it is right since the respondents are fully entitled to their costs of appeal.
Finally, regarding whether the by-law was colorable municipal law, the local municipalities have authority over matters concerning consumer protection, nuisance control, and health protection. Similarly, since the by-law did not face any actual conflict with the provincial legislation it makes the AEP by-law effective.
Therefore, I agree with the ruling of the judge since the appellants failed to provide a reasonable evidentiary record to support their claim. Similarly, the applicants had enough time to reject the by-law before its enactment since the City held meetings with the industry operators and provided a notice through various advertising devices proving the appellants had been informed of the by-law. Also, the City used the powers vested in them to ensure consumer protection in this case the customers who visit AEP from erotic or sexual appetite brought about by the touching by club performers and dancers. Besides, the City was not trying to dictate the AEP owners and operators the message or content they should air, rather it was promoting the safety and health of the public as well as consumer protection. Finally, the ruling was right since it served the interest of the public, the people of the City of Ottawa.
Works Cited
Adult Entertainment Association of Canada v. Ottawa (City), 2005 O.N.C.A. 389, 283 D.L.R. (4th) 704 (2005).
