The Adult Association of Canada filed a case against the City of Ottawa in regard to the bylaws that were enacted. The bylaw 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 bylaw and meet its requirements. The appellants decided to appeal the ruling, which was also dismissed with the argument that there were no grounds for interference with the finding of the application judge. Some of the reasons why Judge R. A. Blair J.A. dismissed the application included the City having to ensure its bylaws were in harmony with those of its former municipalities; City staff consulting with all stakeholders before enacting the bylaw; and the prohibition of touching between dancers and customers since such touching aroused sexual appetites (Adult Entertainment Association of Canada v. Ottawa (City)).
Issues
The issues raised by the applicants included whether the City had the authority to impose the AEP bylaw. Secondly, was there any sound basis on which the City could conclude that consumer protection was of any great concern? Third, did the City of Ottawa exercise its authority in a way that was against the Municipal Act 2001? Fourth, was this bylaw vague? The fifth issue was whether the judge was right in awarding costs to the City. The sixth issue was whether the bylaw attempted to cover issues that were to be dealt with by the Liquor License Act 1990 and the Health Protection and Promotion Act 1990. Another issue was whether the application judge erred when he failed to find that the bylaw violated ss. 2(b), 7, and 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Also, the appellants raised the issue of whether ss. 151(3) and ss. 99 of the Municipal Act 2001 were void for vagueness. Finally, the issue was whether the AEP bylaw was authorized by its enabling legislation despite various concerns, including whether it permitted illegal discrimination against license holders, between dancers and operators, and allowed discriminatory and arbitrary application.
Analysis
Despite the fact that the applicants submitted that the City lacked the power to enact the AEP bylaw, it is evident that the City had the authority to enact a bylaw that regulated, licensed, and governed the operation of adult entertainment parlours. The authority was derived from ss. 150, which deals with licensing powers, and ss. 151, which deals with AEPs. 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 that the City engaged in a proper exercise of its regulatory power since the appellants were given notice of the bylaw through consultative meetings that were held with the involved stakeholders 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 bylaw. The vagueness argument regarding the advertising device, as raised 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 possible courses of conduct. The bylaw was found not to be vague since, with judicial interpretation, it could provide reasonable standards of conduct.
In addition, the AEP bylaw did not violate the sections cited by the appellants, including ss. 2(b), 7, and 8 of the Charter. This is because 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 adult entertainment parlours. Besides, limiting the content of AEP signs was fully supported by the public since the signs are placed in public where even children can see them, potentially affecting their moral standards. Also, with regard to the appellants’ submission regarding awarding costs to the respondents, the award was appropriate since the respondents were fully entitled to their costs of appeal.
Finally, regarding whether the bylaw was a colourable municipal law, local municipalities have authority over matters concerning consumer protection, nuisance control, and health protection. Similarly, since the bylaw did not face any actual conflict with provincial legislation, the AEP bylaw was 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 bylaw before its enactment since the City held meetings with industry operators and provided notice through various advertising devices, proving that the appellants had been informed of the bylaw. Also, the City used the powers vested in it to ensure consumer protection, in this case protecting customers who visit AEPs from erotic or sexual appetites brought about by touching by club performers and dancers. Besides, the City was not trying to dictate to 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 interests 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).
Academic Master Education Team is a group of academic editors and subject specialists responsible for producing structured, research-backed essays across multiple disciplines. Each article is developed following Academic Master’s Editorial Policy and supported by credible academic references. The team ensures clarity, citation accuracy, and adherence to ethical academic writing standards
Content reviewed under Academic Master Editorial Policy.
