We reported earlier in this blog on the dispute between the City
of Hamilton and Canada Post. To recall, the City adopted a bylaw
that required Canada Post to obtain a City permit before placing
community mailboxes on City streets.
Canada Post challenged the constitutional validity of the bylaw
and, on June 11, 2015, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued
its decision. The Court agreed with Canada Post and declared
the bylaw invalid.
To quote some of the Court's reasons:
 The bylaw would in effect give the City the
final say of the location of CMBs after a permit
application process which has no relationship to the temporal
exigencies facing CP, both in terms of satisfying its existing
collective agreements and CP's cost reduction goals to achieve
financial sustainability in an era of steadily reducing transaction
 Therefore, the bylaw insofar as it seeks to create a permit
application process determining the location of CMBs is of no
 ...The by-law directly encroaches upon an
activity which is within CP's mandate. It
is a core activity relative to how mail is deposited, stored and
delivered. ... The by-law cannot be characterized as
incidentally affecting the operation of the mail
.... The By-law was purposely created by councillors with the
avowed intention of stopping the transition of home delivery to
CMBs [community mailboxes], an intention expressed in a by-law
which essentially takes over CP's decision making in choosing a
business model. The "pith and substance" of the
by-law by bringing in the location of CMBs within its permit
application process is encroaching upon the exclusive domain of CP
and is ultra vires the City's jurisdiction.
 It is obvious from my reasons thus far that the court
considers [the bylaw] a significant serious trammelling
of CP's federal power to locate its receptacles
where it deems appropriate, as part of its mandate to receive,
store and distribute mail. Those activities are core to the
undertaking of CP. ...
The complete decision in Canada Post v. City of
Hamilton, 2015 ONSC 3615 can be found
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
In Irwin v. Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, 2015 ABCA 396, the Alberta Court of Appeal found that the "ABVMA" failed to afford procedural fairness to a veterinarian undergoing an incapacity assessment.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).