No “Right to Party”: Ontario municipality successfully obtains injunction pre-empting St. Patrick’s Day university parties

In spirited reasons released March 11, 2025, Justice Gibson of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice provided detailed reasons for his March 6, 2025, decision granting the City of Waterloo an interlocutory statutory injunction and an interlocutory quia timet injunction (restraining wrongful acts which are only yet threatened). In City of Waterloo v. Persons Unknown^[1], Waterloo sought to prevent annual outdoor St. Patrick’s Day parties typically attended by thousands of students near post-secondary institutions. The injunctive relief in this case was sought against unnamed Respondents who threatened to violate the City’s by-law that prohibits public nuisances by planning and attending these notorious St. Patrick’s Day parties. Justice Gibson noted that similar St. Patrick’s Day gatherings in the past had been a disturbing show of “defiance of the [Nuisance] By-Law” and “Bacchanalian excess” without regard to the consequences to others.^[2] 

The case is a good illustration of how municipalities can effectively use the enforcement tools provided in the Municipal Act, 2001,^[3] to help address public nuisances and other ongoing or anticipated by-law contraventions.  

Section 440 injunctions – modified test for municipalities seeking an injunction

Section 440 of Ontario's Municipal Act allows a taxpayer, municipality, or local board to apply to the Superior Court of Justice for an order restraining a contravention of a municipal by-law:

Power to restrain

440 If any by-law of a municipality or by-law of a local board of a municipality under this or any other Act is contravened, in addition to any other remedy and to any penalty imposed by the by-law, the contravention may be restrained by application at the instance of a taxpayer or the municipality or local board.

Justice Gibson in the Waterloo case highlighted unique aspects of s. 440 injunctions. The standard common law test for an injunction requires the moving party to show that (1) there is a serious issue to be tried, (2) irreparable harm will arise absent an injunction, and (3) the balance of convenience favours the moving party.^[4] In contrast, a municipality seeking an injunction under s. 440 of the Municipal Act need only satisfy the first branch of this three-part common law test: that there is a serious issue to be tried.^[5] However, under this narrower, modified test for a s. 440 injunction an emphasis is placed on whether there is a serious issue to be tried and a higher standard must be met—a strong prima facie case must be established.^[6]

In cases of municipalities seeking statutory injunctions, the “public authority is presumed to be acting in the best interests of the public, and a breach of the law is considered to be irreparable harm to the public interest.”^[7] Proof of damages or harm to the public and inadequacy of damages are not necessary elements.^[8] The court retains discretion as to whether to grant injunctive relief, but hardship from the imposition and enforcement of an injunction will generally not outweigh the public interest in having the law obeyed. ^[9]

Where a clear breach of a municipal by-law has been established, the Court retains a residual discretion to decline the injunction only in exceptional circumstances, such as:^[10]

(a) circumstances where the right to conduct the impugned activity pre-existed the by-law;

(b) the injunction is moot and would serve no purpose;

(c) there is uncertainty regarding whether the offending party is flouting the law;

(d) the conduct at issue is not the type of conduct that the enactment was intended to prevent; or

(e) the offending party has ceased the activity and/or has provided clear and unequivocal evidence that the unlawful conduct will cease.

Section 440 injunctions can therefore provide swift, court-ordered direction in situations where a municipality needs to urgently stop an activity that causes harm to the public.

Waterloo’s Nuisance By-law and evidence on the injunction motion

The Waterloo Nuisance By-law defines a "Nuisance Party" as including “gatherings on public or private property that results in any one or more of…public disorderly conduct…and public intoxication.”^[11] Further, the Nuisance By-law s. 2.1(i) prohibits both Nuisance Parties and the planning and advertising of such parties, providing that “No Person shall sponsor, conduct, continue, host, create, allow, cause or permit a Nuisance Party.”^[12]

In seeking the injunction, Waterloo included in its materials letters from the local universities and colleges, Grand River Hospital and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, fully supporting the City’s application for an injunction. Waterloo adduced “comprehensive” evidence of a breach including 10 years of data about party attendance, mischief and the unrecoverable costs borne by taxpayers.^[13] Waterloo also included significant evidence from the Waterloo Regional Police Service that not only detailed past information about service calls, charges and arrests, but also highlighted information about the planning of the anticipated 2025 parties obtained from social media.

Using this evidence, Waterloo was able to show that there was a strong likelihood that St. Patrick’s Day parties would take place at specific times and locations.

The injunction was warranted based on the modified injunction test applicable to s. 440

Waterloo’s evidence demonstrated, through social media posts, that anonymous online accounts were sponsoring, creating, and causing the 2025 parties which would fairly be described as "Nuisance Parties" as defined by the Nuisance By-law.^[14]  As Waterloo had therefore established a prima facie case, Justice Gibson only had discretion to refuse the injunction in exceptional circumstances, such as those discussed above. Justice Gibson found that no such exceptional circumstances existed in this case to retain his discretion not to grant an injunction.^[15] 

The injunction was warranted prospectively (quia timet)

A quia timet injunction restrains threatened or imminent wrongful acts aimed at preventing future harm. In considering whether a quia timet injunction is warranted, the test that applies is the same three-part test for an injunction at common law:

1. Is there a serious issue to be tried: this criteria is evaluated based on common sense and an extremely limited view of the case on the merits—so long as the claim is not frivolous or vexatious, this factor of the test will be satisfied.^[16] This is different from this stage of the injunction analysis with a statutory s. 440 injunction, whereby a prima facie case must be established;
2. Will the moving party, if unsuccessful, suffer irreparable harm which cannot be compensated other than through the granting of an injunction: the court will consider whether there is a high degree of probability that the moving party will suffer irreparable harm which either cannot be quantified in monetary terms, or which cannot be cured, usually because the applicant cannot collect damages;^[17] and
3. Does the balance of convenience favour the moving party: the Court must determine which of the parties will suffer the greater harm from the granting or refusal of an interlocutory injunction.^[18]

Justice Gibson had no trouble finding that Waterloo had met this test: Waterloo had a strong prima facie case that its by-law was being breached, and would continue to be breached;^[19] there was substantial evidence supporting a high probability of irreparable harm to the City in terms of diverted resources and financial costs should the street parties take place;^[20] and Waterloo stood to suffer significant harm in the absence of an injunction, with the respondents suffering none if granted.^[21] His Honour ordered that widespread notice be given to students of affected post-secondary institutions.

The injunction would not infringe the Charter

Justice Gibson considered the unnamed respondents’ charter rights under s.2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which provides for the freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association.^[22] He noted that  the “Charter does not give any person the legal right to unlawfully trample on the legal rights of others, to threaten public safety, or to disregard lawful municipal enactments” and playfully noted parenthetically that “contrary to the notorious Beastie Boys song, there is no right to party.”^[23] This moment of levity in the decision might better be understood as saying there is no constitutional  “right to nuisance party.”

Other notable municipal injunction cases

Justice Gibson mentioned two other cases where Ontario municipalities successfully used s. 440 injunctions against unascertainable individuals in cases where unsanctioned, future events were organized on social media in breach of a municipality's by-laws:

• In The Corporation of the Town of Wasaga Beach v. Persons Unknown, 2023 ONSC 4929, the Town of Wasaga Beach sought an injunction to prevent an unauthorized car rally. Wasaga was concerned about public safety and property damage because past rallies caused violence, vandalism, and hundreds of Criminal Code and Highway Traffic Act charges. The Court found that the Town met the test for an injunction under s. 440 of the Municipal Act, as the Town presented a strong prima facie case that the proposed event would violate its by-laws.
• In 2024, in City of Hamilton v. Persons Unknown, CV-24-00087165-0000 (ONSC), Justice Krawchenko granted an injunction on an ex parte basis to prevent an unsanctioned street party that was expected to occur on McMaster University’s campus over the homecoming weekend.

Another case where a section 440 injunction has been used was in relation to the highly publicized 2022 blockade of the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor. In that matter, in which our firm represented the City of Windsor, the injunction was an additional tool obtained by the Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association and the City that could be used in conjunction with law enforcement to restore order.^[24]

Takeaways

The Waterloo decision illustrates the utility of s. 440 of the Municipal Act where wrongful acts and breaches of municipal by-laws are threatened or imminent. A court-ordered injunction carries a level of gravity in the public eye, as well as escalated consequences for non-compliance, that can be particularly effective when the circumstances require an assertive response. Of particular note in Waterloo is that the City was able to obtain the injunction prospectively on a quia timet basis, which required forethought and strategic planning on the part of the municipality.

This case is also an example of the value of good record-keeping: Waterloo had documented the history of unruly parties since 2014, and was able to demonstrate with clear evidence that there was at present a significant likelihood that the Nuisance By-law would be breached again.

The many cases and varied circumstances under which s. 440 injunctions have been issued show that these are a very useful tool for municipalities. Where an urgent law enforcement action is needed, working in collaboration with law enforcement is necessary to ensure a decisive and coordinated response. While partiers (and, perhaps, the Beastie Boys) may be disappointed; the Waterloo decision is a success story for municipalities.