In recent years, the proliferation of large outdoor gatherings near post-secondary institutions has resulted in significant costs to cities and municipalities across Ontario forcing them to curb unsanctioned events through Court-approved injunctions.  Emerging from COVID-19 restrictions, university students in Ottawa, Guelph, London, Hamilton and Waterloo have returned to partying and celebrating the start of school, St. Patrick’s Day (SPD) and homecoming events in increasingly large numbers.  Before the question of “who can begrudge them?” rolls off the tongue, one must consider the “spill-over” effect of on-campus activities into neighboring communities, which often morph into illegal street parties and gatherings.  Exorbitant costs and resources are imposed on cities when responding to unlawful public gatherings and events which inevitably give rise to public nuisance activities in the form of disorderly conduct, public intoxication, damage to public and private property, loud noise and street fights, to name a few. 
 
A recent St. Patrick’s Day (SPD) celebration scheduled for March 17, 2025, advertised on an online social media account with 505,000 followers caused great concern to the City of Waterloo (the “City”) in terms of anticipated significant and unrecoverable costs in responding to the “nuisance party”.

In March 2025, the City brought an urgent ex parte motion and was successfully granted both an interlocutory statutory injunction pursuant to section 440 of the Municipal Act, 2001 and a common law or equitable injunction under section 101 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rules 40.01 and 40.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, with reasons provided by Justice Gibson in City of Waterloo v. Persons Unknown[1].  Considering the ruling, it is anticipated that cities and municipalities will increasingly rely on statutory injunctions to remedy breaches of municipal by-laws and curb activities that have the potential to result in costly unrecoverable losses, not only when dealing with public “nuisance parties”, but also to prevent other unsanctioned public events that may pose safety risk to the public.

Background

The City sought an injunction to prevent unsanctioned “nuisance parties” related to the SPD event in communities neighboring the three post-secondary institutions within the City, Wilfrid Laurier University (WLU), the University of Waterloo (UW) and Conestoga College (CC).   A “nuisance party” was defined in the City’s Bylaw to Prohibit or Regulate Public Nuisance as a “gathering on a Premises, Public Place and/or Public Property which, by reason of the conduct of the persons in attendance, results in…” public disorderly conduct, public drunkenness, damage to property, elevated noise levels and impending traffic, among others.[2] The By-law would be breached by anyone “sponsoring, conducting, continuing, hosting, creating, allowing, causing, permitting and/or attending a “nuisance party”.[3]

Relying on historical data accumulated over a decade, the City estimated the event would attract over 10,000 attendees from the three university communities and residents not affiliated with any of the three post-secondary institutions within the City. The Respondents to the injunction were identified as “persons unknown” consisting of faceless persons or entities with social media accounts that created, advertised and organized nuisance parties, which attracted tens of thousands of attendees expected to descend on the small university town communities[4]. 

Through affidavit evidence obtained from the City’s municipal enforcement services, fire rescue services and operational support, the universities, Grand River Hospital and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, all of whom supported the injunction, the City estimated the total response costs to exceed $1 million.  In addition to excessive costs that would have to be borne by taxpayers’ money, there was a significant public safety factor at play as City enforcement and first responder staff would likely be diverted from regular operational services to emergency responses.[5]

Statutory Injunctions Have a Lower Threshold Test under Section 440 of the Municipal Act

In 2023 and 2024 Courts have granted statutory injunctions to municipalities against unknown or unidentifiable persons with social media accounts, who organized and promoted unsanctioned events and “nuisance parties” and breached a municipality’s by-laws[6].  Section 440 of the Municipal Act states that,  
 
The “municipal” statutory injunction differs greatly from the common law or equitable injunction in that it requires an applicant, taxpayer or municipality, to meet a modified test with a lower threshold than the three-pronged test set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in RJR-McDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General)[7].  In RJR-McDonald, the common law test for injunctions requires an applicant to prove (1) there is a serious issue to be tried; (2) the moving party will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted and (3) on a balance of convenience, the harm to the applicant in not having the injunction granted is greater than the harm to persons on whom it is imposed[8]. 

In contrast with common law or equitable injunctions, under section 440 of the Municipal Act, a municipality must only prove the first prong of the RJR-McDonald test, namely there is a serious issue to be tried.  The modified test was granted to municipalities on the assumption they are presumed to be acting in the public’s best interest and the issue is of great public importance.[9]

Within the statutory injunction framework, it is less onerous for a municipality to obtain an injunction in that there is no requirement to prove (1) that damages are inadequate or that irreparable harm will follow if the injunction is refused; (2) damages or proof of harm; (3) enforcement remedies have been exhausted and (4) hardship from imposing an injunction will not outweigh the public interest in obeying the law.[10] 

However, even if a municipality can prove a clear breach of its by-law, Courts can exercise residual discretion to refuse granting an injunction in exceptional circumstances.  The Court in Oglaza v. JAKK Tuesdays Sports Pub Inc. set out a limited list of exceptional circumstances that justify a Court’s decision to decline an injunction, including (1) if the impugned activity existed prior to the enactment of the by-law (2) the injunction is moot and would serve no purpose; (3) if there is uncertainty about the offending party defying the law; (4) the offending conduct is not the type of conduct the law was intended to prevent or (5) the offending party stopped the activity and provided evidence it ceased engaging in the unlawful conduct.[11]   

The Court found the online account described as “CanadianPartylife” advertised the SPD event in February 2025, with a March 2025 start date to take place in Waterloo, breached the City’s Nuisance By-law.  The Court considered evidence that similar posts made by unknown persons through the same account advertising the SPD event in 2024 in Hamilton, also violated Hamilton’s identical Nuisance By-law.  There were no exceptional circumstances that would justify the Court declining to grant the City an injunction[12].   As such, the Court granted an interlocutory statutory injunction to the City for the relevant time. 

Common Law Injunctive Relief known as Quia Timet Injunction Deters Future Harm

The Court also considered the second issue of whether the common law quia timet injunction should be granted under section 101 of the Courts of Justice Act and sections 40.01 and 40.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.  The quia timet injunction is directed at preventing threatened and imminent harm which has not yet materialized, but there is apprehension of future harm.   The granting of the common law injunction requires a rigorous application of the three-pronged test in RJR-MacDonald.

The first prong of the test - proof of a serious issue to be tried - requires a common-sense approach and a limited view of the merits of the case.[13]  The Court accepted the City’s strong prima facie evidence that unsanctioned street parties breached its “Nuisance By-law” and would continue to be breached in the absence of an injunction, resulting in increased costs to the City. 

The second prong of the test requires proof that irreparable harm will occur, if the injunction is not granted.  The harm must be imminent, and damages are either unquantifiable in monetary terms or uncollectible[14].  The Court considered that unsanctioned “nuisance parties” advertised by unknown persons on social media platforms had the potential to attract thousands of persons, resulting in steep cost projections based on past financial data.  Also, the small amounts the City may recover through law enforcement, by issuing tickets, would not offset anticipated costs.  In addition to hard costs, the Court took notice of the “opportunity costs” that would be incurred in the diversion of first responder resources (i.e. ambulance, fire and police services) from the community to the street parties.[15]

As for the third prong of the test, the Court will assess on a “balance of convenience” which of the parties will suffer the greater harm in refusing or granting the interlocutory injunction.  The Court concluded the City would suffer the greater harm in the usurping of significant and unrecoverable response costs and public resources.  While no one representing the class of Respondents defended the City’s motion, the Court found the Respondents would not suffer any harm from the injunction[16].  

The Injunction Granted to the City did not Infringe Charter Rights

As a matter of course, injunctions raise the question of whether the Charter rights of persons are infringed upon, even when dealing with unidentifiable persons. The Court considered whether the Respondents’ section 2 Charter rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and freedom of association would be infringed upon and tilt the “balance of convenience” test in the Respondents’ favor.  The Court stated that Charter rights are not absolute and do not give unfettered rights to persons who engage in activities that may pose risk to public safety and breach municipal by-laws.   Even if there was some limited evidence that Charter rights may be infringed on in granting the injunction, it would be justifiable under section 1 of the Charter.[17]   

Reflection Points

• Public “nuisance parties” and disorderly conduct can take many forms ranging from public intoxication, unlawful distribution of alcoholic beverages or controlled substances; deposit of refuse on public or private property; damage or destruction of property; pedestrian or vehicular traffic interfering with emergency services, are a few of a long list of nuisance behaviors. 
• When seeking to prevent public disorderly conduct or contravention of a by-law, an applicant or municipality should always consider applying for both a statutory injunction under the Municipal Act and a common law quia timet injunction to reduce the possibility that it may be refused by the Court. 
• An applicant may succeed under the statutory injunction scheme alone; but may not meet the more stringent three-part test for common law interlocutory injunction.  There is no requirement for an applicant to succeed under both the statutory and common law regimes to obtain an injunction.      
• Interlocutory injunctions have a limited temporal and spatial application in that they are meant to apply on certain dates and in certain geographical locations.
• Injunctions could be avoided or lifted if the offending party applied for sanctioned activity or legal status which would give the municipality the opportunity to plan and host an event legally within pre-set parameters.