used for the expression of dissent because of the discomfort their
 The conclusion must be that “the deleterious effects are
out of proportion to the public good achieved by the infringing
measure”: Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, 
2 S.C.R. 567,  S.C.J. No. 37, 2009 SCC 37, at para. 78.
 The limits placed on Mr. Bracken’s s. 2(b) rights by the
Town were not justified under s. 1 of the Charter.
 I would allow the appeal, quash the trespass notice and
issue a declaration that the issuance of the trespass notice by
the Town constituted a violation of the appellant’s rights under
s. 2(b) of the Charter.
 I would award costs of the appeal to Mr. Bracken, in
the amount of $4,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.
Mr. Bracken is also entitled to his costs of the application below.
I would encourage the parties to consult and come to a resolution on quantum. If they are unable to do, the court will accept
brief written submissions on costs from each party, no more than
two pages in length, within 15 days of the date of the release of
Harvey et al. v. Talon International Inc.
Yim et al. v. Talon International Inc.
[Indexed as: Harvey v. Talon International Inc.]
2017 ONCA 267
Court of Appeal for Ontario, Blair, G.J. Epstein and Huscroft JJ.A.
March 31, 2017
Limitations — Real property — Application for return of deposit paid
toward purchase of condominium unit falling within definition of
action for recovery of land under Real Property Limitations Act —
Applicable limitation period being ten years — Real Property Limitations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.15.
Real property — Condominiums — Rescission — Notice of rescission
— Technical approach to interpretation of requirements for rescission
of agreement of purchase and sale under s. 74(7) of Condominium Act
inappropriate as Act is consumer protection legislation — Applicants
complying with requirements of s. 74(7) when they advised respondent