The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant municipality alleging
that the defendant violated s. 394(1)(c) of the Municipal Act, 2001 by charging for
wastewater processing services based on water consumption rather than the
amount of water that actually exits as wastewater. The motion judge granted the
defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the action. The plaintiff
Held, the appeal should be dismissed.
The defendant did not violate s. 394(1)(c) of the Act. It imposed a fee or charge
based on the use of the service, namely, wastewater processing services that it
provided to all its rate payers. The defendant’s decision was a policy-based decision which was immune from civil action under s. 450 of the Act.
Statutes referred to
Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, ss. 394(1)(c), 450
Rules and regulations referred to
Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, Rule 20
APPEAL from the order of R.J. Smith J. (2017), 136 O.R. (3d)
599,  O.J. No. 462 (S.C.J.) granting summary judgment
and dismissing an action.
Pasquale Santini, for appellant.
Paul A. Webber and Melanie H. Levesque, for respondents.
 BY THE COURT: — The respondent, the Corporation of the
Town of Arnprior, charged wastewater processing fees based on
wastewater rates multiplied by the amount of a user’s water
consumption. The appellant, Nylene Canada Inc., commenced an
action against the respondent alleging that charging for
wastewater processing services based on water consumption,
rather than the amount of water that actually exits as
wastewater, contravened s. 394(1)(c) of the Municipal Act, 2001,
S.O. 2001, c. 25. That provision prohibits a municipality from
imposing a fee or charge based on the use of a service, other
than a service provided by the municipality. The appellant
pleads that the respondent has been unjustly enriched by charging on the basis that it has and was negligent in failing to
implement a system where users can apply for a rebate for
sewer capacity they did not use.
 In response, the respondent brought a motion for summary
judgment dismissing the appellant’s claim.
 The motion judge concluded that he could make a fair and
just determination under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 because the facts were largely not in
dispute and there were no issues of credibility. He concluded
that the respondent did not violate s. 394(1)(c) and had made