a policy-based decision that was immune from civil action under
s. 450 of the Municipal Act. That section provides, in relevant
part, that no proceeding based on negligence in connection with
the exercise or performance of a discretionary power or function
shall be commenced against the municipality if the action
“results from a policy decision of a municipality . . . made in a
good faith exercise of the discretion”.
 The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing
the appellant’s action.
 The appellant concedes that this was a proper case for
summary judgment, and that the respondent made a policy
decision. However, he argues that the decision is not immune
from civil action under s. 450 because the decision violated
s. 394(1)(c) and, therefore, was not “made in a good faith
exercise of the discretion”. He acknowledges that if we agree
with the motion judge’s interpretation of s. 394(1)(c), the
 We agree with the motion judge that the respondent did
not violate s. 394(1)(c): the respondent imposed a fee or charge
based on the use of the service, namely, wastewater processing
services that it provided to all its rate payers.
 Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The respondent shall
be entitled to its costs of the appeal fixed in the amount of
$15,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements.