<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Innovative but controversial municipal bylaws survive challenges</title>
	<link>http://ablawg.ca/2010/06/25/innovative-but-controversial-municipal-bylaws-survive-challenges/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 09:49:40 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Leila J. Gosselin</title>
		<link>http://ablawg.ca/2010/06/25/innovative-but-controversial-municipal-bylaws-survive-challenges/#comment-131361</link>
		<dc:creator>Leila J. Gosselin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Feb 2011 18:45:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://ablawg.ca/2010/06/25/innovative-but-controversial-municipal-bylaws-survive-challenges/#comment-131361</guid>
		<description>The Judge in this case makes a fundamental error of reviewing the legislative actions of a municipal council using the standards of review applicable to administrative tribunals. Fortunately other judges have applied the correct approach, being that "great deference" must be shown by the court in council's exercise of its jurisdiction to pass bylaws.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Judge in this case makes a fundamental error of reviewing the legislative actions of a municipal council using the standards of review applicable to administrative tribunals. Fortunately other judges have applied the correct approach, being that &#8220;great deference&#8221; must be shown by the court in council&#8217;s exercise of its jurisdiction to pass bylaws.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

