Hookah lounge owners appealed a lower court decision upholding a city by-law that banned hookah use in licensed establishments. The Court of Appeal held that the lower court's ruling was correct and dismissed the appeal.
2326169 Ontario Inc. et al. v. The City of Toronto, 2017 ONCA 484, Court of Appeal for Ontario (2017)
Tobacco companies or front groups may challenge any legislative or regulatory measure that affects their business interests. Unlike public interest litigation, these cases seek to weaken health measures. These cases frequently involve the industry proceeding against the government. For example, a group of restaurant owners challenging a smoke free law as unconstitutional.
A violation of the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health. Public health advocates may claim the public’s right to health is violated by weak tobacco control measures, industry tactics, or an organization’s or smokers’ actions.
A violation of the right to carry on trade, business, or profession of a person’s choice. This right may also be called the right to free enterprise or economic freedom. The industry may argue that a business should be able to conduct its business without government regulation, including whether or not to be smoke free.
A violation of property rights, sometimes in the form of an expropriation or a taking by the government. The tobacco industry may argue that regulations amount to a taking of property rights because they prevent the use of intellectual property such as trademarks.
A single or multi-stemmed instrument for vaporizing and smoking flavored tobacco (shisha or sheesha) or other products in which the vapor or smoke is passed through a water basin ‒ often glass-based ‒ before inhalation. Water pipes are known by a variety of names such as hookah, huqqah, nargilah, nargile, arghila, and qalyan.
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"As the application judge noted, the appellants are licensed by the City to sell food and may continue to do so. Indeed, they may continue to sell shisha. What they cannot do is to permit the smoking of hookah pipes on their business premises. There is no doubt that many hookah lounges will suffer economic harm as a result of the by-law and may no longer be economically viable, but it does not follow that this is the by-law’s purpose. The protection of public health and safety necessarily has economic impact on the operation of the appellants’ businesses, but that impact is incidental to, rather than determinative of, the purpose of the by-law...The application judge reviewed the background to the passage of the bylaw, including the evidence of the City’s Medical Officer of Health, who reported to the City Council that hookah smoke was a health hazard to staff and patrons of establishments where it was smoked – regardless of what was smoked in the hookah. He noted that hookah smoking included some of the same carcinogenic chemicals associated with tobacco, and yet many wrongly assumed that hookah smoking was less harmful than smoking tobacco."
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
Hookah lounge owners appealed a lower court decision upholding a city by-law that banned hookah use in licensed establishments. The Court of Appeal held that the lower court's ruling was correct and dismissed the appeal.