I simply do not agree. This is not a case such as Vic Restaurant v. Montreal, supra, where the director of police had unlimited discretion to give or withhold his permission on which the granting of the licence depended, his written approval being an integral prerequisite from one department of the body granting the licence. I regard the whole of By-laws 398 and 605, looked at fairly, to set out a complete regulatory scheme and any “approvals” of the building inspector as reflecting only reasonable requirements of administration, minor in nature, having to do with the orderly and informed administration of the scheme. The laying down of preconditions such as in cl. 19 of By-law 605, and the relieving cl. 10 which, it is suggested, is in place to permit small applicants who wish to take only a few yards of materials, I do not find so destructive or so much a delegation within the regulatory scheme which would invalidate the by-law when looked at as a whole. I say the same applies to other alleged examples of delegation brought forward on the argument.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.