A Superior Court judge is holding off on giving her decision in a Niagara-on-the-Lake court fight that asks a basic question: if bylaws aren’t enforced, what’s the point of having them?
The case centres on Konzelmann Vineyards Inc., which neighbouring farmer Brox Company Limited argues hosted frequent outdoor events that violated zoning rules and site plan restrictions in 2024 and 2025, after the town said it would no longer issue special event permits to the winery. The Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake is also named as a respondent.
The application, heard on Tuesday by Justice Amy J. Ohler at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in St. Catharines, was argued by Patrick J. Maloney for Brox Company Limited, Paul M. DeMelo for Konzelmann Vineyards Inc. and Terrance H. Hill for the Town of NOTL.
Brox and Konzelmann agreed that the winery would not continue hosting the types of special events central to this dispute while it seeks the necessary zoning approvals, leaving the court to decide only whether the town’s conduct and its approach to bylaw enforcement warrant judicial intervention.
DeMelo said Konzelmann is seeking the necessary planning approvals to host special events and agreed not to operate outside permitted uses while that process is underway.
Maloney told the court his application has two parts: seeking relief against the town over its failure to apply the bylaws in force at the time and an alternative that would restrain the town from taking steps that allow activities not currently permitted to continue while new bylaws or zoning changes are considered.
“What is the point in having bylaws?” Ohler asked as she pressed town counsel on whether enforcement is optional.
Much of the argument focused on earlier testimony from Konzelmann president Jim Reschke, who said the town told him the winery could continue hosting outdoor events — even after being told the town wouldn’t issue further permits and the winery required zoning approvals.
Maloney said that after one of his questions, Reschke told him the town said, “We can’t issue a permit — but we’re not going to stop you from doing events as well.”
Reschke testified that he believed the message was conveyed during meetings with senior town staff and came from the town’s legal counsel, though no undertaking was later provided to confirm who specifically made the statement.
Maloney argued that representation effectively allowed an illegal use to continue under the bylaws then in force — “activity, I feel, needs to stop,” he said.
Hill countered that municipalities have discretion under Ontario law to decide whether and how to enforce bylaws and that courts should not interfere with those decisions.
As the parties worked through an updated wording of the proposed order, DeMelo objected to Maloney’s language that he said went beyond the agreed relief, arguing it improperly described past conduct as illegal and motivated by financial gain.
In describing the hosting of special events at the winery, Maloney said it “provid(ed) Konzelmann that opportunity to financially gain from that illegal use of the property.”
“This recital of the facts is simply trying to create a colour that doesn’t go to change the substance of the order,” DeMelo said.
“It is highly inappropriate, after my friend and I have agreed to the language of the order, to now go in and say my clients undertook these actions for financial gain.”
Maloney said the comments were meant to provide context for the application and reflected evidence already before the court.
The town adopted new special events bylaws last month, changes that came after the events at issue and as the dispute was moving through the courts.
For a moment, Ohler questioned why the court should intervene rather than allow the town to temporarily permit the activity while it works to update its bylaws.
Maloney responded, “Because that then allows an illegal use to carry on.”
“And that is the crux of this case,” he said. “This activity has been able to continue on for several years — without a zoning in place.”
“Right,” Ohler said, proceeding to ask the town why property owners should follow bylaws if enforcement is discretionary.
Hill acknowledged that this may be unsatisfying to ratepayers, but said it is the legal reality and that discretion is “one of the great strengths” of the justice system.
Ohler said she would take the materials back and release her decision at a later date. By press time, the court had not issued a ruling or responded to inquiries seeking confirmation of any endorsement or order on the file.
