The issue is whether the provisions of the definition relating to
~eduction in the habitability of Surrounding residential areas is
void for vagueness or uncertainty. The Courts will quash bylaws
where the duties imposed by bylaws are not clear <Oo those who are
expected to obey the bylaws: Dery and Staples v. City of Victsria
(2962) 38 W.W.R. 213 (B.c, Court of Appeal).

For example, in El 4 fe) Vv. Surrey (1956) 18 W.W.R.
462 (B.C.S.C.) a requiremenc that a "utility transmission line in
no way shall adversely affect the orderly development of the areas
through which it passes" was held invalid, Similarly, in Barthropp
Ve West Vancouver (1979) 17 B.c.n.R. 202 (3B.C.8.C.) a zoning
requirement prohibiting structures "near the bank of any
watercourse! wag quashed.

On the other hand, tha Courts will attempt to Give meaning to a
provision if at all possible. In Farkas v. White Rock (1978) 13
B.C.L.R. 372 (B.C.S.c.) the court Stated that a bylaw should be
held invalid only "when it has ssen found impossible to attach any
reasonable meaning to it", ‘Tha guiding principle, as set out in
| it Vane [1972] 2 W.W.R. 625
(B.C.C.A.) and approved by the Supreme Court of Canada in City of
“ontreal Arcad: (4th) 169 is
that iff: is not to be confused with
vO the point of invalidity",

in the latter case, the Supreme Court of Canada commented ag
follows:

"Each case is Practically unique, and the Courts have to

time whether the true meaning of the bylaw in
understood by the persons to whom it applies,"

In this case, the proposed definition of "light industrial" is not
uncertain so far as it refers to the preducticn of noise, smoke and
other emissions. All thosa items may bea measured in empirical
terms. In Fulton Manufacturing Ltd. v. st. ie (1589) 45
M.P.L.R. 306 (Ontarioc Supreme Court) the Court interpreted and
applied a zoning bylaw which allowed industrial use other than
"uses which are obnoxious or offensive by reason of their emission
of odour, smoke, dust, noise, gas, fumes, vibration or refuse
MATTSE", The Court expressed no difficulty in applying the terns
of the bylaw.

Our only concern with the Proposed definition arises from the
phrase "reduce the habitability", At best, habitability is a
subjective matter and it is conceivable that habitability could be
interpreted as "Capable of Supporting human life",

ror that season, we recommend that the last line of «he proposed
definition be replaced by the Phrase "interfere with the