Value Assets Inc. v. Downtown Brampton Development Corporation
Value Assets Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
MJ Law Professional Corporation
Lawyer(s)

Manjinder Singh

Arsa Corp. Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
MJ Law Professional Corporation
Lawyer(s)

Manjinder Singh

Shahi Rassoi
Law Firm / Organization
MJ Law Professional Corporation
Lawyer(s)

Manjinder Singh

1000755644 Ontario Corporation
Law Firm / Organization
MJ Law Professional Corporation
Lawyer(s)

Manjinder Singh

Singhania’s Enterprises Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
MJ Law Professional Corporation
Lawyer(s)

Manjinder Singh

Shahi Tadka Junction Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
MJ Law Professional Corporation
Lawyer(s)

Manjinder Singh

Punjab05 Brar Legacy Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
MJ Law Professional Corporation
Lawyer(s)

Manjinder Singh

Downtown Brampton Development Corporation
Law Firm / Organization
Davis Webb LLP
City of Brampton
Law Firm / Organization
Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
Lawyer(s)

James Renihan

- Parties: The applicants were Value Assets Inc., Arsa Corp. Ltd., Shahi Rassoi, 1000755644 Ontario Corporation, Singhania’s Enterprises Inc., Shahi Tadka Junction Inc., and Punjab05 Brar Legacy Inc. The respondents were Downtown Brampton Development Corporation and City of Brampton. 

- Subject Matter: On Feb. 24, 2023, the respondent’s board endorsed a proposal by the president of applicant Value Assets Inc. for a food district that would offer food truck services on the company’s property in the City of Brampton. The City approved a downtown rezoning map for the food district. The other applicants, which were independently owned food service trucks, began offering outdoor food truck services on the property. On April 30, 2024, the respondent withdrew its support for the food district and gave the applicants 30 days’ notice to remove their food trucks. The applicants sought judicial review of the decision on the basis that it was procedurally unfair and unreasonable. 

- Ruling: The court ruled in the applicant’s favour, granted the application, and quashed the respondent’s decision to withdraw its consent to the applicants’ operation of the food district. If the respondent wanted to pursue steps to change or revoke its approval, it should do so in a procedurally fair process, the court said. 

- Date: The court released its decision on Dec. 6, 2024. 

- Venue: This was a case before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice - Divisional Court. 

- Amount: The court ordered the respondents to pay the applicant its costs of this application, fixed at $22,500. 

Ontario Superior Court of Justice - Divisional Court
052/24
Corporate & commercial law
$ 22,500
Applicant