Her daughter, named executor in her will, sought extension to assail revocation
Ontario’s Divisional Court dismissed a proceeding seeking to quash the revocation of a short-term rental licence as frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise abusive of the court’s process under r. 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194.
In Xiao v. City of Toronto, 2026 ONSC 2283, a woman moved for an extension of time to apply for judicial review of the revocation of the licence on May 8, 2025.
The moving party now appeared to be deceased. Her will designated the daughter as her estate’s executor and as the beneficiary of the property involved, subject to various trusts.
Last Jan. 9, the City of Toronto raised multiple preliminary issues. According to the city, even if the court granted an extension, the application would be moot because a deceased individual could not hold a short-term rental licence, which was non-transferable.
The city invoked r. 2.1, which allowed a court to stay or dismiss a proceeding for being frivolous or vexatious on its face or otherwise abusive of the court’s process.
The court directed the registrar to send a notice that it was considering staying or dismissing the proceeding under r. 2.1.
The notice did not name the estate, but named the moving party’s daughter. The court sought to give the daughter and any appointed estate trustee an opportunity to provide written submissions.
In her submissions responding to the r. 2.1 notice, the daughter discussed her relationship with her parents and argued that she deserved an extension to pursue the judicial review application challenging the revocation.
The daughter acknowledged that she and her mother no longer sought to transfer the licence. However, the daughter wanted to quash “the current punishment.” She also asked for permission to apply for a new licence.
The daughter asserted that her father, who was allegedly eligible for a licence, could apply for one after the end of the month.
The Ontario Divisional Court considered this a clear case to dismiss the proceeding as frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise abusive of the court’s process under r. 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court ruled that the daughter failed to establish her standing to pursue the relief sought on her own or her parents’ behalf. The court added that the requested relief was unavailable in the proposed judicial review proceeding.
The court noted that the daughter’s submissions relied on:
The court pointed out that the daughter’s submissions failed to address the following issues, among others, which prevented her from obtaining a licence through this proceeding:
According to the court, if the daughter or her father qualified for a licence, they could apply to the city for one under the relevant by-law. The court explained that they could not obtain such a licence via the proposed judicial review application.
