I would suspect that in many cases, there isn’t any desire for business to challenge a bylaw of that sort, either becuase the market isn’t valuable enough for them, they don’t want to raise a stink (where they aren’t wanted anyways), or because they may think that political change will accomplish the same end at lower cost. I wouldn’t expect that a McDonald’s would survive in Tofino, even with summer traffic.

Well, again, similar bans exist elsewhere and seem to have held up. And looking over the relevant section of the Local Government Act, it strikes me as quite broad in scope.

I’m not convinced there is a legal argument against the ban, but as I’ve taken care to note, I’m a layman.

Others have followed your comment eloquently and well, I essentially agree with their points.

Your example is true, but it’s not an example of what Tofino is *trying* to do (at least by my read.) Tofino has restaurants, so attempting to keep “chain restaurants” out is quite different than your example. They have clothing retailers and a bookstore, so how do you tell Chapters/Indigo they can’t open up a Coles outlet?

You can argue that “chains” are a “class of business” but I’m not sure that would hold up if challenged.

In any case, the biggest thing Tofino has going for it is its small size and remote location. It will be some time before most chains are interested in locating there.

Ah, excellent. Again I throw myself at the mercy of experts, but looking over the case, this too strikes me as a sort of bill of attainder.

Things that jumped out:

Vancouver passing resolutions that it would not do business with Shell until Shell “completely withdraws from South Africa”

and…

Vancouver was seeking to use its powers to do business to affect matters in another part of the world, a purpose which is directed at matters outside the City’s territorial limits.

and…

While discrimination for commercial or business reasons is a power that is incidental to the powers to carry on business or acquire property, considerations relating to the political policy of a foreign state are not so essential to the exercise of enumerated powers as to be implied.

In other words, Vancouver punitively targeted a specific business for a purpose one could only describe as foreign policy. I think Vancouver would be within it’s rights to zone out all gas stations…should it choose. But that would be political suicide for whichever party enacted it.

The classic discrimination case is Shell Canada v City of Vancouver – a Supreme Court of Canada decision. Although the scope of the subject matter is slightly different than proposed by Tofino, it provides some insight.

http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1994/1994scr1-231/1994scr1-231.html

i.e. you cannot prohibit a business from setting up shop because of who they are.

You can, however, impose legitimate planning principles in place to restrict land uses and built forms. i.e. You can restrict maximum store sizes. You can restrict retail uses. You can restrict built forms (and to some extent, design and style). Under the Vancouver Charter, the City of Vancouver has broader powers in this regard than other municipalities have under the Local Government Act.

Ultimately, if the public doesn’t want a store, it won’t patronize it. There are constant examples of chain stores closing down due to poor business at the location (as opposed to financial problems with the parent company).

The RONA on Bridgeport & No. 3 Rd. in Richmond closed due to poor sales one or two years after opening.

Urban Fare quietly closed its Edmonton location after it failed.

In the 1990s when The Bay bought out Woodward’s – at West Vancouver’s Park Royal, The Bay moved to the old Woodward’s store in the north mall, and The Bay store in the south mall was carved up and a Zeller’s opened up. West Vancouver’s elite didn’t patronize the Zeller’s and it soon closed up shop (that space is now split among a number of big boxish retailers).
Meanwhile, the Zeller’s at Oakridge is still there.

I’m no lawyer, but I believe the above would be considered a bill of attainder. But if I was “spartikus’s coal burning, ltd” I think Tofino would be within it’s rights to ban me by banning coal burning. In other words, banning a class of business.

I guess my point is other jurisdictions have similar bans (including in the U.S. of A.) that have held up over time.

At the extreme, if Tofino passed a law that said “You can’t get a business permit if your store name is spartikus” the law would be clearly discriminatory.

Kimberly is *entirely* preposterous, BUT such a law that requires an aesthetic is exactly the *sort* of thing that Tofino should be doing. Don’t zone for the business, zone for the community and require the businesses to comply.

Toronto’s Beach neighbourhood did this, and McDonalds open a small store front that completely fit the neighbourhood.

Sadly, it’s also very busy despite the fact that there are many locally owned and operated non-chain businesses nearby.