Based on your review of the cases,Langille v. Toronto (City), 2007 CarswellOnt 2822, [2007] O.J. No. 1756 (Ont. S.C.J.)andEquity Waste Management of Canada Corp. v. Halton Hills (Town), 1997 CarswellOnt 3270, [1997] O.J. No. 3921 (Ont. C.A.), what is the test for determining bad faith with respect to having a by-law quashed in whole or in part. the paragraph sited is the the paragraph you are relying on.

"46In my view, the only argument that requires a more detailed discussion is the submission that some of the remaining six restrictions imposed under the two bylaws should be quashed because they were enacted arbitrarily, without proper notice to or input from the industry being regulated, or without any rational or evidentiary basis. I now turn to this submission.

"46In my view, the only argument that requires a more detailed discussion is the submission that some of the remaining six restrictions imposed under the two bylaws should be quashed because they were enacted arbitrarily, without proper notice to or input from the industry being regulated, or without any rational or evidentiary basis. I now turn to this submission.

47I begin by noting that arbitrary or unfair conduct are recognized indicia of bad faith that may, in certain circumstances result in a court quashing all or part of a bylaw: recall, Winton and Equity Waste, supra. In the circumstances of this case, I consider an arbitrary decision to be one that is made on personal whim, or on the basis of random choice, without any supporting evidence. I consider unfair conduct, in the matter before me, to be procedural unfairness the failure to give all stakeholders proper notice of the proposed bylaw, and the failure to provide the stakeholders, or at least those most affected (in this case the pedicab industry) with an opportunity for input and a chance to be heard."