In the case of Janzen v. St. Catherines City, why did the Court find thatMilloywas not applicable with respect to time limitations for applying to have a by-law quashed? Please summarize the Court's findings see below"

"8On the second ground of relief sought, namely that the Court exercise its jurisdiction, pursuant to Section 273 of the Municipal Act to declare interim By-law 2004-199 void as being ultra vires the Municipal Council, I decline to exercise the jurisdiction of this Court to do so.

9The City of St. Catharines enacted Interim Control By-Law No. 2004 199 on June 7, 2004. This application was commenced June 13, 2005. The Ontario Municipal Act, 2001, S.O., c.25, s 273(5) mandates that an application to quash an Interim Control By-law, in whole or in part, shall be made within one year after the passing of the By-law. Though it is not necessary to the disposition of this matter, I find that the time to have challenged the validity of this By-law had passed on June 7, 2005. Counsel for the Applicant relies on Milloy v. Onondaga (Municipality) (1884), 6 O.R. 573 (Ont. C.P.) as authority for the right of a party to move against an amending By-law. However, the case is not applicable to this situation because it dealt with a party moving against an amending By-law after the expiry of one year from the enactment of the original By-law. In the matter before this Court, the one-year period had expired both with respect to the original By-law and the amending Interim Control By-law."