Article content material

The Metropolis of Toronto’s $100,000 pledge to help authorized motion towards a contentious piece of laws in Quebec has been quashed by an Ontario courtroom.

Article content material

In a call launched earlier this month, Ontario Superior Court docket Justice William Chalmers dominated in favour of a swimsuit filed final yr by Toronto resident Louis Labrecque, who argued that it was past the jurisdiction for a municipal council in Ontario to make use of taxpayer {dollars} to fund an out-of-province authorized motion that had little bearing on its residents.

Article content material

“A problem to a legislation in a overseas jurisdiction that has no impact on Torontonians, goes past the powers granted to the town,” Chalmers wrote in his resolution.

“I’m unable to conclude that the by-law has as its objective the ‘financial and social well-being’ of Torontonians. In making use of the broad and deferential method, I discover that the bylaw because it pertains to funding the authorized problem to Invoice 21 doesn’t fall inside the powers as set out in part eight of the Metropolis of Toronto Act.”

Article content material

Invoice 21, also called “an act respecting the laicity of the state,” was adopted by Quebec’s provincial legislature in June 2019.

The invoice forbids Quebec civil servants in “positions of authority” from carrying non secular symbols whereas on responsibility — positions that embody sworn peace officers, public college lecturers and workers, and Crown prosecutors.

After Quebec schoolteacher Fatemeh Anvari discovered herself reassigned due to her hijab in December 2021, the mayor and councillors on the metropolis of Brampton handed a movement to donate $100,000 in direction of a authorized problem filed towards the invoice by the Canadian Civil Liberties Affiliation, the Nationwide Council of Canadian Muslims and the World Sikh Group.

Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown urged his counterparts throughout Canada to observe swimsuit.

Many municipal councils expressed help, however have been hesitant to again their phrases with taxpayer {dollars}. The Metropolis of Toronto, nevertheless, took up Brown’s name.

Article content material

In December 2021, then-Toronto mayor John Tory tabled an impromptu movement reaffirming council’s opposition to the invoice, together with a pledge of $100,000 to help the authorized problem.

Council adopted the movement unanimously.

In his utility, Labrecque argued the town’s movement to fund the contribution via their 2021 working finances constituted a bylaw underneath provincial legislation — one which served no legitimate municipal objective underneath each Ontario’s Municipal Act and the Metropolis of Toronto Act.

Among the many case legislation utilized by Chalmers in his resolution was Eng vs. Metropolis of Toronto — a 2012 problem towards Toronto Metropolis Council’s now-overturned 2011 decision banning the possession, sale or consumption of shark fins within the metropolis.

Article content material

“In related circumstances, the courtroom discovered that the bylaw banning shark fin merchandise was not for a legitimate municipal objective and declared the by-law unlawful,” Chalmers wrote in his resolution.

“The courtroom famous that the apply of shark finning didn’t happen in Toronto and didn’t have an effect on the flexibility of Torontonians to stay collectively in an city neighborhood. Equally, it’s my view that Invoice 21, which applies to Quebec authorities workers and prevents them from carrying non secular symbols of their workplaces in Quebec, doesn’t have an effect on the flexibility of Torontonians to stay collectively as an city neighborhood.”

Chalmers additionally cited Shell Canada Merchandise Ltd. v. Metropolis of Vancouver — a case that went earlier than the Supreme Court docket of Canada in 1994, the place in response to Shell’s refusal to divest pursuits in Apartheid-rule South Africa, the town declared itself a “Shell-free zone.”

Article content material

“In Shell Canada, the vast majority of the Supreme Court docket discovered that the aim of the resolutions was to ‘have an effect on issues past the boundaries of the Metropolis with none identifiable profit to its inhabitants,’” Chalmers wrote.

“In Eng v. Toronto, the aim of the bylaw was to have an effect on the apply of shark finning that occurred in ‘distant oceans.’ In each circumstances, the Courts held that the overseas legislation and practices had no impact on the town inhabitants.”

Labrecque’s lawyer Asher Honickman, accomplice at Toronto’s Jordan Honickman Barristers, informed Nationwide Publish his consumer is happy with the result.

Article content material

“We argued that the courts, together with the Supreme Court docket, have by no means wavered from the proposition that bylaws have to be for municipal functions,” he mentioned.

“There must be some sort of tangible profit to the town that may be broadly understood.”

Metropolis of Toronto spokesperson Deborah Blackstone informed Nationwide Publish that the choice was underneath assessment by metropolis attorneys, and declined additional remark.

Peter Graefe, a political scientist at McMaster College, mentioned earlier courtroom choices make it fairly clear what councils are and are usually not permitted to do.

“Cities are creatures of the province, they usually can’t do something exterior of the very particular powers granted to them by their provinces,” he mentioned.

Graefe defined that whereas some points could resonate deeply with council and residents, cities are nonetheless certain by the laws that governs their governance.

“It’s fascinating that it took a involved citizen to name them to order, as a result of presumably there’s been no such try in Brampton, as an example, or in a few of these different cities that have been prepared to place cash ahead to query whether or not this was applicable or not.”

• E mail: bpassifiume@postmedia.com | Twitter: @bryanpassifiume

Article content material