Ford's attack on Toronto is good news

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

... unless the harm amounts to an unjustified infringement (typically, "petty vendetta" is insufficient to meet the justification test set out in s. 1 of the Charter) on someone's Charter-protected rights.

We had that conversation already - what "right" would that be? My God-Given Right to Retain My Municipal Ward Even as the City of Sherbrooke has Decided to Abolish It?

[TorontoDrew]

All those 905 places voted for DoFo, Toronto did not. This chart says it all when it comes to what this angry bully is doing. I tried to stay out of this but too many people are talking out of their asses here.

Source: https://scontent-yyz1-1.xx.fbcdn.ne

[niwell]

Originally Posted by lio45

We had that conversation already - what "right" would that be? My God-Given Right to Retain My Municipal Ward Even as the City of Sherbrooke has Decided to Abolish It?

Maybe not, but as you pointed out in your previous post, you do have a right to challenge it. Even if it is a long shot. If the original legislation (or whatever mechanism) was passed without sufficient time to allow for any such challenges then it's more on them, than you.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I gather by freedom of expression we mean freedom of democratic expression.

If so there is no magical threshold of how many councillors Toronto citizens get to have. It could be 47, 25, 100 or even 10.

The elected people in Queen's Park could even abolish the council and appoint a board of governors to run Toronto, and it would still pass the democracy test. (Just as we have a bunch of people with power over us who are appointed by elected officials - it's a kind of second-hand democracy that's considered perfectly acceptable.)

I think you are confusing the issue. If I understand correctly, it was the freedom of expression of the candidates and voters that was ruled to have been violated by the introduction of the Province's bill in the midst of an election campaign. That is not specifically related to the number of councilors, or even to measures that the Province might take outside the election campaign period.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by niwell

As an aside, Ford is pushing for MPPs to sit on Saturday to expedite this bill (calling for the house to sit at 'atypical' times), despite the fact debate can't start for two more sitting days because the NDP has announced it wants to propose amendments. It's almost 100% going to be spun as ensuring the City of Toronto has enough time to prepare for the election by the PCs.

Monday and Tuesday are also the International Plowing Match which traditionally all MPPs have attended (going back to the 1800s I assume). It's a HUGE deal for the rural community for some reason. I do wonder if they will sit those days or not.

Last I heard, the legislature would not sit on those two days, so that MPPs can attend the ploughing competition.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I think you are confusing the issue. If I understand correctly, it was the freedom of expression of the candidates and voters that was ruled to have been violated by the introduction of the Province's bill in the midst of an election campaign. That is not specifically related to the number of councilors, or even to measures that the Province might take outside the election campaign period.

Define "middle of an election campaign". The news broke that a majority Ontario government with authority over municipalities was intending to do this the third week of July, almost four months before election day.

This is not a U.S. presidential election campaign that is drawn out over two years.

People did have a reasonable amount time to adjust, knowing that the will of a majority government at Queen's Park is pretty much unstoppable.

Federal and provincial election campaigns run in the range of five to six weeks these days. And candidates from major parties are sometimes named during that month-and-a-half period. Some of them even end up getting elected.

Doug Ford is a zit on the face of Ontario that many Ontarians can't stand having there. It needs to be popped at all costs. This is as good an excuse as any to break out the tweezers.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Define "middle of an election campaign". The news broke that a majority Ontario government with authority over municipalities was intending to do this the third week of July, almost four months before election day.

This is not a U.S. presidential election campaign that is drawn out over two years.

People did have a reasonable amount time to adjust, knowing that the will of a majority government at Queen's Park is pretty much unstoppable.

Federal and provincial election campaigns run in the range of five to six weeks these days. And candidates from major parties are sometimes named during that month-and-a-half period. Some of them even end up getting elected.

Doug Ford is a zit on the face of Ontario that many Ontarians can't stand having there. It needs to be popped at all costs. This is as good an excuse as any to break out the tweezers.

Nominations had closed and campaigning was underway, as I understand it. I don't think the length of the campaign period featured in the court pleadings or decision.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I don't think the length of the campaign period featured in the court pleadings or decision.

Then what's the issue?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Nominations had closed and campaigning was underway, as I understand it. .

Are any of the candidates that had thrown in their hat finding themselves without a ward to run in?

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Then what's the issue?

The only issue, if my understanding of the court decision is correct, is that the change in the size of the city council was announced during the campaign period, and this timing was judged to be a violation of the candidates' and voters' freedom of expression. That timing was an (perhaps the) essential component of the decision. I think the judge even indicated that, had the Province introduced the change before the campaign was underway, they would have been home free, at least in terms of the Charter violation.

[shreddog]

If anyone is interested in reading the Judge's decision directly, it can be found

HERE

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by shreddog

If anyone is interested in reading the Judge's decision directly, it can be found

HERE

Very useful, thanks.

[Pavlov]

Some of the more salient portions of the decision (focusing on the infringement of the candidates rights although there is a lengthy discussion of the infringement of residents' rights as well):

[3] The matter before me is unprecedented. The provincial legislature enacted Bill 5, radically redrawing the City of Toronto’s electoral districts, in the middle of the City’s election.

[4] The election period for Toronto City Council began on May 1, 2018 and was based on a 47-ward structure. Election day is October 22, 2018. At the end of July, shortly after taking power, the newly elected Ontario government announced that it would enact legislation directed primarily at the City of Toronto, reducing the number of City wards and councillors from 47 to 25 and de facto doubling the ward populations from an average of 61,000 to 111,000.

[7] Most people would agree that changing the rules in the middle of the game is profoundly unfair. The question for the court, however, is not whether Bill 5 is unfair. The question is whether the enactment of Bill 5 is unconstitutional.

[8] I am acutely aware of the appropriate role of the court in reviewing duly enacted federal or provincial legislation and the importance of judges exercising judicial deference and restraint. It is only when a democratically elected government has clearly crossed the line that the “judicial umpire” should intervene.

[9] The Province has clearly crossed the line.

[29] The evidence is that the candidates began the election campaign on or about May 1, 2018 on the basis of a 47-ward structure and on the reasonable assumption that the 47-ward structure would not be changed mid-stream. The 47-ward structure informed their decision about where to run, what to say, how to raise money and how to publicize their views. When Bill 5 took effect on August 14, mid-way through the election campaign, most of the candidates had already produced campaign material such as websites and pamphlets that were expressly tied to the ward in which they were running. A great deal of the candidate’s time and money had been invested within the boundaries of a particular ward when the ward numbers and sizes were suddenly changed.

[32] There can be no doubt on the evidence before the court that Bill 5 substantially interfered with the candidate’s ability to effectively communicate his or her political message to the relevant voters.

[71] In any event, the constitutional problem here is two-fold: (i) there is no evidence (other than anecdotal evidence) that a 47-seat City Council is in fact “dysfunctional” or that more effective representation can be achieved by moving from a 47-ward to a 25-ward structure; and (ii) even if there was such evidence, there is no evidence of any urgency that required Bill 5 to take effect in the middle of the City’s election.

[72] In my view, the Province’s justification of the Impugned Provisions in Bill 5 fails at the first step of the s. 1 analysis. There is simply no evidence that the two objectives in question were so pressing and substantial that Bill 5 had to take effect in the middle of the City’s election.

[lrt's friend]

The above is a reasonable position to take. It really amounts to common sense that the timing of this change was not right. It is irrelevant whether the change should occur. It is the timing of the change that is the problem. How can the election in Toronto be entirely fair under the circumstances?

I know there has been all kinds of railing on by Conservative supporters to get rid of those d**n politicians, but changes of this nature need reasonable notice, otherwise, democracy itself is affected.

[acottawa]

To me it reads like the judgement for a civil case where a candidate sought damages for money spent on signs or brochures (which to me would be the appropriate venue for these complaints). The judge I think does a poor job of linking this inconvenience caused to candidates (which I think is clearly the case) and his belief that changing the council size is unnecessary (which is certainly a valid opinion to have) and the infringement of section 2 of the charter.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by acottawa

To me it reads like the judgement for a civil case where a candidate sought damages for money spent on signs or brochures (which to me would be the appropriate venue for these complaints). The judge I think does a poor job of linking this inconvenience caused to candidates (which I think is clearly the case) and his belief that changing the council size is unnecessary (which is certainly a valid opinion to have) and the infringement of section 2 of the charter.

I've been wondering whether, once the dust settles, candidates and the City might not seek compensation from the Province for campaign-related expenses incurred before the change was introduced?

[once]

"freedom of democratic expression" is really pushing it. "i am free to express myself democratically however i feel"? which implies Toronto is beholden to 47 councils for what reason exactly?

there is no defending this court decision.

[71] In any event, the constitutional problem here is two-fold: (i) there is no evidence (other than anecdotal evidence) that a 47-seat City Council is in fact “dysfunctional” or that more effective representation can be achieved by moving from a 47-ward to a 25-ward structure; and (ii) even if there was such evidence, there is no evidence of any urgency that required Bill 5 to take effect in the middle of the City’s election.

How is lack of evidence of a dysfunctional city council (what would that even entail?!?) a "constitutional problem"? "Evidence of required urgency"? Why would either evidence be necessary for this decision? This guy is working from the starting point that he doesn't like the decision, and making up reasons why it violates the constitution. That isn't the way a judge needs to think.

There is absolutely zero "freedom of expression" violation here. If you can't justify a court decision on the basis of constitutional democratic protections as they exclusively pertain to the domain of elections - then you can't rule against the decision. Too bad, you might not like it, but that's your job as a judge.

The worst part is he is forcing Ford's hand to use the NWC, since he couldn't defend his decision using any sane section of the charter.

[vid]

Originally Posted by lio45

And they'd be correct in saying that - as I've been saying to vid repeatedly in this thread so far, if you're going to do this, then you want to do this as soon as possible to make sure everyone affected has as much time to prepare as possible.

Then why didn't he do it on July 11th, the first day of the sitting of the legislature? Legislators sat ten times before he announced the policy. He could have announced the policy during the election, which started before nominations opened (the municipal election had yet to begin at that point) and Toronto could have prepared for the eventuality of what he would do—it isn't like they wouldn't know what the ward boundaries would be; they already existed at two levels of government. He could have mentioned them during one of the three debates. He didn't. He could have mentioned this idea when someone directly asked him if he was considering it in mid-May, just days after nominations opened, and he instead said he wouldn't do it.

If you're going to do this, then you want to do this as soon as possible to make sure everyone affected has as much time to prepare as possible. Why didn't he do this as soon as possible? If reducing the size of Toronto's city council is so important, why did he wait until the last possible minute to propose it? We could have avoided all of this if Ford had simply used due diligence and campaigned on and properly prioritized this policy.

[Docere]

Nothing to see here!:

https://twitter.com/SusanDelacourt/s...02742807932929

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by once

"freedom of democratic expression" is really pushing it. "i am free to express myself democratically however i feel"? which implies Toronto is beholden to 47 councils for what reason exactly?

there is no defending this court decision.



How is lack of evidence of a dysfunctional city council (what would that even entail?!?) a "constitutional problem"? "Evidence of required urgency"? Why would either evidence be necessary for this decision? This guy is working from the starting point that he doesn't like the decision, and making up reasons why it violates the constitution. That isn't the way a judge needs to think.

There is absolutely zero "freedom of expression" violation here. If you can't justify a court decision on the basis of constitutional democratic protections as they exclusively pertain to the domain of elections - then you can't rule against the decision. Too bad, you might not like it, but that's your job as a judge.

The worst part is he is forcing Ford's hand to use the NWC, since he couldn't defend his decision using any sane section of the charter.

You've missed the point of the decision.