|
|
THE LATEST |
Seeks Costs from City, Other Opponents of Bill 5
PROVINCE HAS NO DUTY TO CONSULT PUBLIC,
NO OBLIGATION OF FAIRNESS TO CITY: BRIEF
|
Aug 24, 2018
Democracy Toronto The Ontario government has no obligation whatsoever to consult with the city of Toronto, or the public, before it does anything. Nor does it have any obligation to be fair. That’s what the province says in an agressive legal response to the various legal actions that have been launched in Superior Court in the wake of cuts to Toronto City Council. The brief was filed on behalf of the province by the Ministry of the Attorney-General on Wednesday. “As a matter of law, the Legislature…owes no duty of procedural fairness or to consult,” the brief says. “The only procedure due to the public in relation to parliamentary process is that legislation receive three readings and Royal Assent.” In 2011 and again in 2016, the province and the City of Toronto signed the Toronto-Ontario Cooperation Agreement, which says the Province of Ontario “will consult with the City of Toronto on any proposed change in legislation or regulation that, in Ontario’s opinion, will have a significant financial or policy impact on the City.” |
|
Caroline Mulroney
Attorney-General of Ontario
|
But in its brief, the Province points out that the Cooperation Agreement prevents the city from taking any action if the Province simply breaks the agreement, as it appears to have done when cutting city council without consultation.
“Failure of the parties to comply with this Agreement does not affect the validity of any action taken by the parties or give rise to any rights or remedies by the parties,” the clause reads. Several of the Bill 5 objectors have raised the province’s duty to consult in their attacks on the validity of Bill 5. In addition to the Cooperation Agreement, they cite the City Of Toronto Act, which contains many promises to consult with the City on major policies and initiatives. Also worthless, according to the province. “Nothing in (the City of Toronto Act)…impairs the ability of the Legislature to enact Bill 5 without advance consultation or notice,” the province’s brief reads. It contends if the Province does something that contradicts its own legislation, the new law is “deemed to impliedly repeal” the earlier law. |
The province’s brief contends that municipalities are entirely “creatures of the province”, with whom the province can do as it will—and that courts have recognized this principle in the past.
“The argument that the principles of “democracy” and “rule of law” have changed this state of affairs is unsustainable," the brief reads. "The supremacy of the provincial legislature is itself an expression of the principles of democracy and the rule of law.”
What Arguments will Opponents Make in Court?
The province’s brief also dismisses the constitutional arguments raised by various objectors to Bill 5, saying there either is no breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or that it is justified by the goals of the legislation.
It lists those goals as greater voter parity among wards for the 2018 election than would be the case under the 47-ward model. It doesn’t address claims that the 25-ward model imposed by Bill 5 would result in much greater disparity in ward populations over time.
The other goal of the legislation, it says, it to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Council decision-making. It doesn’t say how or to what degree having 25 wards instead of 47 would achieve that, except by quoting the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Steven Clark, in the legislature upon introducing the bill.
“First, they [councilors in support of a 25-ward model] agree that a smaller council will lead to better decision-making at Toronto city hall, which would benefit Torontonians as a whole. They gave an example of the current 44-member council having 10-hour debates on issues that would end with the vast majority of councillors voting the same as they would have at the beginning of the debate.”
How City Council Voted on 47-Ward Council; Bill 5
“The argument that the principles of “democracy” and “rule of law” have changed this state of affairs is unsustainable," the brief reads. "The supremacy of the provincial legislature is itself an expression of the principles of democracy and the rule of law.”
What Arguments will Opponents Make in Court?
The province’s brief also dismisses the constitutional arguments raised by various objectors to Bill 5, saying there either is no breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or that it is justified by the goals of the legislation.
It lists those goals as greater voter parity among wards for the 2018 election than would be the case under the 47-ward model. It doesn’t address claims that the 25-ward model imposed by Bill 5 would result in much greater disparity in ward populations over time.
The other goal of the legislation, it says, it to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Council decision-making. It doesn’t say how or to what degree having 25 wards instead of 47 would achieve that, except by quoting the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Steven Clark, in the legislature upon introducing the bill.
“First, they [councilors in support of a 25-ward model] agree that a smaller council will lead to better decision-making at Toronto city hall, which would benefit Torontonians as a whole. They gave an example of the current 44-member council having 10-hour debates on issues that would end with the vast majority of councillors voting the same as they would have at the beginning of the debate.”
How City Council Voted on 47-Ward Council; Bill 5
Neither the brief nor the Minister mentions that councillors who support a 25-ward model are in the minority on City Council. Only 13 of 44 councillors voted against the 47-ward model when it was approved in 2016. Council voted 24 to 17 last month to reject the 25-ward model. Council voted 27-15 on August 20 to take legal action against Bill 5.
The province’s brief also rejects the contention of some opponents to the Bill that it disadvantages women and minority candidates from achieving office. They had argued that a reduced number of wards will make it harder to achieve diversity on council because large wards are more homogenous than smaller ones, and because incumbents have an advantage in large wards.
The province calls that “speculation” and says there is simply “no evidence of an adverse impact on women and minorities as a result of the enactment of the legislation during the campaign period.”
In what will no doubt be seen as unnecessary harshness, if not outright malice, the province is seeking remuneration from Bill 5's opponents for the cost of defending the legislation in court.
The case will be heard in Superior Court before Mr. Justice Edward Belobaba on Friday, August 31.
The province’s brief also rejects the contention of some opponents to the Bill that it disadvantages women and minority candidates from achieving office. They had argued that a reduced number of wards will make it harder to achieve diversity on council because large wards are more homogenous than smaller ones, and because incumbents have an advantage in large wards.
The province calls that “speculation” and says there is simply “no evidence of an adverse impact on women and minorities as a result of the enactment of the legislation during the campaign period.”
In what will no doubt be seen as unnecessary harshness, if not outright malice, the province is seeking remuneration from Bill 5's opponents for the cost of defending the legislation in court.
The case will be heard in Superior Court before Mr. Justice Edward Belobaba on Friday, August 31.
FORD TO SUSPEND CHARTER;
OVERRIDE BILL 5 RULING
FOR 25-WARD VOTE
10 Sept 2018
Feds could "disallow"
But won't
ONT. APPEALS BILL 5 RULING;
TABLES NEW LAW TO OVERRIDE RIGHTS
12 Sept 2018
Bill 5
Province's Application for Stay
Province's Notice of Appeal
Bill 31
Bill 5 Legal Documents
