Maybe a joke about Bill Morneau ... if not Greg

[Craig]

The judge's argument was essentially that he didn't like the timing of the legislation and some convoluted argument that it impacts freedom of expression and effective representation.

Well, the effective representation argument is easy and obvious, but the judge explicitly said they weren't ruling based on that. The whole thing was around freedom of speech/expression.

It amounts to the timing. I'm kinda glad the courts interpret the Charter in a way that understands that elections are an important platform for political speech and it's not ok for a government in power to remove that freedom from a bunch of people on absurdly short notice for no good reason. You can't just do stupid shit like this because you don't like the views of some other politicians.

[Boring Choice #2]

Don't get me wrong, I think using the notwithstanding clause is stupid, as was the timing of the legislation and not consulting their constituents as to whether it represented their wishes. But I think it was well within their constitutional rights to do so, as was the consolidation of municipalities by Mike Harris in the 90s. It's a stupid law isn't really the best judicial argument.

[Boring Choice #2]

The judge's argument was essentially that he didn't like the timing of the legislation and some convoluted argument that it impacts freedom of expression and effective representation.

Well, the effective representation argument is easy and obvious, but the judge explicitly said they weren't ruling based on that. The whole thing was around freedom of speech/expression.

It amounts to the timing. I'm kinda glad the courts interpret the Charter in a way that understands that elections are an important platform for political speech and it's not ok for a government in power to remove that freedom from a bunch of people on absurdly short notice for no good reason. You can't just do stupid shit like this because you don't like the views of some other politicians.

But it did not remove that freedom speech / expression. It just made those same people compete for fewer spots.

[AD]

I sorta agree with D.







It's a recognized constitutional power of the province. The answer is not to elect dumbasses to positions where they have power.

[Boring Choice #2]

Exactly. I don't have to agree with Ford's actions to agree with his ability to perform them.

[AD]

There is some thing as judicial oversight against abuse of rights. But it's a huge stretch here.

Anyway. The judge makes good general points about democratic expression.

I just think it's also stretch here.

[senate]

The government cannot arbitrarily use its power to deprive individuals of their Charter rights or otherwise cause them injury.

The Ontario government's attorneys performance during this case was, according to those that followed the case, shockingly bad. If they had provided a coherent justification for the province's action, even just a detailed breakdown of the alleged financial savings, Ontario probably would have won the case. Instead, the Ontario attorneys were either so arrogant or lazy that they prepared no defence other than "Ford can do what he wants".

[TittiesNBeer]

I hate ford.

I hate this law and the reasons for it.

That said. I think that D is right and this could get overturned on appeal. This seems well within his constitutional powers today.

It reminds me of a saying that Scalia (who is also a jackass) supposedly had in his office. Stupid, but constitutional.

[Craig]

If they did it at a different time, the freedom clause wouldn't have been a thing. But taking away a platform for speech from anyone, especially a rival, at the last second without justification is obviously wrong. You can't just say "yeah, well, they can run for other seats" in this case. The election starts in less than a month, getting organized for something like that takes time. It directly infringes on their ability to use a platform they had every right and reason to expect to use. I think ad is probably right, that if the government could have come up with a reason why it was necessary they would have won. But they couldn't, because it isn't.

[Boring Choice #2]

The government cannot arbitrarily use its power to deprive individuals of their Charter rights or otherwise cause them injury..

This is bunk. The law did not deprive individuals of their Charter Rights or cause them injury. They have the same ability to vote and to express themselves either way.

And if your argument holds, then governments should not be able to raise taxes, as they cause financial injury to those against whom they are levied.

The argument is essentially that the law came at an inconvenient time. And that is a lame argument.

[Craig]

The government cannot arbitrarily use its power to deprive individuals of their Charter rights or otherwise cause them injury..

This is bunk. The law did not deprive individuals of their Charter Rights or cause them injury. They have the same ability to vote and to express themselves either way.

And if your argument holds, then governments should not be able to raise taxes, as they cause financial injury to those against whom they are levied.

The argument is essentially that the law came at an inconvenient time. And that is a lame argument.

But they didn't have the same ability to express themselves. I don't understand how anyone can not see that.

[WTF]

For those arguing that invoking the notwithstanding clause is within Ford's constitutional purview, what do you think his reaction would be if the feds were to employ disallowance? It's within their constitutional purview, right?

[Craig]

I'm just going to quote the best part of the decision. The judge was pretty eloquent:

The expressive activity of candidates competing in the City’s ongoing election obviously falls within the scope of s. 2(b). The more pertinent question is whether their freedom of expression has been infringed by the enactment of Bill 5. That is, whether the enactment of Bill 5 changing the electoral districts in the middle of the City’s election campaign substantially interfered with the candidate’s right to freedom of expression.[17]
Perhaps the better question is “How could it not?”
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.
Bill 5 radically altered the City’s electoral districts, in most cases doubling both their physical size and the number of potential voters. The immediate impact of Bill 5 was wide-spread confusion and uncertainty. There was confusion about where to run, how to best refashion one’s political message and reorganize one’s campaign, how to attract additional financial support, and what to do about all the wasted campaign literature and other material. There was uncertainty flowing from the court challenge, the possibility that the court challenge might succeed and the consequences for all concerned if this were to happen.
The evidence is that the candidates spent more time on doorsteps addressing the confusing state of affairs with potential voters than discussing relevant political issues. The candidates’ efforts to convey their political message about the issues in their particular ward were severely frustrated and disrupted. Some candidates persevered; others dropped out of the race entirely.
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.

[TittiesNBeer]

For those arguing that invoking the notwithstanding clause is within Ford's constitutional purview, what do you think his reaction would be if the feds were to employ disallowance? It's within their constitutional purview, right?

I dont think he should have invoked it.

Im saying the judicial decision here is wrong and is likely to be overturned on appeal. I think he has the constitutional power to change municipal election procedures.

[WTF]

Then the proper course would be to seek overturning the ruling via an appeal rather than resorting to the notwithstanding clause. That said, the feds have the constitutional power to use disallowance to basically overrule any provincial legislation. I don't see it ever happening as the shitstorm it would raise would be incredible as Doug and his party would whine about it louder than a pack of bitches if that ever happened.

[AD]

I'm just going to quote the best part of the decision. The judge was pretty eloquent:

The expressive activity of candidates competing in the City’s ongoing election obviously falls within the scope of s. 2(b). The more pertinent question is whether their freedom of expression has been infringed by the enactment of Bill 5. That is, whether the enactment of Bill 5 changing the electoral districts in the middle of the City’s election campaign substantially interfered with the candidate’s right to freedom of expression.[17]
Perhaps the better question is “How could it not?”
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.
Bill 5 radically altered the City’s electoral districts, in most cases doubling both their physical size and the number of potential voters. The immediate impact of Bill 5 was wide-spread confusion and uncertainty. There was confusion about where to run, how to best refashion one’s political message and reorganize one’s campaign, how to attract additional financial support, and what to do about all the wasted campaign literature and other material. There was uncertainty flowing from the court challenge, the possibility that the court challenge might succeed and the consequences for all concerned if this were to happen.
The evidence is that the candidates spent more time on doorsteps addressing the confusing state of affairs with potential voters than discussing relevant political issues. The candidates’ efforts to convey their political message about the issues in their particular ward were severely frustrated and disrupted. Some candidates persevered; others dropped out of the race entirely.
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.

Super stretched definition of "infringement of freedom of expression".

Circumstances changing around someone doesn't remove freedom of expression.

Like, the judge is making an excellent case for why it's an administrative stupidity. But not much more.

[TittiesNBeer]

Then the proper course would be to seek overturning the ruling via an appeal rather than resorting to the notwithstanding clause. That said, the feds have the constitutional power to use disallowance to basically overrule any provincial legislation. I don't see it ever happening as the shitstorm it would raise would be incredible as Doug and his party would whine about it louder than a pack of bitches if that ever happened.

I agree that they should appeal.

Their issue is timing. The law was way too late to begin with. An appeal.will take more time and the election is upon us

[senate]

The government cannot arbitrarily use its power to deprive individuals of their Charter rights or otherwise cause them injury..

This is bunk. The law did not deprive individuals of their Charter Rights or cause them injury. They have the same ability to vote and to express themselves either way.

And if your argument holds, then governments should not be able to raise taxes, as they cause financial injury to those against whom they are levied.

The argument is essentially that the law came at an inconvenient time. And that is a lame argument.

Each Toronto voters vote is worth less. They're ability to express themselves is diminished.

And if your argument holds, then governments should be able to raise income tax rates hours before the filing deadline, as they have the constitution power to levy taxes.

Your argument is essentially that laws don't have to be fair or impartial. And that is a lamer argument.

[WTF]

Then the proper course would be to seek overturning the ruling via an appeal rather than resorting to the notwithstanding clause. That said, the feds have the constitutional power to use disallowance to basically overrule any provincial legislation. I don't see it ever happening as the shitstorm it would raise would be incredible as Doug and his party would whine about it louder than a pack of bitches if that ever happened.

I agree that they should appeal.

Their issue is timing. The law was way too late to begin with. An appeal.will take more time and the election is upon us

Which is part of the ruling as well, if I'm reading it correctly. Pulling this horseshit this late in the game is shitty timing and shows some extreme tunnel vision. Of all the other matters to tend to, seeking to reduce the size of city council due to a personal grudge seems unbelievably petty and inefficient.

[mayoradamwest]

Wel it does, I just don't know that municipalities have any constitutional rights. They should, bu they don't.... Afaik.

[mayoradamwest]

Also, this should have been In a platform.

[mayoradamwest]

It's just all so pointless and stupid

[AD]

"Each Toronto voters vote is worth less. They're ability to express themselves is diminished."

How?
Senate. I admit I don't know what Ford actually decided to do in detail.

[TittiesNBeer]

Then the proper course would be to seek overturning the ruling via an appeal rather than resorting to the notwithstanding clause. That said, the feds have the constitutional power to use disallowance to basically overrule any provincial legislation. I don't see it ever happening as the shitstorm it would raise would be incredible as Doug and his party would whine about it louder than a pack of bitches if that ever happened.

I agree that they should appeal.

Their issue is timing. The law was way too late to begin with. An appeal.will take more time and the election is upon us

Which is part of the ruling as well, if I'm reading it correctly. Pulling this horseshit this late in the game is shitty timing and shows some extreme tunnel vision. Of all the other matters to tend to, seeking to reduce the size of city council due to a personal grudge seems unbelievably petty and inefficient.

Agree on all that. Its stupid.

Stupid but constitutional.

[WTF]

I agree that they should appeal.

Their issue is timing. The law was way too late to begin with. An appeal.will take more time and the election is upon us

Which is part of the ruling as well, if I'm reading it correctly. Pulling this horseshit this late in the game is shitty timing and shows some extreme tunnel vision. Of all the other matters to tend to, seeking to reduce the size of city council due to a personal grudge seems unbelievably petty and inefficient.

Agree on all that. Its stupid.

Stupid but constitutional.

As is this:
Constitution Act, 1867

Royal Assent to Bills, etc.
55. Where a Bill passed by the Houses of the Parliament is presented to the Governor General for the Queen’s Assent, he shall declare, according to his Discretion, but subject to the Provisions of this Act and to Her Majesty’s Instructions, either that he assents thereto in the Queen’s Name, or that he withholds the Queen’s Assent, or that he reserves the Bill for the Signification of the Queen’s Pleasure.

Marginal note:Disallowance by Order in Council of Act assented to by Governor General
56. Where the Governor General assents to a Bill in the Queen’s Name, he shall by the first convenient Opportunity send an authentic Copy of the Act to One of Her Majesty’s Principal Secretaries of State, and if the Queen in Council within Two Years after Receipt thereof by the Secretary of State thinks fit to disallow the Act, such Disallowance (with a Certificate of the Secretary of State of the Day on which the Act was received by him) being signified by the Governor General, by Speech or Message to each of the Houses of the Parliament or by Proclamation, shall annul the Act from and after the Day of such Signification.

Application to Legislatures of Provisions respecting Money Votes, etc.
90. The following Provisions of this Act respecting the Parliament of Canada, namely, — the Provisions relating to Appropriation and Tax Bills, the Recommendation of Money Votes, the Assent to Bills, the Disallowance of Acts, and the Signification of Pleasure on Bills reserved, — shall extend and apply to the Legislatures of the several Provinces as if those Provisions were here re-enacted and made applicable in Terms to the respective Provinces and the Legislatures thereof, with the Substitution of the Lieutenant Governor of the Province for the Governor General, of the Governor General for the Queen and for a Secretary of State, of One Year for Two Years, and of the Province for Canada.

If I'm reading this correctly, this hasn't been used in about 75 years so I'd laugh pretty hard at Ford breaking out the notwithstanding act only to be bitchslapped by the feds.

[Boring Choice #2]

The government cannot arbitrarily use its power to deprive individuals of their Charter rights or otherwise cause them injury..

This is bunk. The law did not deprive individuals of their Charter Rights or cause them injury. They have the same ability to vote and to express themselves either way.

And if your argument holds, then governments should not be able to raise taxes, as they cause financial injury to those against whom they are levied.

The argument is essentially that the law came at an inconvenient time. And that is a lame argument.

Each Toronto voters vote is worth less. They're ability to express themselves is diminished.

And if your argument holds, then governments should be able to raise income tax rates hours before the filing deadline, as they have the constitution power to levy taxes.

Your argument is essentially that laws don't have to be fair or impartial. And that is a lamer argument.

They can raise taxes at 11:59 of December 31 of the tax year. Raising it before the filing deadline is retroactive. It would be akin to Ford changing the boundaries the day after the election.

Laws are often neither fair, nor impartial. The entire Tax Act is a perfect example of that.

[TittiesNBeer]

Which is part of the ruling as well, if I'm reading it correctly. Pulling this horseshit this late in the game is shitty timing and shows some extreme tunnel vision. Of all the other matters to tend to, seeking to reduce the size of city council due to a personal grudge seems unbelievably petty and inefficient.

Agree on all that. Its stupid.

Stupid but constitutional.

As is this:
Constitution Act, 1867

Royal Assent to Bills, etc.
55. Where a Bill passed by the Houses of the Parliament is presented to the Governor General for the Queen’s Assent, he shall declare, according to his Discretion, but subject to the Provisions of this Act and to Her Majesty’s Instructions, either that he assents thereto in the Queen’s Name, or that he withholds the Queen’s Assent, or that he reserves the Bill for the Signification of the Queen’s Pleasure.

Marginal note:Disallowance by Order in Council of Act assented to by Governor General
56. Where the Governor General assents to a Bill in the Queen’s Name, he shall by the first convenient Opportunity send an authentic Copy of the Act to One of Her Majesty’s Principal Secretaries of State, and if the Queen in Council within Two Years after Receipt thereof by the Secretary of State thinks fit to disallow the Act, such Disallowance (with a Certificate of the Secretary of State of the Day on which the Act was received by him) being signified by the Governor General, by Speech or Message to each of the Houses of the Parliament or by Proclamation, shall annul the Act from and after the Day of such Signification.

Application to Legislatures of Provisions respecting Money Votes, etc.
90. The following Provisions of this Act respecting the Parliament of Canada, namely, — the Provisions relating to Appropriation and Tax Bills, the Recommendation of Money Votes, the Assent to Bills, the Disallowance of Acts, and the Signification of Pleasure on Bills reserved, — shall extend and apply to the Legislatures of the several Provinces as if those Provisions were here re-enacted and made applicable in Terms to the respective Provinces and the Legislatures thereof, with the Substitution of the Lieutenant Governor of the Province for the Governor General, of the Governor General for the Queen and for a Secretary of State, of One Year for Two Years, and of the Province for Canada.

If I'm reading this correctly, this hasn't been used in about 75 years so I'd laugh pretty hard at Ford breaking out the notwithstanding act only to be bitchslapped by the feds.

Im not talking about the notwithstanding clause which comes from the charter of rights and freedoms which is not what you posted ... and didnt exist 75 years ago.

Im talking about a provincial governments power to decide how municipalities will be run. It was stupid to do this the way they did it. Thats a political argument though. Constitutionally he has the power to do it. The feds cant overrule hin on it. Its part of provincial powers.

[senate]

"Each Toronto voters vote is worth less. They're ability to express themselves is diminished."

How?
Senate. I admit I don't know what Ford actually decided to do in detail.

[82] I find that the reduction from 47 to 25 in the number of City wards and the corresponding increase in ward-size population from an average of about 61,000 to 111,000 substantially interfered with the municpal voter's freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter of Rights, and in particular her right to cast a vote that can result in effective representation.

Freedom of expression is not just the ability to cast a vote, but the ability to influence the result of an election. The more voters in each riding, the less value each individual vote has.

If the Ontario government doesn't like the idea that freedom of expression protects voting then they should have bothered to argue against it when the plaintiff's raised it instead of only coming to court to say L'Etat C'est Doug.

[Craig]

"Each Toronto voters vote is worth less. They're ability to express themselves is diminished."

How?
Senate. I admit I don't know what Ford actually decided to do in detail.

He's taking representation in Toronto from something like 60k people per rep to 110k, which is much more than anywhere else in the province. Which, I agree, does not really diminish their ability to express themselves on the surface.

The ruling touched on this after the whole freedom of expression thing you guys don't seem to find very convincing. What the argument amounts to is people have the right to express themselves through their elected representatives. The best data made available to the court, keeping in mind the province didn't bother to provide any data, was the study that led to the initial expansion of city Council from uh, 42 to 47 or something. That study looked at how effective representation would be at current levels and the levels Ford wants, and concluded that more representation was needed to be effective.

It's kinda interesting because he went out of his way to say that the right to municipal elections/representation is not guaranteed. But if it is offered, it must be fair and effective to not infringe upon representation. Ie, if the province provides us with the ability to express ourselves through our elected municipal official, they have to do it in a way that our officials can adequately represent our voice. That's why it's argued under freedom of expression and not some other area. I think this relates less to our votes and more to the day to day representation that local government provides.

[Craig]

Agree on all that. Its stupid.

Stupid but constitutional.

As is this:
Constitution Act, 1867

Royal Assent to Bills, etc.
55. Where a Bill passed by the Houses of the Parliament is presented to the Governor General for the Queen’s Assent, he shall declare, according to his Discretion, but subject to the Provisions of this Act and to Her Majesty’s Instructions, either that he assents thereto in the Queen’s Name, or that he withholds the Queen’s Assent, or that he reserves the Bill for the Signification of the Queen’s Pleasure.

Marginal note:Disallowance by Order in Council of Act assented to by Governor General
56. Where the Governor General assents to a Bill in the Queen’s Name, he shall by the first convenient Opportunity send an authentic Copy of the Act to One of Her Majesty’s Principal Secretaries of State, and if the Queen in Council within Two Years after Receipt thereof by the Secretary of State thinks fit to disallow the Act, such Disallowance (with a Certificate of the Secretary of State of the Day on which the Act was received by him) being signified by the Governor General, by Speech or Message to each of the Houses of the Parliament or by Proclamation, shall annul the Act from and after the Day of such Signification.

Application to Legislatures of Provisions respecting Money Votes, etc.
90. The following Provisions of this Act respecting the Parliament of Canada, namely, — the Provisions relating to Appropriation and Tax Bills, the Recommendation of Money Votes, the Assent to Bills, the Disallowance of Acts, and the Signification of Pleasure on Bills reserved, — shall extend and apply to the Legislatures of the several Provinces as if those Provisions were here re-enacted and made applicable in Terms to the respective Provinces and the Legislatures thereof, with the Substitution of the Lieutenant Governor of the Province for the Governor General, of the Governor General for the Queen and for a Secretary of State, of One Year for Two Years, and of the Province for Canada.

If I'm reading this correctly, this hasn't been used in about 75 years so I'd laugh pretty hard at Ford breaking out the notwithstanding act only to be bitchslapped by the feds.

Im not talking about the notwithstanding clause which comes from the charter of rights and freedoms which is not what you posted ... and didnt exist 75 years ago.

Im talking about a provincial governments power to decide how municipalities will be run. It was stupid to do this the way they did it. Thats a political argument though. Constitutionally he has the power to do it. The feds cant overrule hin on it. Its part of provincial powers.

Having the constitutional authority to change the size of Council is not in question.

[TittiesNBeer]

I dont really agree with that argument either. That means the charter could be used to block almost any redistricting a government wants to do, no matter when they do it or for what purpose.

I really think this judge has made a poor argument that would be overturned on appeal.

I also think that its unlikely to be appealed due to the nature of the timing

[Craig]

I dont really agree with that argument either. That means the charter could be used to block almost any redistricting a government wants to do, no matter when they do it or for what purpose.

How so? The judgement specifically said if the timing was different the freedom of expression of candidates wouldn't be infringed upon and if they had a legitimate purpose neither would those of the voter.

[MP]

Why does Toronto need 22 extra dimwitted people to run the city? If anything, less councilors means better people, all with a bigger say.

[TittiesNBeer]

I dont really agree with that argument either. That means the charter could be used to block almost any redistricting a government wants to do, no matter when they do it or for what purpose.

How so? The judgement specifically said if the timing was different the freedom of expression of candidates wouldn't be infringed upon and if they had a legitimate purpose neither would those of the voter.

The dilution of the vote argument was what i was addressing. The idea that fewer districts changed the value of an individual vote and was therefore diminishing the freedom of expression.

I was specifically responding to that issue raised by senate.

[WTF]

For anyone who wants to read it, here's the decision: http://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions/scj/2018ONSC5151.pdf

From the text of it, the judge isn't saying that the province does not have the constitutional right to change the size of city council. He's saying the enactment of Bill 5 itself is unconstitutional but leaves the door open for a subsequent bill that would fit the parameters to be introduced.

[11] The Impugned Provisions are unconstitutional and are set aside under s. 52 of the
Constitution Act, 1982. The October 22 election shall proceed as scheduled but on the
basis of 47 wards, not 25. If the Province wishes to enact another Bill 5-type law at some
future date to affect future City elections, it may certainly attempt to do so. As things now
stand – and until a constitutionally valid provincial law says otherwise - the City has 47
wards.

[Roughneck]

Ford getting his reduction in seats but having it result in a heavily urban council with Keesmaat as mayor would be the best way for this to play out.

[Craig]

It won't though, the reduction in seats results in the suburbs dominating Council even more than they already do.

[AD]

The ruling touched on this after the whole freedom of expression thing you guys don't seem to find very convincing. What the argument amounts to is people have the right to express themselves through their elected representatives. The best data made available to the court, keeping in mind the province didn't bother to provide any data, was the study that led to the initial expansion of city Council from uh, 42 to 47 or something. That study looked at how effective representation would be at current levels and the levels Ford wants, and concluded that more representation was needed to be effective.

If this was true, then every election in every province and at the federal level would be an infringement on free speech of millions of Canadians because some people in buttfuck saskytown have triple the representative power of people in downtown T.dot, Mtl or other civilized places.

Having effective representation is a right. It has its own rules that were not infringed in this (stupid-ass) decision by the gov't.

But it is a leap to say that having ineffective representation is an infringement of freedom of expression. And the judge only does that leap because there is no other infringement he can hang his hat on. Saying it would have been fine if distanced in time from the election sorta shows that it is very much legal. Saying it is only an infringement because it is so late in the game just shows his cards (i.e., how stupid is this decision that its made weeks before an election?).

Courts aren's supposed to temper stupid policy.The legislature and the executive are supposed to deal with that.

[Craig]

The ruling touched on this after the whole freedom of expression thing you guys don't seem to find very convincing. What the argument amounts to is people have the right to express themselves through their elected representatives. The best data made available to the court, keeping in mind the province didn't bother to provide any data, was the study that led to the initial expansion of city Council from uh, 42 to 47 or something. That study looked at how effective representation would be at current levels and the levels Ford wants, and concluded that more representation was needed to be effective.

If this was true, then every election in every province and at the federal level would be an infringement on free speech of millions of Canadians because some people in buttfuck saskytown have triple the representative power of people in downtown T.dot, Mtl or other civilized places.

Having effective representation is a right. It has its own rules that were not infringed in this (stupid-ass) decision by the gov't.

But it is a leap to say that having ineffective representation is an infringement of freedom of expression. And the judge only does that leap because there is no other infringement he can hang his hat on. Saying it would have been fine if distanced in time from the election sorta shows that it is very much legal. Saying it is only an infringement because it is so late in the game just shows his cards (i.e., how stupid is this decision that its made weeks before an election?).

Courts aren's supposed to temper stupid policy.The legislature and the executive are supposed to deal with that.

Buh? The over representation of rural areas isn't the point at all. It's that this cut makes it impossible for councillors to represent their constituents, based on the only research available. All the options, including the one the judge ruled for, has Toronto under-represented compared to the rest of the country.

If you don't feel your elected representatives are a form of expression, then the argument won't sway you much. Courts traditionally take a very wide view on expression, so I'm not surprised by it. But the timing thing had nothing to do with that, the timing was about it infringing on the right to expression of candidates. If they hadn't announced it in the middle of a campaign, that argument would go away, but the right to expression of citizens through elected officials would remain.

[Dog]

I’m gonna do a you guys. Not read any of yer longassfreakin posts and weight in. :)

Knowing next to nothing on this, it seems to me that the issue is an abuse of a right in such a way as to especially deprive a targeted group of their rights.

Done in another way, or for another justification, it’s not an issue. Done this way for this reason, it’s a charter violation.

I’m assuming the evidence and judges finding was that this was a targetted attack by the Gov on a group of people for purely political reasons. If so, no kidding it was overturned. That’s the exact kind of arbitrary and abusive government action that the charter is meant to protect against.

[Dog]

Or, basically, “I can use and abuse my rights” is not a valid argument for the government in a constitutional system with rights charter governing government action and decisions. The charter is really kinda there to take out the “abusive” part.

Agreed that judiciary should use a high level of deference towards political judgements -perhaps even only disregarding “blatantly false motives”. But it seems the government only pleaded “I did cause I can and that’s that”, which doesn’t cut it. The charter is specifically there to overrule abusive government action.

[Boring Choice #2]

I'm just going to quote the best part of the decision. The judge was pretty eloquent:

The expressive activity of candidates competing in the City’s ongoing election obviously falls within the scope of s. 2(b). The more pertinent question is whether their freedom of expression has been infringed by the enactment of Bill 5. That is, whether the enactment of Bill 5 changing the electoral districts in the middle of the City’s election campaign substantially interfered with the candidate’s right to freedom of expression.[17]
Perhaps the better question is “How could it not?”

I think this quote shows the problem with the ruling. The judge started from the viewpoint of that the law infringed people's Charter rights and then looked for the Province to prove that it did not, which they probably didn't. Instead he should have started looking at it from the viewpoint that the law didn't infringe people's rights and look for those people to prove that it did, which they likely couldn't.

[mayoradamwest]

The province also argued that rhey had to do it because the city hall is broken in toronto... which of course isnt true at all

[Craig]

I'm just going to quote the best part of the decision. The judge was pretty eloquent:

The expressive activity of candidates competing in the City’s ongoing election obviously falls within the scope of s. 2(b). The more pertinent question is whether their freedom of expression has been infringed by the enactment of Bill 5. That is, whether the enactment of Bill 5 changing the electoral districts in the middle of the City’s election campaign substantially interfered with the candidate’s right to freedom of expression.[17]
Perhaps the better question is “How could it not?”

I think this quote shows the problem with the ruling. The judge started from the viewpoint of that the law infringed people's Charter rights and then looked for the Province to prove that it did not, which they probably didn't. Instead he should have started looking at it from the viewpoint that the law didn't infringe people's rights and look for those people to prove that it did, which they likely couldn't.

That's only true if you cherry pick that one line from the decision without reading the argument that comes before and after it.

[Dog]

I'm just going to quote the best part of the decision. The judge was pretty eloquent:

The expressive activity of candidates competing in the City’s ongoing election obviously falls within the scope of s. 2(b). The more pertinent question is whether their freedom of expression has been infringed by the enactment of Bill 5. That is, whether the enactment of Bill 5 changing the electoral districts in the middle of the City’s election campaign substantially interfered with the candidate’s right to freedom of expression.[17]
Perhaps the better question is “How could it not?”

I think this quote shows the problem with the ruling. The judge started from the viewpoint of that the law infringed people's Charter rights and then looked for the Province to prove that it did not, which they probably didn't. Instead he should have started looking at it from the viewpoint that the law didn't infringe people's rights and look for those people to prove that it did, which they likely couldn't.

In charter cases, the onus is always on the claimant to show oppression/breach of right and then the onus shifts to the government to show that the breach was justified “in a free and democratic society” (there’s a multi layered test for determining that).

[Roughneck]

It won't though, the reduction in seats results in the suburbs dominating Council even more than they already do.

I said best, not most realistic.

Let me dream!

[Germz]

No question the ruling will ultimately be overturned, but fuck Ford and his band of idiots. They tabled a moronic law, without warning or consultation, motivated by nothing more than naked spite and personal vendettas. Then they deliberately sabotaged their own court case so they could go to war with appointed judges. Now they are declaring their willingness to suspend the charter at will for petty reasons.

It's like the Toronto Sun editorial board is governing the province.

[TittiesNBeer]

It's like the Toronto Sun editorial board is governing the province.

Unfortunately, its not "like" that at all.

It is that.

[mayoradamwest]

It is fascinating how despite having no platform, the sun ended up agreeing with everything they have done anyway. What are the odds eh?

[Roughneck]

It is fascinating how despite having no platform, the sun ended up agreeing with everything they have done anyway. What are the odds eh?

The Sun just knows that the plurality of Ontario voters would never be wrong when electing a government.