Is Vaughan violating Canada's Constitution by requiring lawn sign permits?

Residents in Clarington and Oshawa didn’t have to remove signs protesting education cuts

Yorkregion.com
Jan. 6, 2020
Dina Al-Shibeeb

Like many other Canadians protesting the province’s austerity moves on education, Brian Connolly from Clarington has had his black and red “No Cuts to Education” sign standing freely on his lawn for the past three months.

He didn’t get any permits for a right protected by the Canadian Constitution.

Connolly’s sister, too, has expressed her opinion through a sign on her lawn.

She has the “blue ETFO pro-education sign on her front lawn, which is on a main road in Oshawa,” he said.

“She has not obtained a permit and nobody has told her that she has needed one.”

Vito Totino from Vaughan, however, has a different story. He had to take down his sign after receiving a letter from the city on Oct. 25, telling him that the sign is in contravention of a municipal bylaw.

While the city said it had received a complaint, it cited a section of its bylaw 140-2018, section 3.1, which reads, “No person shall erect, display, repair or alter a sign, or permit the erection, display, repair or alteration of a sign unless a permit is obtained therefore.”

While taking Totino’s sign down is perfectly legal in Vaughan, the move is considered constitutionally illegal.

Connolly said Vaughan is “violating” Totino’s “constitutional rights,” citing a key tidbit of how if one is a union member, he or she has “the freedom of association and signs are a way of communicating through that association just as collective bargaining is and the right to strike.”

Totino is indeed a union member at Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association in York Region.

Recalling a precedent, Connolly said in 2015 the “Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Saskatchewan Federation of Labour versus Saskatchewan that unions have a charter protected right to collective bargaining, freedom of association, and the right to strike.”

“Signs are one way of communicating with the public since their employer is the school board, which is taxpayer funded.”

Totino, too, cited some precedent cases showing that the act is unconstitutional.

The teacher shared the story of how in May last year a citizen received an email from Barrie’s bylaw enforcement officer stating that the city’s residents cannot put up lawn signs that ask MPP Caroline Mulroney to help us save Lake Simcoe on private or public property.

However, Barrie mayor’s office later clarified to a local media outlet that residents can place lawn signs on their own private property. They explained that people cannot put a lawn sign on the municipal road allowance in front of their homes, and if they do, the city will remove the sign and fine Lake Simcoe Watch $76.50 per sign.

While Totino’s sign wasn’t on a municipal road and was on his very own private property, the City of Vaughan rejected the Barrie case when the teacher met with Gus Michaels, the director of Bylaw and Compliance, Licensing and Permit Services at the City of Vaughan.

Unrelenting and conscious of his protected rights, Totino dug up another precedent, the Ramsden vs. Peterborough case in 1993, where the Supreme Court found a municipal bylaw banning posters on public property, prohibiting all postering on public property as an infringement of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

When Totino shared that case, Michaels “seemed less firm in his stance and offered to have a closer look at the case.”

“The case is about public property, however, one would think that prohibition on private property would be found to be even more egregious by the court,” Totino said.

Greg Albo, associate professor at York University, who believes the bylaw is violating Totino’s rights of free expression, protected in Canada’s human rights charter, explains “laws like this can persist for a long time.”

“Someone has to go to the court process to challenge the law under the constitution. Either individuals or governments can do this,” Albo said. “Until then it exists as a law to be followed and enforced. But it can still proceed through the court system for a long time as it can be challenged at higher courts by the losing side in a decision.”

So far, Totino’s petition to change the bylaw and “allow for freedom of expression” has garnered 334 signatures, as of Jan. 3, of its 500 goal.

When approaching the city to inquire if it’s considering a change, the city reiterated its stance, saying that it has rules and regulations, which are clearly stipulated in its bylaw 140-2018, section 3.1.

So far, Totino is in touch with his councillor, Rosanna DeFrancesca, to find a resolution over the sign.