CITATION: City of Toronto et al v.
councillors from 47 to 25 - as the Impugned Provisions.
average of 61,000 to 111,000.
47-ward election were well underway.
Toronto's governance structure in the middle of the City's election.
constitutional principles of the rule of law and democracy.
the appointment of the four regional chairs.
can prevail on the facts herein. However, I make no actual finding in this regard. The ss.
Provisions infringe s. 2(b) of the Charter.
Babcock v Canada (Attorney General),  3 S.C.R. 3, at para. 57.
Reference re Canada Assistance Plan (B.C.),  2 S.C.R. 525, at para. 85.
Sullivan, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes, (6th ed.) at para 11.64.
of the same Agreement provides that a failure to abide by any of its terms does not give rise to any legal remedy.
was set out in the previous law.
can result in effective representation.
Impugned Provisions are of no force or effect.
of the administrative actions of agencies and tribunals – not at the level of primary legislation such as Bill 5 herein.
 2 S.C.R. 504 at paras 44, 68-69; and Reference re Canada Assistance Plan, supra, note 4, at paras 58-61.
Libman v Quebec (Attorney General),  3 S.C.R. 569, at para. 28.
Bill 5. However, for ease of understanding, I will focus only on the candidates.
R. v. Keegstra,  3 S.C.R. 697 at 763-64.
Libman, supra, note 10, at para. 29.
para. 26; Taman v Canada (Attorney General), 2015 FC 1155 at para 41.
Irwin Toy Ltd. V. Quebec (Attorney General),  1 S.C.R. 927 at 978.
ward when the ward numbers and sizes were suddenly changed.
if this were to happen.
confusing state of affairs with potential voters than discussing relevant political issues.
others dropped out of the race entirely.
The case law is clear that the Charter cannot be subdivided into two kinds of guarantees - freedoms and rights.
The freedom to do a thing, when guaranteed by the Constitution and interpreted purposively, implies a right to do it.
message to the relevant voters.
right to say that s. 2(b) of the Charter does not guarantee a 47-ward election platform.
election, candidates were not given a reasonable opportunity to present their positions.
Figueroa v. Canada (Attorney General), 2003 SCC 37, at para. 50.
Ibid at para 47; Figueroa, supra, note 18, at para 51.
 I now turn to the municipal voter’s right under the same provision of the Charter.
to vote is, in essence, the right to “effective representation” and not just voter parity.
S.C.R. 815 and Fraser, supra, note 17, at paras 46 and 69-70.
Reference re Provincial Electoral Boundaries (Sask.),  2 S.C.R. 158 at para. 1.
Haig v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer),  2 S.C.R. 995, at para. 104.
Saskatchewan Reference, supra, note 23, at para. 49.
s. 2(b) of the Charter?
 In my view it can, for the following reasons.
then the right so provided must be consistent with and not in breach of the Constitution.
a vote that can result in effective representation.
Ibid at para. 25. Also see Baier, supra, note 28, at para. 57.
City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A, s. 135(2) and Municipal Elections Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c.
Haig, supra, note 24, at para. 84.
vote in a municipal must comply with the Charter, and in particular s. 2(b).
proceeded to consider the s. 2(b) argument. The Court of Appeal found no breach of s.
course, to the findings and conclusions of the Toronto Ward Boundary Review.
East York, supra, note 5.
East York, supra, note 5. at paras. 4 and 8.
neighbourhood zoning issues, building permits and speed bumps.
of one's government representative.”43 This right must obviously be a meaningful right.
denied by the Divisional Court: Natale v City of Toronto, 2018 ONSC 1475.
The average ward size in other Ontario cities is 32,600.
sizes of approximately 110,000 do not.
vote in a municipal election, that right must comply with the Charter.
justified or “saved” under s. 1 of the Charter.
R. v. Oakes,  1 S.C.R. 103.
Bill 5 was debated in the legislature.
Libman, supra, note 10, at para. 38.
size and cost of municipal government.
Health Services and Support Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn. v. British Columbia, 2007 SCC 27.
urgency that required Bill 5 to take effect in the middle of the City’s election.
Figueroa, supra, note 18, at para. 72.
RJR-MacDonald Inc. v Canada (Attorney General),  3 S.C.R. 199.
society and cannot be saved as reasonable limits under s. 1.
Is it too late to return to the 47-ward structure?
guaranteed under s. 2(b) of the Charter of Rights.
000 substantially interfered with the municipal voter’s freedom of expression under s.
reasonable limits under s. 1 of the Charter of Rights.
number of wards from 47 to 25 are granted.
 The Impugned Provisions have no force and effect and are set aside immediately.
constitutionally valid provincial law says otherwise - the City has 47 wards.
regard to TDSB school board elections and recently enacted provincial regulations.
Province within 21 days thereafter.
 I am very much obliged to all counsel for their co-operation and assistance.