Audra Ranalli

The applicant, Thomas Christian Zaugg, brought an application challenging several sections of the Mental Health Act (MHA) under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including provisions related to involuntary admissions, communication restrictions, use of restraint, and capacity to manage property.

He sought damages, expungement of records, and striking down MHA sections.

The respondent, the Attorney General for Ontario, brought a motion under Rule 21 to strike the application in its entirety, arguing that the Charter claims had no reasonable prospect of success and that the Attorney General was not the proper party for challenges to clinical or institutional decisions.

The court granted the respondent's motion, finding that the involuntary admission provisions had been previously upheld, no new legal issues or fundamental shifts in debate were presented, and the applicant failed to plead specific facts for the ancillary provisions.

Furthermore, the court held that the Attorney General was not responsible for Charter breaches arising from independent clinical or institutional decisions under the MHA, and Charter damages were not appropriate against Ontario in these circumstances.

The applicant brought a motion seeking several orders: dispensing with the requirement to sign a standard undertaking to obtain audio recordings of earlier motions; permission to transcribe those proceedings; direction to publish reasons of a prior motion judge; and permission to challenge the constitutional validity of portions of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondents took no position on the motion.

The Attorney General of Ontario and Department of Justice Canada argued the motion was not properly before the court and that the Notice of Constitutional Question was a nullity.

The court dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction, as the underlying appeal had been quashed in prior proceedings.

The Attorney General of Ontario appealed a Superior Court decision that declared provisions of Bill 5 (Better Local Government Act, 2018) unconstitutional for violating freedom of expression rights under s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Bill 5 reduced Toronto's municipal wards from 47 to 25 mid-election.

The application judge found that the mid-campaign change substantially interfered with candidates' ability to communicate their political messages and violated voters' right to effective representation.

The Court of Appeal granted a stay of the lower court's order pending appeal, finding a strong likelihood that the application judge erred in law and that the appeal would succeed.

The court held that Bill 5 does not limit or restrict candidates' messages and that the right to effective representation falls under s. 3 (democratic rights), not s. 2(b) (freedom of expression), and s. 3 does not apply to municipal elections.

The province enacted Bill 5, reducing Toronto wards from 47 to 25, mid-municipal election.

Applicants challenged its constitutionality.

The court found Bill 5 violated candidates' and voters' freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter, as it substantially interfered with campaign communication and denied effective representation due to increased ward sizes.

The violation was not justified under s. 1, as the legislative objectives (better decision-making, voter parity) were not pressing and substantial enough to warrant mid-election implementation, nor was minimal impairment demonstrated.

The impugned provisions were declared unconstitutional and set aside, requiring the election to proceed with 47 wards.