George Rust-D'Eye

The Ontario Municipal Board stated a case to the Divisional Court asking whether an order issued after January 1, 2003, affirming or amending the City of Ottawa's ward boundary by-law, could be effective for the 2003 regular municipal elections.

The Ministry argued that ward boundaries cannot be changed after January 1 of an election year under the Municipal Act.

The Divisional Court held that the statutory restriction applied only to by-laws 'dividing' a municipality into wards, not 'redividing' them.

Therefore, the by-law redividing the wards could be effective for the upcoming election.

The appellant advertising company challenged a municipal by-law that completely prohibited billboard signs and third party signs on private land.

The Court of Appeal held that billboard advertising is a form of commercial expression protected by section 2(b) of the Charter.

The Court found that the municipality failed to demonstrate under section 1 of the Charter that the total prohibition was a reasonable limit, as it was not rationally connected to preserving the town's character and did not minimally impair the right to freedom of expression.

The appeal was allowed and the by-law was declared invalid, with the declaration suspended for six months.

The appeal concerned a municipal restructuring proposal that combined a minor land transfer between neighbouring municipalities with the annexation of multiple unorganized townships, thereby avoiding the need for majority support from electors in the affected unorganized territory.

The court held that municipalities must act within both the letter and the purpose of their enabling legislation, and that a by-law inconsistent with the policy underlying the Municipal Act is ultra vires and illegal.

The impugned by-law and resolution were found to be a device to circumvent the statutory consultation and support structure contemplated by s. 25.2.

The appeal was dismissed and the quashing order upheld.