Toronto (City) v. Silverman, 2026 ONCJ 284
Ontario Court of Justice Provincial Offences Court
City of Toronto
-and-
David Silverman
Heard: March 26, 2026 Decision Released: May 14, 2026
Counsel: Ihar Silvanovich, for the City David Silverman, self-represented
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
W. LUKE, J.P.
Overview
1Mr. David Silverman is charged contrary to § 313-44.1A of Chapter 313 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code with carrying on activities as a sidewalk artist or busker upon a road, sidewalk, or boulevard of a public highway without first obtaining the required permit.
2The offence is alleged to have occurred on May 3, 2025, at or near 288 Bremner Boulevard in the City of Toronto.
Evidence and Submissions
3The facts are largely not in dispute. Mr. Silverman was performing music in a public space and did not possess a permit issued by the City of Toronto as required by the applicable by-law.
4The evidence established that Mr. Silverman was performing music on a public highway within the meaning of the by-law and that he did not possess a permit authorizing him to perform as a busker or sidewalk artist. Mr. Silverman did not dispute that he lacked the required permit. His defence focused primarily upon the constitutionality and application of the by-law.
5Mr. Silverman submits that his conduct constituted protected expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and also engaged section 2(c), freedom of peaceful assembly. He argues that he was lawfully expressing himself musically in a peaceful manner and that requiring a permit in order to perform music in a public place unjustifiably infringes Charter-protected expression.
6The prosecutor submits that, while this court may consider the Charter arguments raised in the proceeding before it, broader relief invalidating a municipal by-law generally falls within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of Justice pursuant to section 214 (1) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006. The City further submits that the by-law regulates the use of public space and the manner of busking activity rather than prohibiting expression itself.
Analysis
7I accept that musical performance in a public place constitutes expressive activity protected by section 2(b) of the Charter. The Supreme Court of Canada has interpreted freedom of expression broadly. In Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), 1989 87 (SCC), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927, the court confirmed that activity conveying or attempting to convey meaning falls within the protected sphere of expression.
8However, Charter protection does not prevent governments from imposing reasonable regulations respecting the use of shared public space. Public streets and sidewalks remain subject to lawful municipal regulation relating to safety, pedestrian movement, noise management, and the orderly use of civic space.
9In Batty v. Toronto (City), 2011 ONSC 6862, the court recognized that while expressive activity in public spaces may attract Charter protection, municipalities may impose reasonable limits governing the use of public property in order to balance competing public interests and ensure the shared use of civic space.
10The evidence before the court does not establish that Mr. Silverman was charged because of the content of his music or message. He was charged because he performed as a busker on a public highway without the permit required by the municipal by-law. The by-law regulates the manner, location, and conditions of busking activity in public space. It does not prohibit musical expression altogether.
11While the defendant relies upon section 2(c) of the Charter, the present case primarily concerns expressive activity regulated through a municipal permitting scheme rather than a restriction on political protest or peaceful assembly.
12On the evidentiary record before this court, I am not satisfied that the defendant has established that the permitting scheme constitutes an unjustified infringement of section 2(b) of the Charter. The permitting requirement is directed toward legitimate municipal objectives relating to the orderly use of shared public space and leaves open lawful avenues for public performance and expression.
Conclusion
13Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the defendant has established that § 313-44.1A of Chapter 313 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code is unconstitutional or inapplicable in the circumstances of this case.
14I am satisfied that the City has proven the essential elements of the offence. Mr. Silverman was performing as a busker on a public highway and did not possess the required permit.
15The defendant is therefore found guilty.
Penalty
16In determining the appropriate penalty, the court has considered the principles of deterrence, proportionality, and consistency applicable to regulatory offences.
17I have also considered that this is a Part III Provincial Offences Act proceeding and that the maximum fine for the offence is $5,000.00.
18The prosecution seeks a fine in the amount of $500.00. There is no prior record before the court.
19I have also considered the defendant’s evidence regarding limited financial means and that he is presently in receipt of Ontario Disability Support Program benefits.
20In the circumstances, I am satisfied that a reduced fine of $250.00 is fair, proportionate, and appropriate to achieve the objectives of regulatory compliance and deterrence.
21A fine in the amount of $250.00 is imposed, together with the applicable victim fine surcharge and administrative fees.
22A conviction is entered against the defendant.
23The defendant shall have 90 days to pay the fine.
24Those are the reasons of the court.