reaffirming council’s opposition to the bill, along with a pledge of $100,000 to support the legal challenge.In his application, Labrecque argued the city’s motion to fund the contribution through their 2021 operating budget constituted a bylaw under provincial law — one that served no valid municipal purpose under both Ontario’s Municipal Act and the City of Toronto Act.
Among the case law used by Chalmers in his decision was Eng vs. City of Toronto — a 2012 challenge againstThis advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.“In similar circumstances, the court found that the bylaw banning shark fin products was not for a valid municipal purpose and declared the by-law illegal,” Chalmers wrote in his decision.
“The court noted that the practice of shark finning did not occur in Toronto and did not affect the ability of Torontonians to live together in an urban community. Similarly, it is my view that Bill 21, which applies to Quebec government employees and prevents them from wearing religious symbols in their workplaces in Quebec, does not affect the ability of Torontonians to live together as an urban community.
“In Shell Canada, the majority of the Supreme Court found that the purpose of the resolutions was to ‘affect matters beyond the boundaries of the City without any identifiable benefit to its inhabitants,'” Chalmers wrote. “In Eng v. Toronto, the purpose of the bylaw was to affect the practice of shark finning that took place in ‘distant oceans.’ In both cases, the Courts held that the foreign law and practices had no effect on the city inhabitants.”