News   May 02, 2024
Make Sure It Sticks
 174     0 
News   May 01, 2024
Four-Tower Complex North of Finch Station Grows in Resubmission
 1.7K     1 
News   May 01, 2024
TMU Urban and Regional Planning Alumni Celebrate 25th Annual Spring Reception at Little Canada
 414     0 

2018 Municipal Election: Toronto Council Races

How many non-incumbent winners will there be on council?

  • Total voters
    22
  • Poll closed .
First, a link to the complete decision from end to end.

I'm not going to copy this in as its rather large, but I encourage anyone interested to have a read.

https://www.scribd.com/document/388248581/Superior-Court-Ruling-on-Bill-5

Second, I think there's a consensus here on the ruling as it applies to interfering w/an election in process. The ruling says what almost all us felt, and we can understand its implications clearly if it stands.

There has been more debate, however, about whether this affects the province's ability to legislate the same change in respect of the 2022 or any other future election.

The judgement is not silent on this point.

[49] In other words, even though s.2(b) does not guarantee a right to vote in municipal elections, if such an expressive right has been provided
by the provincial government, then the right so provided
must be consistent with and not in breach of the Constitution.

[50]Here, the Province has provided for a resident's right to vote in municipal elections, including the upcoming election in the City of Toronto.
This right having been provided, must be provided "in a fashion that is consistent with the Constitution". .....

He goes on to directly link this to ward size, and the evidence gathered during the Ward Boundary Review that larger wards would adversely impact effective representation.
 
PinkLucy said:
They asked the wrong question. It was about process, not about whether or not council should be downsized. Perhaps it should, but an arbitrary decision during an election period was the issue.
Click to expand...
Let's face it, "Constitution" has too many letters to it, and should be downsized to something like...I dunno...'Hammer'?
 
Northern Light said:
First, a link to the complete decision from end to end.

I'm not going to copy this in as its rather large, but I encourage anyone interested to have a read.

https://www.scribd.com/document/388248581/Superior-Court-Ruling-on-Bill-5

Second, I think there's a consensus here on the ruling as it applies to interfering w/an election in process. The ruling says what almost all us felt, and we can understand its implications clearly if it stands.

There has been more debate, however, about whether this affects the province's ability to legislate the same change in respect of the 2022 or any other future election.

The judgement is not silent on this point.

[49] In other words, even though s.2(b) does not guarantee a right to vote in municipal elections, if such an expressive right has been provided
by the provincial government, then the right so provided
must be consistent with and not in breach of the Constitution.

[50]Here, the Province has provided for a resident's right to vote in municipal elections, including the upcoming election in the City of Toronto.
This right having been provided, must be provided "in a fashion that is consistent with the Constitution". .....

He goes on to directly link this to ward size, and the evidence gathered during the Ward Boundary Review that larger wards would adversely impact effective representation.
Click to expand...
Many thanks for the link! I was looking for that, will comment more later, must run out door for emergency.
 
Given that the grounds for this decision are constitutional, can the province invoke the "Notwithstanding Clause" to get around the decision? Will they?
 
mjl08 said:
Ford might pull out the nuclear option.

https://twitter.com/goldsbie/status/1039175769937928194
Click to expand...
That would be an almost immediate embarrassment. That clause, properly understood, is reserved for only the most serious and novel challenges that cannot be anticipated by any codified system or rights and rules. To evoke the NWC to reshuffle one municipal government mid-election would be tantamount to admitting that Ford has a complete inability to understand the power of law and government.

It'd make him a perpetual laughing stock for anyone who got a B in grade 10 civics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSC
Miscreant said:
That would be an almost immediate embarrassment. That clause, properly understood, is reserved for only the most serious and novel challenges that cannot be anticipated by any codified system or rights and rules. To evoke the NWC to reshuffle one municipal government mid-election would be tantamount to admitting that Ford has a complete inability to understand the power of law and government.

It'd make him a perpetual laughing stock for anyone who got a B in grade 10 civics.
Click to expand...

It may also cost him his leadership at the expense of destroying the party.
 
sixrings said:
Can I ask a stupid question... how would a smaller council help the suburban areas more than the downtown areas. It sure looks like all the suburban councilors are not happy with the ruling while the downtown ones are happy. Is it because then they would have more votes towards things such as suburban subways?
Click to expand...
Because, IMO, downtowners demand more from their local government, whilst suburbanites just want basic services and otherwise be left alone.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top