Toronto Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport | ?m | ?s | Ports Toronto | Arup

[rbt]

Right, I'm just not getting how this would be effected. Again, I'm distinguishing between the province having the power to structure the city, what powers are delegated etc, versus actual operational control. You first said the province could order the city (council?) to exercise its delegated power in a certain way. Now you're saying its "authority" is going to be revoked? What do you mean exactly?

Toronto Council is granted authority to act over the city matters by the province at the provinces sole discretion. What is considered city matters is also at the provinces sole discretion.

I'm not sure what your getting at by delegation versus authority. It's the same damn thing. If I appoint, delegate, or assign rights to a representative over my FOO, then they have decision making authority over FOO within the constraints of the assignment. There is no ambiguity in my statement.

There you had the province amalgamating several extant bodies it had created. Here you're talking about jailing staff for not exercising authority delegated to them by council

Exactly what do you think the consequences of ignoring an amalgamation order would have been for city management? If they held illegal elections; took orders from and collected taxes for the illegal city councils; only getting fired would be a best case scenario. Sedition is even a probable charge, at very least there are a number of Conspiracy charges in there.

Wrenkin, please go through the City of Toronto Act. It's pretty damn specific about what Toronto abilities Toronto has and hasn't been appointed/granted/assigned/authorized over and may be enforced by the provincial courts (and all their tools) if necessary. The Act is also easily modified.

 

[Wrenkin]

Toronto Council is granted authority to act over the city matters by the province at the provinces sole discretion. What is considered city matters is also at the provinces sole discretion.

I'm not sure what your getting at by delegation versus authority. It's the same damn thing. If I appoint, delegate, or assign rights to a representative over my FOO, then they have decision making authority over FOO within the constraints of the assignment. There is no ambiguity in my statement.

...

Wrenkin, please go through the City of Toronto Act. It's pretty damn specific about what Toronto abilities Toronto has and hasn't been appointed/granted/assigned/authorized over and may be enforced by the provincial courts (and all their tools) if necessary.

OK, but you said earlier:

"All it takes is for the province to order the city to change the sound and pollution regulations to whatever the TPA and Feds want."

That is very different from removing subject matter jurisdiction. What I'm saying is that while the province could remove the ability of a city to set bylaws re noise or other topics, I think it's a bit trickier when you have a situation where the city can make rules about noise, but the province purports to issue orders regarding how council ought to act on a case-by-case basis. Anyways, I thought what is actually at stake here is the negotiation of a contract: the Tripartite Agreement?

 

[rbt]

"All it takes is for the province to order the city to change the sound and pollution regulations to whatever the TPA and Feds want."

That is very different from removing subject matter jurisdiction.

No it isn't, it's all in the same law. Sometime you will read the City of Toronto Act and understand.

Again, the municipality government is a tool of the province and everything that government can and cannot do is at the sole discretion of the province.

The province can:
1) Have provincial courts override the cities opinion (write airport management law that takes precedence); OMB does this frequently
2) Order the city to change their opinion
3) Order the city to appoint specific people to represent the city on airport matters
4) Revoke Toronto's jurisdiction over the airport entirely, making it a Bipartite Agreement
5) Replace city council and mayor with provincial appointees instead of elected individuals, who presumably will make the changes wanted
6) Remove the municipality government entirely, instead making it a direct department of the province (see northern territory governance)

Numerous variations from requesting the city to obey through the Nuclear option (#6) are possible; entirely at the discretion of the province.

 

[pman]

No it isn't, it's all in the same law. Sometime you will read the City of Toronto Act and understand.

Again, the municipality government is a tool of the province and everything that government can and cannot do is at the sole discretion of the province.

The province can:
1) Have provincial courts override the cities opinion (write airport management law that takes precedence); OMB does this frequently
2) Order the city to change their opinion
3) Order the city to appoint specific people to represent the city on airport matters
4) Revoke Toronto's jurisdiction over the airport entirely, making it a Bipartite Agreement
5) Replace city council and mayor with provincial appointees instead of elected individuals, who presumably will make the changes wanted
6) Remove the municipality government entirely, instead making it a direct department of the province (see northern territory governance)

Numerous variations from requesting the city to obey through the Nuclear option (#6) are possible; entirely at the discretion of the province.

Thank you for the summary. Since the Wynn government appears to be terrified of the suburban majority on City Council, I doubt they would do anything but rubber stamp municipal approval of jets at the Island. In that event, are there any viable litigation options for groups opposed to BB expansion?

 

[Admiral Beez]

This power can also work in favour of the anti-jets crowd. All it takes is for the Province and Feds to shut down the island airport entirely. This could be part of a deal to support both the Union-Pearson rail link and the opening of the Pickering airport.

With YHM in the western GTA, YYZ serving the centre (esp. with Union rail link) and Pickering serving the eastern GTA, there'll be no need for the island airport.

 

[TOareaFan]

Thank you for the summary. Since the Wynn government appears to be terrified of the suburban majority on City Council, I doubt they would do anything but rubber stamp municipal approval of jets at the Island. In that event, are there any viable litigation options for groups opposed to BB expansion?

Typically the recourse/option for two democratically elected governments making decisions you don't like is to replace them the next time you get a chance. Similar, actually, to when Lastman approved the bridge and the new Miller government reversed that decision.

I don't think there is much hope for us getting anything done if we start suing governments over actions they take that are within the powers granted to them.

 

[dowlingm]

This power can also work in favour of the anti-jets crowd. All it takes is for the Province and Feds to shut down the island airport entirely. This could be part of a deal to support both the Union-Pearson rail link and the opening of the Pickering airport.

With YHM in the western GTA, YYZ serving the centre (esp. with Union rail link) and Pickering serving the eastern GTA, there'll be no need for the island airport.

Awesome prospect for Pickering where their area's pristine farmland gets paved over for overland approaches while downtown Toronto spends a bucketload rehabilitating a 80 year old airport into a park... The tripartite agreement might end in 2033 but I doubt title does so TPA will have to be paid for the land too.

 

[Wrenkin]

No it isn't, it's all in the same law. Sometime you will read the City of Toronto Act and understand.

Again, the municipality government is a tool of the province and everything that government can and cannot do is at the sole discretion of the province.

The province can:
1) Have provincial courts override the cities opinion (write airport management law that takes precedence); OMB does this frequently
2) Order the city to change their opinion
3) Order the city to appoint specific people to represent the city on airport matters
4) Revoke Toronto's jurisdiction over the airport entirely, making it a Bipartite Agreement
5) Replace city council and mayor with provincial appointees instead of elected individuals, who presumably will make the changes wanted
6) Remove the municipality government entirely, instead making it a direct department of the province (see northern territory governance)

Numerous variations from requesting the city to obey through the Nuclear option (#6) are possible; entirely at the discretion of the province.

OK, I skimmed the Act. Much of it is quite specific to licensing, taxing, etc. I'm still not sure I follow you. Are you saying that the province can legally *order* the city to do what it wants? Or are you merely saying that the Lieutenant Governor in Council (effectively cabinet) can "order" it in the sense that if the city does not comply the province will change the law up to and including the "nuclear option" (i.e. what Thatcher did to Greater London, which which she disagreed)? Because I don't know where you're getting 2 from if you mean the former. Most of the provisions are, again, about restricting power or limiting its exercise rather than actually mandating that said power is specifically exercised in a specific case in a predetermined way. Also, some of the other things you say like 5 and 6 don't have much to do with the Act so I don't see how I benefited from reading it. The city has the power re #5 to appoint individuals to vacant seats on council and so by implication the province does as well (in the sense that it could un-delegate that power). But it's not like the Act itself says that--I'd just as well have limited my studies to section 92(8) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Also, re #1, it's true that the City of Toronto Act, the Planning Act, and the Ontario Municipal Board Act have something to say about overriding the city's decisions. I'm not sure though that it's a "court" in the normal sense (certainly not "provincial courts", which in legalese usually refers to the lower criminal courts featuring provincially-appointed judges, as opposed to federally-appointed "superior courts"). Superior Courts are mentioned in the Act in the context of things like election violations and, notably in section 214, quashing decisions:

"Upon the application of any person, the Superior Court of Justice may quash a by-law, order or resolution of the City or a local board of the City in whole or in part for illegality"

Again, this is not about "writing" airport management laws i.e. mandating, by law, the exercise of a power in a certain way. It is rather about ensuring that the city acts within its jurisdiction. Sorry if I'm being pedantic, I just want to be very clear about what you're arguing.

 

[rbt]

Thank you for the summary. Since the Wynn government appears to be terrified of the suburban majority on City Council, I doubt they would do anything but rubber stamp municipal approval of jets at the Island. In that event, are there any viable litigation options for groups opposed to BB expansion?

Of course. The entire point of making a sub-government is so you don't have to deal with it; so the politicians at the provincial level want to be hands off as much as possible.

I took issue with questioning whether the province could do something if it chose. That showed a fundamental misunderstanding of what a municipality is.

 

[rbt]

OK, I skimmed the Act. Much of it is quite specific to licensing, taxing, etc. I'm still not sure I follow you. Are you saying that the province can legally *order* the city to do what it wants?

Correct. The province can order the city to do what the province wants; even retroactively.

Official and binding orders are given in the form of legislation; such as the City of Toronto Act. The City of Toronto Act is one very large order from the province on how Toronto council is to manage itself and the city; that order can be changed in any manner the province wishes by majority vote in the Provincial Legislature without any external input.

Specific is exactly what you were to see. The province may be specific in its orders on any subject it wishes. Obviously they prefer to be hands off because micromanagement is time consuming.

Have provincial courts override the cities opinion (write airport management law that takes precedence); OMB does this frequently

New Legislation, a 2 liner, created on March 28th, 2016 after 2 hours consideration in an emergency cabinet meeting; the "We Hate Toronto" Party has majority control of the house having been given a super-majority by the entire rest of the province.

"Municipalities governed by Municipal Act or the City of Toronto Act and their officials while acting on behalf of the municipality, shall not have an official opinion or position on an airport in within Ontario that differs from official Ontario Policy maintained by the Transportation Minister."

"This law overrides any existing legislation and comes into effect March 28th, 2016."

Done. Any Toronto official or representative purposefully stating a different official position would be could be charged with sedition (subversion against the established order). They would, of course, be allowed personal opinion as granted by the Charter of Rights; though technically the province can override that too by using a notwithstanding clause.

Again, this is not about "writing" airport management laws i.e. mandating, by law, the exercise of a power in a certain way. It is rather about ensuring that the city acts within its jurisdiction. Sorry if I'm being pedantic, I just want to be very clear about what you're arguing.

That jurisdiction and the guidance within it are at the sole discretion of the province; you've read the law the province created to make that jurisdiction. They prefer to give guiding principals due to time management but can be as specific as they feel necessary.

Let me be clear about what I'm arguing: The province legally has 100% control and responsibility over everything the Municipality of Toronto is and everything the municipality does.


Also, this is way off topic and will be my last response on this subject.

 

[dowlingm]

What rbt said. Municipalities are not bodies enumerated in the Constitution documents of Canada. They are inventions of the provinces, and thus subject to them where Acts are passed by the legislature.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Folks, the point is that we shouldn't base our support of YTZ expansion upon current noise or pollution regulations, because those regulations can change, regardless of the wishes of Toronto city council.

 

[ttk77]

Folks, the point is that we shouldn't base our support of YTZ expansion upon current noise or pollution regulations, because those regulations can change, regardless of the wishes of Toronto city council.

Where exactly are you trying to lead people with this line of reasoning?

 

[Wrenkin]

What rbt said. Municipalities are not bodies enumerated in the Constitution documents of Canada. They are inventions of the provinces, and thus subject to them where Acts are passed by the legislature.

Yes, I understand this. That's not what I was asking.

Done. Any Toronto official or representative purposefully stating a different official position would be could be charged with sedition (subversion against the established order). They would, of course, be allowed personal opinion as granted by the Charter of Rights; though technically the province can override that too by using a notwithstanding clause.

Nope. Criminal Law, including Code ss 59-60 on sedition, is federal. What you're suggesting--effectively removing a section 2 defence (and I note there are already some defences in the Code in s 60)--is under federal jurisdiction and so unconstitutional on federalism grounds. Firing recalcitrant employees pursuant to some anti-speech employment contract w/o recourse to provincial employment law might be doable.

Your proposed law is also a bit weird in that it purports to fetter council's decision making with reference to what, a minister's released opinion? A regulation promulgated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council? If the minister changes his or her mind does that retroactively render the previous council formal position ultra vires? If council doesn't rush (how fast?) to undo their previous ruling or get out of contracts like the tripartite agreement are they to be charged with sedition? This is what I was getting at. It's very easy to remove subject matter jurisdiction, or even to talk about the statutory purposes in law which the city has to keep in mind when making decisions. It's another thing for the province to come to the city and say "do this, now". That's all I'm asking. I'm not a municipal law expert but I know enough about administrative and constitutional law to realize this is tricky territory. I realize we're way off topic and your answers have given me the impetus to conduct further research on this.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Where exactly are you trying to lead people with this line of reasoning?

Sorry, I'll try to make it clearer. IMO, there are three basic positions on the YTZ plan.

1) No Jets, no expansion
2) Jets okay, with # of flights limited to capacity of airport, as long as YTZ-specific noise and pollution controls in place
3) All jets okay, limited to the capacity of the airport. Usual airline industry standards on noise and pollution are fine (see CARS, https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/standards/aerodromeairnav-standards-noise-cars-906.htm)

IMO, only 1 or 3 are realistic positions to take, because #2 assumes that YTZ-specific noise and pollution controls will remain unchanged. So, where am I leading people? Simply, if you vote for #2, you're really voting for a hope of #2 and a good chance of #3.