JasonParis
Moderator
Oakville's billboard war rages on
Town's council is appealing court ruling that struck down its ban on outdoor ads
PAUL WALDIE
From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
February 26, 2008 at 5:38 AM EST
Most Canadians see billboards as a common, if not always welcome, fixture of everyday life. Not in Oakville.
For years, Oakville's town council has fought hard to keep billboards out of the community, arguing that they are visual clutter and contribute to urban blight. But those efforts have been dealt a major setback.
An Ontario Superior Court judge has struck down Oakville's sign bylaw, ruling that it's too restrictive and attacks freedom of speech.
It's the latest decision in a long-running war between municipalities trying to control public spaces and billboard companies vying for eyeballs. From Vancouver to Montreal, legal battles have been waged between residents, city officials and sign companies over billboards that are becoming larger and flashier.
"Marketers are increasingly desperate to attract the eyeballs of people," said Rami Tabello, who runs Toronto-based illegalsigns.ca, which tracks the sign wars. "The advertising industry wants a captive audience and with billboards you have no choice but to look at the sign."
The Oakville bylaw was introduced in 2005 after a previous bylaw, which banned billboards, was quashed on constitutional grounds. The new bylaw limited billboards to a handful of industrial areas on the farthest reaches of the suburb, which is home to about 165,000 people.
The result of the bylaw "is to effectively ban billboard advertising in Oakville," Mr. Justice Douglas Gray said in his recent ruling. "Oakville has failed to demonstrate that this bylaw is rationally connected to the objectives [of preventing urban blight] and that it does not minimally impair [sign companies'] constitutional rights."
"This case is about expression. In particular, it is about commercial expression," the judge added. "Billboards are a ubiquitous, and perhaps mundane, part of the landscape. They provide a medium for messages to be conveyed. While primarily commercial, those messages can also include political messages, personal opinions and other types of non-commercial communications."
The judge said the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that "virtually any form of communication is protected" by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That includes advertising, he said.
Oakville's council has appealed and Judge Gray's decision has been stayed pending the appeal.
The legal battle has been led by Vann Media Group Inc., a billboard company based in Niagara Falls, Ont. Vann wants to erect 86 billboards in Oakville and has spent almost eight years fighting council's anti-billboard bias.
"The town has spent a lot of taxpayers' money fighting this and they've lost two decisions to the court and there they go appealing it again," said Larry Vann, the company's chief executive. "I'm glad I don't live in Oakville because I like my tax dollars spent differently."
Oakville Councillor Tom Adams, who helped draft the bylaw, said council won't give up.
"We are working at trying to become the most livable town in Canada and having ginormous billboard signs doesn't reflect that," Mr. Adams said. "I think that there's also some level of right within the public to have an atmosphere that doesn't bombard them with undesirable or unwanted signage."
He noted that in 2000, the town held a referendum on whether the bylaw should be changed to permit billboards. Roughly 85 per cent voted No.
Restricting billboards has become a hot issue in other cities. In Winnipeg, a Christian school and a local church challenged a proposed billboard, arguing the advertising could conflict with their core values. In Vancouver, the city won a 10-year court fight last year over the power to remove up to 300 billboards that don't conform with city restrictions. Meanwhile, north of the city, residents have banned together to stop the erection of billboards along the highway to Whistler.
And, last year, Montreal City Council had to pay $220,000 in compensation to a local businessman for the removal of a sign after residents objected to the garish look of it and successfully argued the city violated its approval procedures.
Courts have generally allowed some billboard restrictions, ruling that they are justifiable limits to free speech. For example, Ontario's Court of Appeal ruled in 1997 that a billboard ban in Nichol, Ont., was a justifiable protection of the small community's scenic characteristics. However, the same court ruled in 2002 that Oakville was too urban to ban billboards (although it could limit their size).
Mr. Tabello said courts should reconsider the free speech issue. "Advertising for lingerie and liquor is probably not what Pierre Trudeau had in mind when he came up with the Charter of Rights," he said.
Town's council is appealing court ruling that struck down its ban on outdoor ads
PAUL WALDIE
From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
February 26, 2008 at 5:38 AM EST
Most Canadians see billboards as a common, if not always welcome, fixture of everyday life. Not in Oakville.
For years, Oakville's town council has fought hard to keep billboards out of the community, arguing that they are visual clutter and contribute to urban blight. But those efforts have been dealt a major setback.
An Ontario Superior Court judge has struck down Oakville's sign bylaw, ruling that it's too restrictive and attacks freedom of speech.
It's the latest decision in a long-running war between municipalities trying to control public spaces and billboard companies vying for eyeballs. From Vancouver to Montreal, legal battles have been waged between residents, city officials and sign companies over billboards that are becoming larger and flashier.
"Marketers are increasingly desperate to attract the eyeballs of people," said Rami Tabello, who runs Toronto-based illegalsigns.ca, which tracks the sign wars. "The advertising industry wants a captive audience and with billboards you have no choice but to look at the sign."
The Oakville bylaw was introduced in 2005 after a previous bylaw, which banned billboards, was quashed on constitutional grounds. The new bylaw limited billboards to a handful of industrial areas on the farthest reaches of the suburb, which is home to about 165,000 people.
The result of the bylaw "is to effectively ban billboard advertising in Oakville," Mr. Justice Douglas Gray said in his recent ruling. "Oakville has failed to demonstrate that this bylaw is rationally connected to the objectives [of preventing urban blight] and that it does not minimally impair [sign companies'] constitutional rights."
"This case is about expression. In particular, it is about commercial expression," the judge added. "Billboards are a ubiquitous, and perhaps mundane, part of the landscape. They provide a medium for messages to be conveyed. While primarily commercial, those messages can also include political messages, personal opinions and other types of non-commercial communications."
The judge said the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that "virtually any form of communication is protected" by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That includes advertising, he said.
Oakville's council has appealed and Judge Gray's decision has been stayed pending the appeal.
The legal battle has been led by Vann Media Group Inc., a billboard company based in Niagara Falls, Ont. Vann wants to erect 86 billboards in Oakville and has spent almost eight years fighting council's anti-billboard bias.
"The town has spent a lot of taxpayers' money fighting this and they've lost two decisions to the court and there they go appealing it again," said Larry Vann, the company's chief executive. "I'm glad I don't live in Oakville because I like my tax dollars spent differently."
Oakville Councillor Tom Adams, who helped draft the bylaw, said council won't give up.
"We are working at trying to become the most livable town in Canada and having ginormous billboard signs doesn't reflect that," Mr. Adams said. "I think that there's also some level of right within the public to have an atmosphere that doesn't bombard them with undesirable or unwanted signage."
He noted that in 2000, the town held a referendum on whether the bylaw should be changed to permit billboards. Roughly 85 per cent voted No.
Restricting billboards has become a hot issue in other cities. In Winnipeg, a Christian school and a local church challenged a proposed billboard, arguing the advertising could conflict with their core values. In Vancouver, the city won a 10-year court fight last year over the power to remove up to 300 billboards that don't conform with city restrictions. Meanwhile, north of the city, residents have banned together to stop the erection of billboards along the highway to Whistler.
And, last year, Montreal City Council had to pay $220,000 in compensation to a local businessman for the removal of a sign after residents objected to the garish look of it and successfully argued the city violated its approval procedures.
Courts have generally allowed some billboard restrictions, ruling that they are justifiable limits to free speech. For example, Ontario's Court of Appeal ruled in 1997 that a billboard ban in Nichol, Ont., was a justifiable protection of the small community's scenic characteristics. However, the same court ruled in 2002 that Oakville was too urban to ban billboards (although it could limit their size).
Mr. Tabello said courts should reconsider the free speech issue. "Advertising for lingerie and liquor is probably not what Pierre Trudeau had in mind when he came up with the Charter of Rights," he said.