Lawyers for the City of Toronto say in a brief that the municipality’s unique governance law gives it the power to fund the legal fight against Bill 21 on state secularism in Quebec. The document was sent to the court in response to a lawsuit from a French-speaking resident who considers the payment of $100,000 made by the City illegal.
The Franco-Torontois Louis Labrecque, as well as four Quebecers, including the historian Frédéric Bastien, are seeking to have the municipal by-law allowing the funding announced in December annulled. In their own brief, filed in court on June 16, the plaintiffs say the funding is contrary to the municipal interests of Torontonians since the funds “could have been used for the benefit of Torontonians.” The sum of $100,000 has still not been paid to the organizations involved in the litigation, such as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
The plaintiffs are being defended by Toronto lawyer Asher Honickman. Frédéric Bastien, a trained historian and former Parti Québécois leadership candidate, says finding an Ontario lawyer who was open to taking their case was “laborious.”
The Toronto exception
In its brief published on June 24, the City responds that the funding will, on the contrary, benefit Torontonians. The broad delegation of powers granted to the City by the Ontario Parliament in the City of Toronto Act requires “flexibility” in what may be considered to be in the interest of the municipality. Because of Toronto’s status as “Canada’s largest municipality and one of its most diverse,” the City says it has a duty to make its residents and visitors of all faiths feel welcome. “I’m sure it’s not true that she has a lot of latitude,” retorts Frédéric Bastien.
City lawyers say the city council, which passed the bylaw, had information showing that Bill 21 had had a “corrosive” effect on the well-being of Canadians and was a “significant step towards polarization, which would affect Torontonians. According to the plaintiffs’ brief, City Manager John Elvidge cited several documents motivating the motion’s passage during cross-examination, but admitted he had no evidence that council members consulted with them. .
Toronto is not subject to the Municipal Act of Ontario, unlike all other municipalities in the province: the City of Toronto Act gives it a unique status. Its lawyers rely on the preamble, which describes, according to them, an “interconnectedness” between the interests of the city and those of the province and the country. The Legislative Assembly recognizes in the act that Toronto “is an economic engine of Ontario and Canada” and that the city has an important role in maintaining “a high quality of life” for Ontarians.
The power of municipalities
But even if Toronto were subject to the Municipalities Act, its city council could make this kind of contribution, believes Ms.e Leo Longo, municipal lawyer at the Toronto firm Aird & Berlis LLP. Both laws, he points out, give municipalities the right to grant grants.
In interview with The Journal of Montreal, Frédéric Bastien said he wanted to set a precedent preventing other Canadian cities from funding the legal fight. “I think the plaintiff will be disappointed to learn that he could instead create case law allowing municipalities to do so,” replies Leo Longo.
The two parties are now awaiting the scheduling of a hearing during which they will submit their oral arguments to the judge of the Superior Court of the province. The meeting could be in February 2023, according to Frédéric Bastien. After which the judge will review the oral and written arguments and render his decision.
“My experience tells me that the plaintiffs will not prevail against the City,” predicts Leo Longo. The case, he said, could still go to the Supreme Court.