Ramsden v. Peterborough (City), (1993) 66 O.A.C. 10 (SCC)

JudgeLamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
CourtSupreme Court (Canada)
Case DateSeptember 02, 1993
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(1993), 66 O.A.C. 10 (SCC)

Ramsden v. Peterborough (1993), 66 O.A.C. 10 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

The Corporation of the City of Peterborough (appellant) v. Kenneth Ramsden (respondent) and The Attorney General of Canada, The Attorney General for Ontario, The Attorney General of British Columbia, The Corporation of the City of Toronto and The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (intervenors)

(22787)

Indexed As: Ramsden v. Peterborough (City)

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.

September 2, 1993.

Summary:

The accused placed posters on utility poles. The accused was convicted on two counts of violating a city bylaw absolutely prohibiting "postering". The accused appealed, submitting the bylaw violated his right to freedom of expression as guaranteed under s. 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, Galligan, J.A., dissenting, in a judgment reported 50 O.A.C. 328, allowed the appeal. The court held that the bylaw violated s. 2(b) and was not a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1 of the Charter. The city appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal. The court agreed that the bylaw was not a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1.

Civil Rights - Topic 1850.6

Freedom of speech or expression - Limi­tations on - Postering - A city bylaw absolutely prohibited the placing of any poster, etc., on any public property (trees, poles, posts, etc.) within the city limits - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the conveyance of information by "postering" on some public property (in­cluding the utility poles in this case) was a protected freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter - The bylaw violated s. 2(b) and was not a reasonable limit pre­scribed by law under s. 1 - The court affirmed that a total prohibition of "poster­ing" passed the ob­jectives test, but failed the proportionality test - The bylaw did not impair the right to freedom of expres­sion as little as poss­ible and the absolute­ness of the bylaw outweighed its objec­tives.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Free­doms - Application - Exceptions - Rea­sonable limits prescribed by law - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1850.6 ].

Cases Noticed:

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur gén­éral), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2; 58 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 25 C.P.R.(3d) 417, consd. [para. 9].

Edmonton (City) v. Forget et al. (1990), 110 A.R. 328; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 547 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 12].

Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada et al. v. Canada, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 139; 120 N.R. 241, consd. [para. 13].

New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. v. Ca­nadian Radio-Television and Telecom­munications Commission, [1984] 2 F.C. 410; 55 N.R. 143 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Chaussure Brown's Inc. et al. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712; 90 N.R. 84; 19 Q.A.C. 69, refd to. [para. 18].

Ford v. Quebec (Attorney General) - see Chaussure Brown's Inc. et al. v. Québec (Procureur général).

Fink v. Saskatoon (City) (1986), 7 C.H.R.R. D/3431 (Bd. Inq.), refd to. [para. 31].

Los Angeles (City Council) v. Taxpayers for Vincent (1984), 466 U.S. 789 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 40].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1, sect. 2(b) [para. 5].

Peterborough (City) Bylaws, Bylaw No. 3270, sect. 1, sect. 2 [para. 5].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Cameron, Jamie B., A Bumpy Landing: The Supreme Court of Canada and Access to Public Airports under Section 2(b) of the Charter (1992), 2 Media & Communications Law Rev. 91, generally [para. 19].

Kanter, Michael, Balancing Rights Under Section 2(b) of the Charter: Case Com­ment on Committee for the Common­wealth of Canada v. Canada (1992), 17 Queen's L.J. 489, generally [para. 19].

Stacey, Robert, The Canadian Poster Book: 100 Years of the Poster in Canada (1982), generally [para. 31].

Counsel:

Jonathan H. Wigley and Robert A. Maxwell, for the appellant;

Peter R. Jervis and Kirk F. Stevens, for the respondent;

Yvonne E. Milosevic, for the Attorney General of Canada;

Lori Sterling, for the Attorney General for Ontario;

Angela R. Westmacott, for the Attorney General of British Columbia;

Andrew Weretelnyk, for the Corporation of the City of Toronto;

Neil Finkelstein and George Vegh, for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

Solicitors of Record:

Gardiner, Roberts, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

Stikeman, Elliot, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent;

John C. Tait, Q.C., Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the Attorney General of Canada;

Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the Attorney General for Ontario;

Attorney General of British Columbia, Victoria, B.C., for the Attorney General of British Columbia;

Dennis Y. Perlin, Toronto, Ontario, for the Corporation of the City of Toronto;

Blake, Cassels & Graydon, Toronto, Ontario, for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

This appeal was heard on June 1, 1993, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On September 2, 1993, Iacobucci, J., delivered the following judgment for the court in both official languages.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT