2025-07-05 Saturday Peaceful Freedom Rally
11:00am - 12 noon Markham and Lawrence
Wolf Ruck vs City of Mississaugua a Legal Circus with Serious Consequences
My garden in Toronto has been inspected almost every year since 2014. I have felt the same fear, stress, and revulsion over bylaw inspections that Wolf expressed in court this Wednesday July 2nd. I support his right to a natural garden and to procedural fairness before his garden is mown. I applaud him for trying to stand up for his rights. I support Wolf’s right to represent himself, which outweighs the potential consequences for other gardeners were he to set a bad precedent.
Disclaimers:
I am not a lawyer and I could be way off in my legal assessments
I’m not a court reporter and I didn’t get everything exactly, I didn’t catch everything that was said, nor understand everything, nor did I have access to the court case management system to fully follow along
I’m from Toronto/Scarborough so the differences with Toronto stand out to me. Toronto garden bylaw enforcement has problems of it’s own, they are just somewhat different.
Legal Circus
Wolf struggled with both the form and substance of his legal case. As best I can tell from the judge’s repeated comments, Wolf has not submitted his evidence in the form of an affidavit. The judge explained that he couldn’t accept this out of fairness to Mississaugua’s ability to respond. Wolf has also submitted links to YouTube videos and the judge explained that beyond the issue of affidavits, he is not able to draw inferences from the videos. Wolf has to write down the inferences he wants the judge to draw from the videos.
In my non legal opinion Wolf has far too many non starter legal arguments. If it’s even possible or desirable to argue them, they would require abundant case law and analysis that was absent. Wolf would have legitimate grounds to argue Charter 2b freedom of expression, admin law procedural fairness and perhaps even Charter 2a. I think he attempted to do so but I found him very hard to follow. I found potentially legitimate arguments jumbled up with complete non starter arguments and handicapped by a lack of evidence. The judge was very attentive and engaged and asking pertinent questions. I can only hope that the judge found some merit in Wolf’s legal arguments that I missed.
The City of Mississaugua submitted their forms correctly. Their factum describes the meandering path the case has followed. They also tried to help Wolf by not objecting where Wolf ran afoul of procedural issues. They helped Wolf try to find his arguments in the court case management system. I guess it was in the City’s enlightened self interest to move the case along because even if they get costs, it’s never full cost recovery. Wolf did thank them for their procedural assistance. However, as best I could tell without access to the case management system, Mississaugua didn’t submit any significant evidence either.
The courthouse is in Brampton, which I believe is outside Mississaugua. I came by transit and walked to the courthouse. I was expecting to find the main entrance on Hurontario street, but it turns out the main entrance is on the aptly named County Court Boulevard so I walked around the back and south side of the courthouse. I have learned some plant identification via Toronto bylaw violation notices and believe that there were both sow thistle and ragweed right beside the court building. I was surprised not to see any Dog Strangling Vine. Sow thistle was at issue in the judicial review so I hope this is good omen for Wolf. Hopefully this doesn’t lead the City of Mississaugua to request a change of venue! If they come to Toronto they would be more likely to get DSV or pavement around the courthouse neither of which were at issue in the case. The ragweed will soon conflict with the multiple signs in the courthouse asking people not to wear perfume, presumably to protect allergy sufferers.
Serious Consequences
In my non legal opinion the case boils down to the legal arguments by the City of Mississaugua and the legal arguments by the Canadian Constitutional Foundation (CCF) which thankfully intervened in the Charter 2b aspect of the case exclusively. This means Wolf is unlikely to get anywhere on procedural fairness, but there is still a chance the CCF may salvage and even potentially expand the Sandy Bell v Toronto and Counter v Toronto Charter precedents.
All parties agree that Charter section 2b is engaged. The City and the CCF argued over whether Mississaugua’s bylaw is a legitimate restriction on rights under Charter section 1.
Mississaugua argued based on Sandy Bell v Toronto their 20cm height limit for grass was legitimate because it was objective. However they conceded it had been 30cm in the past and line of sight issues were not engaged because Wolf’s garden was well set back from the street. Their main argument for the 20cm rule for grass was [visual] “blight” and they cited a number of postering cases. Most seriously from my point of view, Mississaugua argued that one could transition to a “natural” garden while cutting grass to 20cm by for example following a baroque 4 year process from the Canadian Wildlife Federation involving planting rye (which is a grass in my books) to displace the turfgrass. From my point of view this ignores the fact that grass is a natural part of prairie-like ecosystems and might be even harder to weed than DSV. It would be next to impossible to get to and maintain a grass-free natural garden without running afoul of the bylaw but this wasn’t raised in court.
Mississaugua also argued it was legitimate to list sow thistle as a weed in Mississaugua because it spreads “aggressively” and crowds out other species reducing biodiversity. I note that mowing also reduces biodiversity, but this didn’t come up in court.
I thought the CCF did an excellent job considering I believe they are restricted to legal arguments and can’t introduce evidence. They pointed out that the postering case was on public property for commercial purposes. Personal expression on private property should get increased protection. They contended that once the Charter is engaged, the burden of proof is on the City. There is no requirement for Ruck to articulate exactly what he is doing or to prove the negative effect of the bylaw. They hammered Mississaugua’s lack of evidence for the 20cm limit and sow thistle as a weed.
The judge reserved judgement.
I’ve included my raw trial notes at the end.
Rally at Markham and Lawrence this Saturday from 11:00am - 12 noon
Please bring a freedom related sign, flag, flyers etc. if you have them.
I will be at or near Markham and Lawrence. I tend to run about 15 minutes early in the summer.
Raw Trial Notes
1016 Ruck
forebearance due to self rep
filing issue for application record 38.09a
uploaded June 23rd but rejected
resolved issue with constitutional issue
leave granted to submit application record
1020 fresh evidence - Blooming Boulevards, David Suzuki Foundation
was not available
uploaded to Case Centre but
registrar objected to format
1027 Ruck oral
Urban rewilding movement
ongoing harassment, stigmatization starting 2022
no substantive response from the City
1031 judge:application for judicial review or rule 14.05?
Matter being reargued as it was before Mr Justice Lemay?
was initially an application for judicial review and is now
appropriately again JR
1036 Ruck clarified it is a challenge to enforcement not the bylaw itself
CCF tries to clarify
Judge raises notice issue again - i.e. AGs not notified of enforcement aspect
Mississaugua consel supports CCF
1043 Judge allows case to proceed
inconsistent with Blooming Boulevards initiative, David Suzuki Foundation
lack of response a violation of S15
Bill of Rights - property
Procedural Fairness - abuse of discretionary power
Canada AG vs Bedford 2013 administration fairness
1053 Judge tries to clarify if lack of response is the administrative fairness issue
Primacy of Ontario Control Act - ultra vires for municipalities
1058 Judge tries to clarify - City breached the Weed Control Act?
Ruck City adopted weed list, but left out qualified inspectors and appeal process
1101 violations of WCA - limits enforcement to agricultural land, requires warrant to enter property ghk?
City ignored Wolf's notice of trespass
1103 violations of Municipal Act, asked to postpone enforcement until after bird migration violates 8.1 which requires consistent enforcement
1107 Ontario trespass, Criminal mischief!
1108 Predated notice of contravention
1109 lack of acknowledgement - inconsistent with administrative law, mala fides
1112 contradicts Mississaugu as a Bee City, Mississaugua polinator programs - therefore bad faith
1115 judge asks what exactly is violated in S15 discrimination.
1116 Sub iudice - enforcement continues, June 23/25 - 2025 most recent enforcement
Cities action threatens to prejudice the status quo or render the court prceeding moot
1119 judge asks Ruck to hold costs till after decision - will be dealt with in writing
1121 Garden Police State, incompatible with Charter
1122 Ruck psychological/physical stress of being hounded by repeated inspection, stigmatized,
self represented litigant with limited means.
1125 Constitutional damages vs private law damages
Ruck recites his remedy requests
1132 rule of law
1134 intervenor wants to present after City
1158 City
Focus on S1
Ontario Weed Control Act WCA applies to agriculture land
City bylaw reuses the WCA list, otherwise separate legislation
Appeal - Ruck never raised errors of fact
Grass 20cm or less + WCA list
2018 traditional, 2021 complaint higher than 20cm
2021 notice later in the season
no evidence that Ruck could cut later in the season
2023 Sow Thistle
Authorities in to fine, enter property are in Municipal Act
It is not trespass under the Municipal Act, nor mischief
Inspection is not predetermined, enforcement is
correspondence was respectful
Sandy Bell - Excessive Growth solved by 20cm limit
no argument that grass is too vague
Ruck appears to have turfgrass
Judge why is there infringement: Gardening is expression, political statement, environmental statement, there are limitations
with what you can express
City has responded to Ruck, but he has mostly lobbied for changes
Judge does provincial statute have priorty? City of Mississaugua not required to have weed inspectors,
only upper tier municipalities have to have inspectors, Peel Region could have the inspectors, no conflict with WCA
Rule 14 (initiate process?) would be a remedy for no communication
Judge any other decisions differentiate between admin and enforcement?
Anonymous complaints is not a bad faith enforcement mechanism
There is a bylaw, inspection after complaint
1223 Bylaw restricts expression, but saved by section 1
line of sight is not an issue here because set back
aesthetic blight substantial in the case of City of Peterborough postering
Aesthetic blight is the hardest hurdle - use that as the yardstick
Judge: postering is public, City: Ruck's property is publically visual
what if everyone deal with this? could make the City look blighted - substantial and pressing
cutting grass rationally connected to blight, sight lines, insects, vermin
bylaw does not prohibit natural gardens - because only prohibits grass over 20cm
Ruck supports cutting turfgrass, City supports Blooming Boulevards
Overall balance - City doesn't know exactly what Ruck is trying to do
"natural" transition still have to cut any grass, multiple ways to transition
Applicant should provide evidence on leaving grass over 20cm while transitioning
"invasives" both ecological and aesthetic concern, will decrease biodiversity
Sow Thistle is only concern here
Ruck is effectively challenging the bylaw not the enforcement
no evidence for 2a, no connection to 2a, infringement not established
s7 not life threating
s11 not established, Judge: any court decision on privacy of front lawn?
only enforced in front yard, back smaller and behind a fence
s11 n/a enforcement of bylaw does not engage s11
double jeopardy doesn't apply
s15 discrimination - but not on a prohibited ground
Ruck has not been prevented from communicating to council
1248 CCF
2b Oakes Test only
bylaws should not impose aesthetic standards
no evidence for safety or aesthetic blight
burden should be on City, no need to examine Ruck's expression in detail
hard to separate bylaw and enforcement
Actual Purpose - aesthetic bligh, not health and safety
health and safety - 1 sentence in 1 page of City's factum,
no expert evidence, no affidavits, not enough information to justify infringe the right
Judge questioning if there might be enough evidence
Long grass - need to explain the reason for 20cm, lack of evidence
Bell decision p45 appears to be no obvious correlation between hight and safety
Ramsden combatting blight is pressing but not enough for full prohition
Lawn and Gardening is inherently subjective, especially on private property
Posters meant to be seen, gardens have other purposes, front and back - Judge 2b assumes communication
CCF nature of expression is different, not an advertising case. affects proportionality
No evidence for health and safety - consider aesthetic blight only
Minimal impairment - no justification for sow thistle not rationally connected to purposes
no evidence that 20cm is the minimal impairing height
enforcement is not minimally impairing - Charter Rights should govern enforcement
City can't remove everything
Balancing positive effect not equivalent to negative effects
No requirement to demonstrate methodology, it's gardening that is protected,
No need for Ruck to prove negative effect of bylaw
City has not met it's burden
1433 Ruck reply
Reply Factum not uploaded
Blight subjective - reply from Mississaugua couldn't define blight
Plants are nature and nature is not blight
1200 species of grass, Ruck has been trying to identify species
Turfgrass is non-native - Ruck does mow turfgrass on his path
affidavit of documents - Judge can't see pictures in application
islands of vegetation separated by mowed turfgrass
Ruck can't find pictures and videos in "resources and reference"
videos are on Youtube
there has been enforcement action in the back yard - which is not public
thistles cut in the back were medecinal and edible
thistles not cut in City Parks
Judge wants written affidavits instead of videos - because he is not able to
draw horticultural conclusions/inferences, also may not be fair to the City
video with forestry technician Purple Mooregrass - Forestry technicians not familiar
with it, Wolf tried to explain, but they mowed him down anyway, Purple Mooregrass not
native
1504 Ruck reply factum
pre-dated notice of inspection
Judge any reply to City Solicitor?
lack of evidence should give rise to adverse inference
sub iudice, chilling effect on expression while Ruck tried to get relief from the courts
abuse of process
1515 City reply
photo that shows pathways and islands
photo that shows after - non grass tall plants are still standing
can't respond to Mooregrass because not clear on records
this is not a sur reply to Ruck
1519 response to CCF
aesthetic blight - litter, "down trodenness", is important
persuasive burden on applicant to describe burden on their free speech
can convert, but have to mow grass while you have it
Sow Thistle - Ontario government descriptor is evidence, invasive competitive
No evidence for 20cm vs 30cm but grass needs to be cut otherwise it grows
long and unruly
"minor breach" sufficient evidence, common sense
1525 reserving decision