Municipal Law | Assignment

Running head: MUNICIPAL LAW
Municipal Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

MUNICIPAL LAW
1
Question 1
In context to the given case study, the position of the city of Toronto is supported in
this answer that had pointed out the decision of the government to reduce the City council
from 47 to 25 through the legislation of the Better Local Government Act 2018 as a political
vendetta against the City. All the government argue that it intends to reduce dysfunction and
inefficiency in the City by reducing its City council from 47 to 25, yet the city of Toronto
could see through the real intention of the government which meant to cut down the right to
expression and public opinion of the people of the city by taking away their right to vote for
the originally nominated 47 council (Imrie, 2019).
Upon taken the case to the Ontario superior court, it was observed that the better local
government act 2018 violated Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Justice Belobaba, the presiding judge of the case City of Toronto et al v Ontario (Attorney
General) 2018 ONSC 5151, held that the sudden change in the number of wards in the
upcoming election not only breaches freedom of expression of the citizens by curtailing their
right to vote and choose their public representatives, but also sends a frustrating political
message (Imrie, 2019). Justice Belobaba further exclaimed that the government's decision to
decrease the size of the City council and at the same time increase the size of the wards
infringes the freedom of expression of the voters by impeding their scope to vote, thereby
hampering effective representation.
The decision of the Ontario Superior Court and the arguments of Justice Belobaba is
whole-heartedly supported in this paper. It is indeed a political stance to curb the right to vote
of the people of Ontario in order to curtail their freedom of expression and public opinion to
choose their political representatives (Imrie, 2019). It gives an overview that the government
intended to dominate over the city of Toronto, without letting the publicly chosen political

MUNICIPAL LAW
2
representative to interfere in such dominance. As otherwise, rightly pointed out by the
Ontario Superior court and Justice Belobaba that the sudden change of the composition of the
City council amidst election had no evidence of substantial necessity the demanded the
emergence of such sudden change.
Question 2
Most provinces and the provincial governments of Canada holds a limited number of
express powers that bars them from taking decisions on administrative matters like changing
the composition of the City council, making decisions regarding the scheme of taxation of the
citizens, any major changes to municipal government legislations (Lidstone, 2001). However,
exception to this rule the Municipal Government Act 1994 of Alberta give the municipalities
of Alberta the powers of a natural person, thereby enabling its municipalities to exercise
discretionary powers in the course of administration. The legislation empowers the
municipalities of Alberta with certain permissive powers that most municipalities of other
provinces are barred from exercising. Therefore, it could be interpreted that the municipalities
of Alberta have the authority to make certain changes on its own discretionary powers
without having to get approval of any other authority for making such necessary changes.
The Municipal Government Act 1934 of Alberta does not lay out any statutory commitment
for the municipality to make consultations before planning a future change to its City council
and its wards.
However, such discretionary and permissive powers of the province of Alberta under
the Municipal Government Act is restricted in terms of certain actions like the Municipal
Government Act does not have an entrenchment clause of the municipal legislation. In
addition, apart from the basic and emergency powers, the municipalities of Alberta require