The Executive Director of Municipal Licensing and Standards of the City of Toronto, in consultation with Legal Services, has delivered a new report on April 16 in response to the latest City of Toronto motion about restricting the display of fetal imagery: Graphic Image Delivery and Display of Temporary Signs with Graphic or Disturbing Images.
The report has clearly been written by the adults in the room, taking a measured and reasonable approach that treats Charter concerns seriously.
The report recommends against new by-laws, citing concerns about the Charter right to freedom of expression, the legal challenge against the City of St. Catharines, and the difficulty in defining the terms or enforcing such by-laws.
When placing restrictions around content… staff are mindful of balancing the protection of persons’ health, safety and well-being with enforcement considerations including Charter rights. Assessing what constitutes a “graphic” or “disturbing” image on a flyer or on a temporary sign such that it would be subject to enforcement action would be challenging and would vary based on the person viewing the image. As such, staff do not feel it is feasible to recommend by-law changes at this time.
The report recommends existing mechanisms, such as the use of trespass notices, and takes the Charter questions very seriously. The report acknowledges that other municipalities have passed by-laws restricting pro-life flyers, but rightfully so, it notes this with a great deal of caution:
To date, the Ontario municipalities of London, St. Catharines, Burlington, and Woodstock, and the Alberta municipalities of Calgary, Okotoks, and Airdrie have adopted graphic image delivery by-laws. Hamilton and Oakville are considering the feasibility of adopting a similar graphic image delivery by-law. […] Notably, in February 2024, the Association of Reformed Political Action and other parties initiated litigation to challenge the City of St. Catharines’ graphic image delivery by-law. MLS and Legal Services staff will monitor this case as it progresses. […]
Recommendation on Regulating the Delivery of Graphic Flyers with Images Showing or Purporting to Show a Fetus
Staff assessed the legal, policy, and enforcement considerations with adopting a by-law, similar to the City of London’s Graphic Image Delivery By-law, to regulate the delivery of graphic flyers with images showing or purporting to show a fetus. Based on this assessment, staff do not recommend that City Council adopt such a by-law. A by-law regulating the delivery of graphic images showing or purporting to show a fetus has significant policy and enforcement challenges, including potential legal infringement of an individual’s freedom of expression. Graphic image delivery by-laws reviewed in other municipalities do not speak to other content that may be perceived as graphic or disturbing. Determining criteria to define whether an image is graphic or disturbing is challenging and would vary based on the individual viewing the image. In addition, and notwithstanding the enactment of the by-law, if graphic flyers were delivered anonymously, enforcement staff could be unable to prove who delivered or sent the flyer. […]
The same Charter considerations described above for the delivery of graphic flyers would also apply to a by-law prohibiting or regulating temporary signs with graphic and disturbing images.
A prohibition on all temporary advocacy signs that are graphic or disturbing would be challenging to enforce due to the difficulty in determining criteria by which a sign is graphic or disturbing. The amended Chapter 693 prohibits temporary signs with hate propaganda and obscenity as they are prohibited under the Criminal Code and includes regulations on the number, location, and physical dimensions of signs.
These are very reasonable considerations, consistent with concerns that we’ve been raising. Pro-lifers across Canada should share these findings with any municipalities considering such restrictions on the pro-life message.
(The report also addressed another request to explore whether an owner or occupant of a property should be authorized to erect advocacy signs in common areas or the public boulevard without the consent of other owners and occupants of same or abutting property. That question is not directly relevant to our concerns with this campaign, but they recommend a content-neutral approach.)
Leave a Reply