The city of Toronto could not fund a challenge to Bill 21 on the state’s secularism, the Ontario Supreme Court ruled, giving historian Frédéric Bastien reason to bring the case before his death.
• Also read: Bill 21: The Canadian Moral Superior Complex
In its ruling, the Ontario court concluded that the municipality of Toronto exceeded its jurisdiction in seeking to fund legal challenges to the Secularism Act, which bans the wearing of religious symbols by government officials in positions of authority, including teachers.
“Cities can’t do what they want, they have to stick to their statutory areas of responsibility,” explains constitutional lawyer Maxime St-Hilaire. “The judge cautions that there is nothing within the powers of the City of Toronto authorizing it to intervene in a constitutional dispute.”
In December 2021, the Toronto City Council unanimously passed a motion brought by then-Mayor John Tory to fund the National Council of Canadian Muslims, the World Sikh Organization of Canada and the Association Canadian Civil Liberties Society in their challenge to Bill 21.
Faced with this situation, four Quebecers, the recently deceased historian Frédéric Bastien, as well as attorneys Pierre Cloutier, Simon Cadotte and François Bouliane, and Toronto native Louis Labrecque sued the Superior Court of Ontario to have the Toronto City Council promise to pay $100,000.
The rejected city
City of Toronto attorneys said the municipality was given the power to fund this lawsuit because of its unique governmental statute.
They argued that Bill 21 had had a “destructive” effect on the well-being of Canadians and could lead to polarization that would affect Toronto residents, and argued that Ontario law increased the city’s jurisdiction over the recognize “economic, social and environmental well-being”. Being” of citizens. They also mentioned the city’s power to award grants.
According to Maxime St-Hilaire, the court’s decision “represents the realm of local politics”. “The ruling says that a municipal charter must still have an issue that is municipal in nature,” he asks.
“It’s not enough to say that Toronto residents don’t share the values of Bill 21. Indeed, it is unlikely that Bill 21 will apply to the city.” Likewise, grant authority is not unlimited: it must be linked to the city’s economic development.
In addition, the constitutional scholar believes this ruling will “calm down the mood” of the national mobilization against Law 21. “We missed the opportunity to have a calm debate in this file from the beginning.” “The positions are divided and the opponents of the law, including on a legal level, are in my opinion too dogmatic in their speech,” he said.