Just two months after he was elected, Ontario’s new premier, Doug Ford, introduced legislation cutting the number of municipal wards in Toronto to 25 from 47. The ensuing political firestorm gives British Columbians a reason to look at Canada’s Constitution, because other premiers could be tempted to follow Ford’s lead.
Ford threw a spanner in Toronto’s works, because campaigning had already begun for the civic election in October.
However, a Superior Court judge stepped in and ruled the new legislation unconstitutional. That provoked a confrontation that many considered unfortunate.
Ford would brook no intrusion into what he deemed his exclusive jurisdiction and promised to invoke Section 33 of the Charter of Rights. This so-called “notwithstanding” clause gives Parliament or provincial legislatures the right to set aside judicial rulings that draw on certain sections of the Charter.
In the event, the issue became moot when the Ontario Court of Appeal stayed the lower court’s decision, calling it “a dubious ruling that invalidates legislation duly passed by the legislature.” As a result, the election will go forward on a 25-ward basis.
But Ford has placed firmly on the table a question that has gone unanswered since the Charter was proclaimed in 1982. That is, where does the jurisdiction of government end and the authority of the courts take over?
The notwithstanding clause was intended to provide a means of drawing up that boundary. But it has been invoked so infrequently, there really is no point of certainty here.
Ford has his share of dubious qualities, but in one respect he might have done some good. By raising the question of who governs, he has refocused attention on an important constitutional issue.
