Class Notes (1,034,412)
CA (592,790)
UW (21,364)
PLAN (434)
PLAN341 (31)
Lecture 1

PLAN341 Lecture Notes - Lecture 1: Headnote, Natural Person, National Capital Commission

7 pages70 viewsWinter 2017

Department
Planning
Course Code
PLAN341
Professor
Mike Stone
Lecture
1

This preview shows pages 1-2. to view the full 7 pages of the document.
PLAN 471 Lecture 2 (Jan 11)
- territories are delegated by federal gov’t, don’t have independent constitutional
status while provinces have independent authority
Excerpt from Municipal Act Reading (Section 5 (3))
- municipal act is the general legislation for municipalities
- that’s why an official plan is passed by a by-law, needs to be endorsed and passed
by counsel, the legal authority is transferred by a by-law
- section 239, all means should be open to the public, to emphasize practical things
about public meetings, express situations where public is secluded from the meeting
- solicitor-client privilege doesn’t meet anything if the meeting is happening in
public
- the whole point is to ensure transparency in the municipality, this is for meetings
in counsel
- lot of gov’t happens one on one, where for eg. Landowner sees a counselor or
neighbourhood association sees counselor, this is why municipalities have lobbyists
registries
- but exceptions to this: when litigations started, you have professional obligations
to prevent you from speaking one on one from counselors, unless you have
permission from lawyers from the city, approach to ensure certain level of fairness
so no decisions are made that they’re not aware of , but clients can talk to them
- when it comes to body corporate, counsel acting as a corporation and as a natural
person, it can’t meet with anyone outside of the public process unless it meets one
of the exceptions, when they’re functioning as a group they have those limitations,
but not as an individual
- what court is interested in is if the counsel as a group was acting with bad faith,
cause counsel as a group is the one passing the decision
Pg 4 East York Case
- emphasizes the role of municipalities in constitutional terms
- Mike harris was conservative and wanted to change the way gov’t ran, collapse all
the constituent municipalities that made of metropolitan Toronto that was a
regional gov’t east york, north york, scarborough, etc, collapse them all into one
city of Toronto and one gov’t
- only north york declined to participate in challenging this
- combined municipalities without any public opinion
- municipalities challenged this on constitutional terms, except north york
- 34or is reporters, general division is general court
- date of decision is key, understanding the context in which the decision was made
- headnote - editors summary of the case
- list of lawyers at bottom of pg 6
- lots of lawyers involved, piece of legislation that was amalgating these
municipalities
- decision at top of pg : application is type of cause of action where you’re applying
to the court for something, not an action, 2 kinds of cases: an application is brought
when the facts aren’t largely in dispute (afadavid sworn of statement, arguing
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Only half of the first page are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

about facts that aren’t contested, and if a lot of facts are in dispute then its an action
(evidence given under oath)
- to challenge the city of Toronto act, SO (decision of province)
- municipalities will be dissolved and assets and liabilities will become of the new
city without any compensation
- give you community counselors for each of these municipalities but they become
one city
- the above is the judge summarizing the circumstances and the facts
- language of the legislation was strange (ie dissolve the municipalities)
- pg 8 nature of towns: challenged on 2 grounds, 1st one is that it violates charter of
rights and freedom (provincial and federal which have independence status, the
only way to challenge those legislation is to challenge them legally as constitutional
challenge so one of them is a charter challenge) 2nd challenge: alleged failure to
consult the municipalities before bill 103 (exceeds the authority granted to the
provinces under 928 to pass in relation to municipal institution)
- why wouldn’t this pass? Pg 9: court recognizes the foundation of this concern,
wasn’t part of the gov’ts platform
- pg : didn’t consult with the municipalities or the public, such however is
the prerogative gov’t, courts made it clear that no obligation for them to
consult with the municipalities
- important to understand role of courts and their review of judicial reviews,
is it the role of the courts to review the merits of legislation whether it deals
well with it or no, exclusively no, but to ensure that gov’t have stayed within
their border and followed the charter in legal aspect, municipalities must
point to valid legislation to do what they can do, and if its not there then they
can’t do it
- role of courts is if act infringes guaranteed by the charter, or exceeds the
power in terms of provincial legislation
- 4 principals listed in case study: from these principles, there are no local
cdn gov’ts that are autonomous, etc. rest in case study
- bottom of page: speak directly to fed and provincial gov’t the right to vote,
bottom line is that it can be up to provincial gov’t to say there are no
municipalities and they can run it directly
- pg , second last paragraph: outrage doesn’t make for legal reasons
- basic foundation of the nature of municipalities
Professor (ogg’s book
- pg 16, general what is constitutional law: explains how organs can exercise power
(legislative, executive, judicial power) and limitations of these powers
- a constitution has ben described as reflecting the national soul, must recognize and
protect the values of the nation
- charter of rights and freedom
- nations respect the rule of law
- whether the rights have been infringed in a way that can be saved in section 1,
there are limitations to your rights, if there was no ability to limit someone’s rights,
you can’t put someone in jail
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version


Loved by over 2.2 million students

Over 90% improved by at least one letter grade.