Blog

TORONTO: The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) is intervening in a case about freedom of expression, standards of aesthetic beauty, private property and naturalized gardens being heard by the Court of Appeal of Ontario on February 24. The case is called Ruck v Mississauga. The CCF’s factum is available here.

Wolf Ruck is a Mississauga based gardener, and he is fighting the city as a self-represented litigant over his naturalized garden. Mr. Ruck’s naturalized garden features native plants arranged to mimic a naturally occurring meadow and forest. It includes pollinator plants, tall grasses, untrimmed bushes, and acts as a habitat to small animals like chipmunks and birds. The garden is an expression of Mr. Ruck’s environmental and ecological beliefs, and his belief in emphasizing the value of Canadian native plants over imported cultivars. 

The City of Mississauga is seeking to enforce a “tall grass and weed bylaw” by entering Mr. Ruck’s private property without his consent and mowing down his garden. The CCF is intervening in Mr. Ruck’s case to support the right to freedom of expression and Mr. Ruck’s right to express himself and his beliefs on his private property without government interference. 

“Mr. Ruck’s garden is an expression of his views on beauty, about ecology, environmental protection, and climate change. He documents his garden and the animals and plants in it on his website and YouTube channel. Mr. Ruck’s garden is a protected form of expression under section 2(b) of the Charter, and the City’s attempts to enter his property and destroy his beautiful naturalized garden is an infringement of that right,” said CCF Litigation Director, Christine Van Geyn. 

“The violation of Mr. Ruck’s right to free expression cannot be justified. The primary effect of the Mississauga tall grass and weeds bylaw is to impose the city’s own subjective standards of aesthetic beauty on private property owners. One man’s ‘aesthetic blight’ is another man’s meadow, and the city does not get to decide what is beautiful, or limit property owner’s right to express themselves through their gardens on their own land,” concluded Van Geyn. “That is why we are intervening in this case.”

The CCF is represented in this case by John Mather and Lauren Baker of DMG Advocates. 

“Mr. Ruck has conducted himself admirably as a self-represented litigant standing up for his rights against the City,” said Mr. Mather. “We are looking forward to intervening in this case to help clarify the issues being considered by the court and ensuring that the right of Canadians to express their own views on standards of beauty is preserved by the courts.” 

The CCF is a registered charity, independent and non-partisan. We defend the constitutional rights and freedoms of Canadians in the courts of law and public opinion. Members of the public interested in supporting this case and others like it can make a tax deductible charitable donation at TheCCF.ca/donate/