Blog

TORONTO: The Ontario Court of Appeal has set aside a lower court’s decision that upheld the City of Mississauga’s enforcement of their tall grass and weeds bylaw against a homeowner’s beautiful naturalized garden, allowing the man to bring his case once again in the lower court.

Wolf Ruck’s naturalized garden includes pollinator plants, tall grasses and untrimmed bushes. The garden acts as a habitat to small animals like chipmunks and birds. It is an expression of Mr. Ruck’s environmental and ecological beliefs. 

The City of Mississauga has a bylaw that prohibits grasses over 20 centimetres high and certain plants referred to as noxious weeds.

In response to complaints, the City of Mississauga entered Ruck’s property in 2022, and mowed down his garden. The city took further action against the garden in 2023. 

Ruck sought judicial review of those actions on the basis of procedural unfairness and his right to freedom of expression in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, where he represented himself.

In 2024, Justice Lemay sided with the city and dismissed Ruck’s application for judicial review.

However, on Monday, the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed Ruck’s appeal. The Canadian Constitution Foundation was there to assist the Court in determining whether the bylaw and the enforcement actions taken violated the Charter right to freedom of expression in a way that has not been demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

The appeal court allowed the appeal because Ruck had not served the required notice that he was challenging the constitutionality of a law on the attorneys general of Canada and Ontario. That means the Superior Court’s judgment is quashed and Ruck may bring a fresh judicial review application if he serves notice on the attorneys general.

Ruck has already said that he intends to bring that fresh judicial review application.

CCF Counsel Josh Dehaas, who was in attendance, was pleased with the decision. 

“While the Court of Appeal did not decide whether the bylaw or its enforcement violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Mr. Ruck will now have another opportunity to argue that this bylaw apparently aimed at enforcing subjective aesthetic standards is unconstitutional, and that the actions taken against his naturalized garden violated his Charter rights,” Dehaas said.

The CCF was represented in its intervention by John Mather and Lauren Baker of DMG Advocates.