A Mississauga man is continuing his fight against a city bylaw after city workers destroyed his natural garden multiple times. He argues the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects his right to express himself on his property.
The Canadian Constitution Foundation, an independent civil liberties organization, appeared in a Brampton Courthouse on Wednesday supporting local Wolf Ruck’s legal challenge against the City of Mississauga, which repeatedly destroyed his natural garden.
Ruck’s naturalized garden includes pollinator plants, tall grasses and untrimmed bushes. And acts as a habitat to small animals like chipmunks and birds. Ruck argues his garden is an expression of his environmental and ecological beliefs, and as such is protected by Section 2(b) of the Charter.
Mississauga’s Nuisance Weed and Tall Grass Control By-law 125-201 prohibits grasses taller than 20 centimetres and other plant species the city deems as “noxious” or “nuisance weeds.” If convicted of breaching a bylaw, individuals can be fined and face “other penalties.”
The Ontario Court of Appeal “set aside” a lower court ruling which upheld the city’s enforcement, allowing Ruck to re-launch his legal challenge to protect his garden.
He’s asking that the bylaw be struck down, for the city to declare the law unconstitutional, and for enforcement of the law to be temporarily halted until his legal challenge is resolved.
Naturalized gardens have been considered protected expression by Ontario Courts in the past. As written in the CCF book, Free Speech in Canada, the Ontario Court of Justice ruled in the 1996 case, Bell v Toronto, that Sandy Bell’s naturalized garden was Charter-protected expression. The section of the book argued that naturalized gardens are an example of how property rights and freedom of expression are closely intertwined.
In a five-minute video documentary posted to his YouTube channel, Ruck explains to bylaw officers and city foresters that his garden features Moore grass, an “ornamental” grass that people pay money to have. The video documents his attempts to stop the city from destroying his garden, as well as some of the wildlife that find a home there, such as butterflies.
“You have to understand that under the Canadian Charter of Rights, the way you keep your lawn is a matter of personal taste and expression,” he told city workers in the video.
In the video, Ruck notes that in December of 2022, the Canadian government hosted an international United Nations biodiversity conference at COP 15 in Montreal, which espoused the importance of protecting nature and halting biodiversity loss.
Ruck is challenging the constitutionality of Mississauga’s Nuisance Weed and Tall Grass Control By-law 125-201, which prohibits grasses taller than 20 centimetres and other plant species the city deems as “noxious” or “nuisance weeds.”
According to a press release by the CCF, the City of Mississauga “admitted” the law infringes on Ruck’s right to expression but claims the breach of the Charter is justified as the long grass “poses a risk to safety.”
The CCF announced that it’s being represented by John Mather and Lauren Baker of DMG Advocates, who will attempt to establish that the burden is on the city to prove the Charter violation is “reasonable and justified.”
“This case is about whether governments can impose subjective beauty standards on private citizens at the expense of their Charter rights,” Van Geyne said in the press release. “We are pleased to appear in court to help clarify the law on freedom of expression, and that cities don’t get to set standards of beauty.”