"Unknown, Anonymous Individual Callers To Challenge "No Bag City" In Court

I watched the entire debate including the portion where city staff were questioned by councellors.

The legal dept. Didn't hesitate for a second when stating that if the city is making a decision that benefits the environment, there are no legal grounds to fight a ban or a bag tax.(to paraphrase and simplify the gist)

Anyone who tries to fight the city will lose.

The plastics lobbyists that were in attendance won't be smiling anytime soon though I guess....

I can't listen to their radio show because it makes me want to hit things. I suggest that its time for people like me who take issue with the crap the Ford brothers spew each week - (how is their propaganda show even legal???) And "Pollock's" like me hahaha - should start writing letters of complaint to 1010.

Well the motion was to ban retail stores from providing single use Plastic bags, so the question becomes,what is the definition of single use plastic bag ?

While it would be hard to argue against someone demanding the right to buy a bag to take their stuff home in, it's hard to imagine what 'right' they might have to insist it be a plastic one and not one of the many other possibilities. If they won, would that mean no retailer could abuse their right by choosing not to stock plastic bags for them? Who says any retailer must provide any sort of carry-out packaging at all?

But if their case is to re-establish the so-called 'free' bag, they can count on a land-rush oaf amicus curiae support, me among them. having seen the dawn, I refuse to go back to paying for bag-addicted morons.

You're entirely right Mervyn, that definitions do make the law, but as the fee proved, smart people just get on with life. If the support for change is there, things change. Arguing definitions makes lawyers rich and keeps society fragmented and adverserial; perhaps a nation is big enough to accommodate such stupid wrangling—debating precisely when human life begins for example—and perhaps an important issue can elevate the argy-bargy above stupid. But here we're talking about a nickel for a shopping bag that most people trash as soon as they can. Looking for court battles over such trivialities is how to destroy a community. The City is our community.

Our Mayor is the last person who should be threatening such and the first who should be trying to head it off by building consensus.

To get off my high horse and into the mud: If he'd had the brains appropriate to his office he'd never have brought such silliness to the floor unless he was dead certain it was a no-debate slam dunk. He's got much-needed subways to plan fa'kripes sake and he's losing Council votes on frikken' 5¢ shopping bags!!!

Jennifer_ said:

The legal dept. Didn't hesitate for a second when stating that if the city is making a decision that benefits the environment, there are no legal grounds to fight a ban or a bag tax.(to paraphrase and simplify the gist).

Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see how this case unfolds, where the city has actually made a decision that is bad for the environment.

I suspect the councillors would get legal cover from the fact that they believed their decision benefits the environment. The fact that they're ill-informed and wrong may not matter.

But who knows?

Assuming city staff had to prepare a report to defend the city's case, the staff would have to draw the conclusion that the decision is bad for the environment. If city staff have to provide that evidence in court, this could get tricky.

Moviefan-2 said:

It will be interesting to see how this case unfolds, where the city has actually made a decision that is bad for the environment.

I suspect the councillors would get legal cover from the fact that they believed their decision benefits the environment. The fact that they're ill-informed and wrong may not matter.

But who knows?

Assuming city staff had to prepare a report to defend the city's case, the staff would have to draw the conclusion that the decision is bad for the environment. If city staff have to provide that evidence in court, this could get tricky.

Click to expand...

What statute would you bring the action under? The Mustn't Do anything or Pass Any Vote That Isn't The Best Possible For The Environment Act? There isn't a Court or law I know of that has the power to undo a proper legal vote of a Council on such a matter on environmental grounds. And the once the federal budget bill passes there will be even less.

Even if there were, as has been cited over and over, the environmental cost of a single plastic bag is as small as we can imagine; that's not at issue. The cumulative damage from giving away masses of them for free is. That trashes the landscape if they're not disposed of properly and clogs the landfills if they are.

The stupid proposal was the one that got the whole thing going: Eliminating the sensible and effective per bag fee that had halved the tonnage of bags in the waste stream and cleaned up a litter problem at no cost to the City, nor to anyone who chose not to contribute to the waste problem.

It would take a high and daring court to find a common-law right to 'give away' as much of whatever a merchant chose while holding the City that licenses the merchant powerless to regulate it, because 'the quantity give-away is better for the environment, as this Court sees it'.

The Council's belief—which we're both imagining—does them credit, but I don't see it would be all that relevant to a court, even if they decided they imagined they had some sort of jurisdiction. And on environmental grounds alone, the only reasonable verdict would be: Plastic bags yes, but as few of them as we can manage, so a fee of at least a quarter seems in order.

What they more likely would say is: Council's decision, whatever its merits, is within its proper powers to regulate businesses in the City. There is no overriding human, commercial or environmental 'right' in statute or common law to overturn it. Let the citizens deal with it democratically.

Jennifer_ said:

I watched the entire debate including the portion where city staff were questioned by councellors.

The legal dept. Didn't hesitate for a second when stating that if the city is making a decision that benefits the environment, there are no legal grounds to fight a ban or a bag tax.(to paraphrase and simplify the gist)

Anyone who tries to fight the city will lose.

.

Click to expand...

Do you think these geniuses at Council distinguished between biodgradeable plastic bags( type used in recycling and now used by the Sobey's grocery store chain) and regular plastic bags. How does banning the biodegradeable bags help the environment actually? Going to be a lot more dog poop in the parks boys and girls.

Also without some kind of authoritative study how do we know this actually is better for the environment when that many more trees need to be forested for paper bags. Council didn't actually study this. Seems like they made up their minds on the spot.

I suspect the by-law will be amended at least once.

train said:

Do you think these geniuses at Council distinguished between biodgradeable plastic bags( type used in recycling and now used by the Sobey's grocery store chain) and regular plastic bags. How does banning the biodegradeable bags help the environment actually? Going to be a lot more dog poop in the parks boys and girls.

Also without some kind of authoritative study how do we know this actually is better for the environment when that many more trees need to be forested for paper bags. Council didn't actually study this. Seems like they made up their minds on the spot.

I suspect the by-law will be amended at least once.

Click to expand...

Same goes for the bozo who proposed eliminating the highly successful per bag fee. No study, no info, no actual benefits promised or produced.

mel from the article said:

Said another: “You guys really need to learn how to engage with the other councillors. I know you’re good people, and I know you’re nice people and they all like you, but shame on you for not knowing how people were gonna vote.”

Ford responded tersely: “So you support the 6-cent bag tax?” The caller, named Mel, said he didn’t. Ford said: “You support banning bags in Toronto?” Mel said, “No, I don’t. But you’re missing my point: you didn’t go about it the right way, and it’s because you didn’t that this happened.”

Click to expand...

That right there sums up Ford as mayor. No matter whether you like what he wants to do, or dislike it, his inability to manage the city, to work with council, is painful.

oldjones said:

The Council's belief—which we're both imagining—does them credit, but I don't see it would be all that relevant to a court, even if they decided they imagined they had some sort of jurisdiction. And on environmental grounds alone, the only reasonable verdict would be: Plastic bags yes, but as few of them as we can manage, so a fee of at least a quarter seems in order.

What they more likely would say is: Council's decision, whatever its merits, is within its proper powers to regulate businesses in the City. There is no overriding human, commercial or environmental 'right' in statute or common law to overturn it. Let the citizens deal with it democratically.

Click to expand...

The environmental impact may or may not be a factor in council's right to make the decision. I'll let the lawyers mull that one over.

I was speaking more specifically to the staff opinion reported by Jenn and in the media, which reportedly was the courts wouldn't overturn the decision if it is good for the environment.

That advice is irrelevant in this case. This particular decision is bad for the environment.

That doesn't mean a lawsuit would be successful (I'm not a lawyer, so I don't really know). It simply means the legal opinion cited by staff last week was worthless.

I believe there's a SCC ruling that a law is not unconstitutional just because it isn't sensible. To overturn it a challenger would actually have to show that it was beyond the power of Council to ban the bags, no matter whether or not banning them is a good idea, and no matter whether or not it actually will accomplish what Council hopes it will.

I'm just saying--I think the bag ban is a silly idea too. I would support the 5c or 6c option, though I would also like to see the 5c or 6c delivered to the city rather than left to the retailer.

Moviefan-2 said:

The environmental impact may or may not be a factor in council's right to make the decision. I'll let the lawyers mull that one over.

I was speaking more specifically to the staff opinion reported by Jenn and in the media, which reportedly was the courts wouldn't overturn the decision if it is good for the environment.

That advice is irrelevant in this case. This particular decision is bad for the environment.

That doesn't mean a lawsuit would be successful (I'm not a lawyer, so I don't really know). It simply means the legal opinion cited by staff last week was worthless.

Click to expand...

No. If the facts regarding the environment are as alleged, when comparing the options, then it might make their advice incorrect, but not worthless.

On the other hand, getting the bags out of bushes, trees and landfills is an inarguable environmental benefit. It just may not be the best possible. The question about which bag is best amounts to whether it is the best possible benefit; that's precisely the sort of thing legislative bodies decide.

Too bad the vote occurred as an adjunct to the Mayor's envionmentally dangerous proposal to go back to 'free' bags, and so was done without research or study (like the Mayor's motion). From here on, making an environmental case against a plastic bag ban would mean establishing the higher enviro-cost of the behaviours resulting from the ban. And still, there'd be no plastic bags in the bushes or landfills.

fuji said:

I believe there's a SCC ruling that a law is not unconstitutional just because it isn't sensible. To overturn it a challenger would actually have to show that it was beyond the power of Council to ban the bags, no matter whether or not banning them is a good idea, and no matter whether or not it actually will accomplish what Council hopes it will.

Click to expand...

I suspect you're right.

My point is the staff opinion that said the City could win in court based on the environmental case is a worthless opinion, since the after-the-fact research won't (if it has any merit) show any environmental gain. It will find the opposite, in fact.

However, that doesn't mean the city would lose in court.

I agree with Fuji that the environmental impact wouldn't be an issue in the case. The issue would simply be whether Council has the authority to make the decision.