Profile picture
Jennifer Pagliaro @jpags
, 21 tweets, 4 min read Read on Twitter
Province's written arguments (factum) in challenge of Bill 5 has been distributed. "The purpose of Bill 5 is to achieve greater voter parity among Toronto’s wards in 2018, to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of City Council and to save money for Toronto’s taxpayers"
(That first thing - which relates to votes having equal weight - is not a claim that Ford has made that I've heard, but was made against city's 47-ward boundaries in earlier court challenge, which lost)
"Bill 5 would not achieve its purpose if it did not apply to the 2018 election," province says
Province: "There is no merit to any of the applicants’ claims regarding a failure of the Legislature to consult. The Legislature does not owe a duty of procedural fairness or to consult. Procedure in the Legislature is not subject to judicial review."
Province argues "no purpose would be served" by the city going back to a 47-ward election "to vindicate any alleged legal requirement, constitutional right or principle"
As anticipated, the province raises city clerk's concern she can now no longer return to a 25-ward election
Province cites the 1997 amalgamation case as standing authority that city is a creature of the province, meaning cities don't have constitutional status and there is no duty to consult. Say unwritten constitutional principles do not apply and Charter rights not violated
In the last line of its factum, the province, which intervened in an ongoing election, says "this Court should be particularly cautious about intervening in an ongoing electoral process" (again citing city clerks concerns about going back to the 47-ward election)
I should note that while Ford himself did not raise voter parity in defence of Bill 5, Minister Clark did several times. This is from Aug. 14 debate in the legislature:
The voter parity thing was central to the city's nearly four-year review of ward boundaries. As it appears to be the province's main argument in defence of Bill 5, let's go through the history related to Toronto's boundaries for a minute . . .
Voter parity is the concept that all votes should have equal weight and therefore population sizes between electoral boundaries should be balanced. It comes from Supreme Court ruling that found voter parity is a key part of achieving effective representation by elected officials
Independent city consultants recommended a 47-ward option to council saying it best achieved voter parity and other aspects of effective representation, such as keeping established communities like Thorncliffe Park within the same boundaries. Council approved this option in 2016
The boundary review set 2026 as a target for achieving voter parity in order to account for rapid population growth projected in some parts of the city. That population growth would throw off population balance almost immediately after 2018 election if 2018 was the target year
The city and its consultants have argued that the 25-ward option does not achieve any better voter parity than the 47-ward option in 2018. Because that option does not achieve acceptable voter parity in future elections, consultants said, it was not recommended to council
City consultant Gary Davidson noted in an affidavit filed with the court in Bill 5 challenge that the 25-ward option also raised concerns about elected officials’ capacity to represent their residents with population sizes for the larger wards averaging 110,000 people
(Capacity to represent is also one of the considerations set out by the Supreme Court ruling on effective representation)
A challenge to the city's 47-ward decision was launched at Ontario Municipal Board, focusing on voter parity and the calculations used. But majority OMB decision concluded there was “no clear and compelling reason to interfere with the decision of council"…
The OMB decision noted that the 47-ward option did achieve effective representation and that there was no “significant” difference in voter parity between the 47- and 25-ward options. The case went to the divisional court, but was dismissed…
So, there are disagreements about how best to achieve voter parity - which are somewhat complicated & involve lots of math. What's key here is province is now using voter parity as prime reason to intervene when a provincial tribunal ruled there was not sufficient evidence to
It also appears that voter parity has been raised by the province after the fact in defence of Bill 5, not in support of the legislation when it was initially announced by Ford or even when it was first tabled/debated
Full story now posted here:…
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to Jennifer Pagliaro
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member and get exclusive features!

Premium member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year)

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!