The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Ramsden v. Peterborough (City), a case examining whether a municipal bylaw that banned all postering on public property violated the Charter guarantee of freedom of expression. The ruling addressed a narrow but significant question about the boundaries of government regulation on public communication.
The accused, a musician, posted flyers advertising his band’s performances on hydro poles in Peterborough. He was charged twice under a city bylaw that prohibited all postering on public property. Rather than dispute the charges, he argued the bylaw itself was unconstitutional because it conflicted with section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
A Justice of the Peace initially upheld the bylaw and convicted the accused. The matter proceeded through the provincial court system, where the appeal was dismissed based on agreed facts acknowledging postering could create safety hazards for workers climbing poles, traffic hazards, and visual clutter if left unattended.
Charter Analysis at the Supreme Court
At the Supreme Court, the central inquiry was whether the absolute prohibition on postering infringed the accused’s freedom of expression and, if so, whether that limitation could be justified under section 1 of the Charter. The Court determined postering constitutes expression under section 2(b) because it conveys meaning regardless of whether the content is commercial, political, or artistic.
The bylaw was found to be content-neutral on its face, prohibiting all messages from being displayed in certain locations rather than targeting specific viewpoints. The Court accepted the municipality’s argument that the bylaw’s purpose—avoiding the consequences associated with postering—was meritorious. However, the absolute prohibition was deemed too sweeping.
Related: Law Librarians in Short Supply Nationwide
The Court drew a parallel between distributing leaflets in public spaces and displaying posters on public property, finding no meaningful distinction between these forms of expression. The analysis focused not on how a speaker used a public forum, but on whether that use furthered the values underlying constitutional protection of expression or was compatible with the property’s primary function.
The bylaw prevented the communication of political, cultural, and artistic messages, thereby infringing section 2(b). The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the accused’s appeal, though the majority of the Ontario Court of Appeal had previously found the infringement was not justified under section 1. This procedural outcome reflected the specific questions referred to the Supreme Court rather than a substantive disagreement with the appellate court’s conclusion on justification.
Government restrictions on speech must balance individual rights with public order concerns. Municipalities often seek to maintain clean streets and safe environments, which are valid goals. However, a complete ban on an expressive activity like postering can be too restrictive. The ruling in this case sets a standard for evaluating whether such laws are proportional.
Free speech advocates have noted that this decision helps protect diverse voices in urban environments. The ruling highlights that even small forms of communication, like a flyer on a pole, have significant expressive value. This protection is vital for musicians and artists who rely on low-cost methods to reach audiences. Without such protections, the streets could become devoid of public discourse.
