The Applicant, Wolfgang Ruck, is a property owner and a resident in the City of Mississauga. He has been growing tall grasses and other plants, on his property. The Respondent, the City of Mississauga, has taken by-law enforcement action against the Applicant, cut the grasses on his property and added the costs of this work to his property tax bill. The Respondent engaged in all of these activities pursuant to its Nuisance Weed and Tall Grass Control By-law, By-law 0125-2017 ("the weed control by-law").

It's kind of ironic that the city is implying that is supports citizens who use toxic chemicals on their gardens, whether they are legal or not, to maintain their lawns. Of course they are not explicit about breaking the law, but the practice is as common as Missisauga's pristine lawns, and is anybody doing anything about that environmental hazard? Has the city of Mississauga prosecuted anybody who is currently using toxic chemicals to control their weeds?

Mr. Ruck's naturalized garden mimicks a natural occuring habitat instead of rows of hydrangeas and neatly trimmed grass. Naturalized gardens have native plants and look like a forest, meadow or a wetland. According to Wolf Ruck, "essentially my garden is a series of islands that are surrounded by regularly mowed pathways. These islands are surrounded by plants such as milkweed, goldenrod, those are the primary plants that exist in this naturalized area..."

Naturalized gardens use less water, need less maintenance and create a natural habitat in your own yard where creatures may build nests or lay eggs, hibernate for the winter or just enjoy the shelter and safety of the garden.

We believe that proponents of naturalized gardens should be allowed to grow semi-wild for environmental reasons. In the 1990's, Torontonian, Sandy Bell challenged a $50 bylaw infraction ticket on the basis of freedom of expression and won. The judge agreed, her victory has been called precedent-setting and why would anybody disagree in this day and age when the arguments for having naturalized gardens are so much more compelling, given climate control and the shortage of water, worldwide?

Bell said she naturalized her garden to help the environment, her lawyers argued the city forcing her to trim it violated her Charter right to express her environmental beliefs through her gardening, the woman was clearly ahead of her time and that should have been the end of opposing people like her.

Today's judges, it appears, are not as reasonable as they used to be. A recent ruling out of Ontario's Superior Court rejected an application from Wolf Ruck, who argued that a bylaw in its current form infringes upon his Charter rights.

Let's hope the Court of Appeal or even the Supreme Court of Canada fixes the common sense lapse.

The argument the Superior Court advanced lacks the good sense of what Mr. Ruck maintains.

According to Mr. Ruck, "The inordinate amount of time, effort and expense that they have gone through to essentially satisfy one or more neighbours' esthetic concerns ... there's no reasonableness. There's no proportionality ... it's absolutely ridiculous."

In a Superior Court ruling, dated May 2, 2024 the judge acknowledged the ecological benefit of encouraging biodiversity and accepted the previous court conclusion that gardening is a legitimate form of expression.

It adds that the bylaw's enforcement does, to some extent, violate Ruck's right to freedom of expression, but that right is not absolute. The municipality's intention to protect residents from noxious weeds and fire risks outweighs the "deleterious effects."

The argument of the court is rather weak.

According to Wolf Ruck, "My primary concern or raison d'être was to demonstrate to my young son that we could coexist with nature ... so that was just a really clear case of being able to express my own environmental beliefs."

Now that's an argument we could use more of in a world that's burning to the ground because we are destroying our environment.

"Mr. Ruck is now appealing that decision to the Court of Appeal. Because this matter is before the courts, the City does not have any further comment at this time."

The city's approach and the court's decision were problematic and legally flawed, maintains David Donnelly, an environmental lawyer who has defended numerous clients in their disputes with municipalities over naturalized lawns.

In this situation, he said the primary issue is the municipality has not clearly identified how Ruck's lawn poses a threat to health or safety.

"That's where they made I think a fundamental error ... the court in this case is now regulating esthetics," Donnelly said.

He described Ruck's case as a setback and a bad precedent, but added "it is unlikely future courts will uphold similar, unconstitutional by-laws and their enforcement."

The judge who ruled against Ruck was one of these "process-dominated" judges who make their rulings, not because they are the right decision, but because the one presenting the case did not meet the judge's evidentiary standars, and this paragraph alone, should make that quite clear;

"The Applicant provided a significant volume of materials, including scientific and ecological articles, newspaper reports, blog posts and studies from governmental and non-governmental organizations. He did not provide any Affidavit evidence from anyone about the scientific basis for his position that the plants in his yard were better for the environment and climate change than having a grass lawn, although there are various articles that outline these points."

Wolf Ruck is not a lawyer or a judge. He is a reasonable man who has the law on his side and that should be enough. Why don't we all file an affidavit and send it to the court, so that it can rule on the side of justice?

In the United States, certain state governments and municipalities actually pay people who have traditional lawns to re-wild their gardens because they are aware of what is at stake. Perhaps Canadians are spoiled because they have plenty of water to waste but sooner or later, that will change.

Next: Your opinion is not justice !