Article content continued

Selley: I’m intrigued on two fronts: intrigued as to how large an ecosystem we must conceive of such that Toronto cohabitates one with sharks; and intrigued as to how it is “anachronistic” to think that Toronto cannot make any worthwhile dent in the market for a product that is 95% based in China, when we’re surrounded by jurisdictions — containing many banquet halls catering to, among other things, Chinese weddings — that don’t ban shark fin. If we agree that the city is on weak legal footing, then I don’t really see how this is defensible on any level. If councillors want the City of Toronto Act amended such that the city is allowed to do all sorts of symbolic stuff with no purpose, then they should advocate for that. We wouldn’t want citizens to feel impotent.

Goldsbie: Just because the City is on weak legal footing and faces an uphill battle in preserving the ban, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t continue to defend the bylaw in the courts. Rulings that define the scope of the City’s powers must be examined and clarified to the fullest extent that our judicial system allows. Not too long ago, the Superior Court of Justice effectively struck down Toronto’s new billboard bylaw, based on a strict and literal reading of a passage of the City of Toronto Act. Despite the apparent unambiguity of the Act’s language, Council chose to challenge the decision, and was ultimately successful in convincing the Court of Appeal to overturn the earlier ruling and affirm the City’s interpretation of its own legislative authority. The validity of the shark fin ban is being questioned on very different grounds than the billboard bylaw was, but it nevertheless remains crucial that the City continues to press its right to take action on matters that its citizens and elected leaders deem to be of importance.