“Never before has a Canadian government meddled with democracy like the Province of Ontario did when, without notice, it fundamentally altered the City of Toronto’s governance structure in the middle of the city’s election.”

That is how the city’s legal argument against Bill 5 — new legislation approved by Premier Doug Ford’s majority PC government that cuts the size of council to 25 wards — begins.

“The treatment of the city and its residents pursuant to the Act is discriminatory and arbitrary,” those written arguments filed with the court say. The province’s legislation, the city says, was brought without justification in the middle of a campaign, putting that election under a “significant cloud” that risks the legitimacy of the municipal government going forward if it is allowed to stand.

Article Continued Below

The city’s case and that of several other individuals and groups will be heard Friday by Superior Court Justice Edward Belobaba, an experienced judge and former Osgoode Hall professor with constitutional law expertise.

The province, asking that all challenges be dismissed, argues the purpose of the legislation 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.”

Read more:

Opinion | Turning Doug Ford’s attack on Toronto into a movement for democratic renewal

Article Continued Below

Meet the people challenging Premier Doug Ford’s Toronto ward cuts in court

Click to expand

The costs of redoing an election and other questions on Ford’s plan to slash Toronto city council

In the last line of its written legal arguments, circulated Wednesday, the lawyers for the province — which intervened in an ongoing election — wrote: “This court should be particularly cautious about intervening in an ongoing electoral process.”

The city is asking that the election return to a state before the legislation was introduced, with 47 wards and 509 certified councillor and school board trustee candidates (the mayor’s race is unaffected by the legislation). It is also requesting Belobaba make a decision before Sept. 14, when the nomination for a 25-ward election is set to close, saying there is urgency to the case.

The province’s main argument in defence of the legislation appears to be about voter parity: the concept that all votes should have equal weight and therefore population sizes between electoral boundaries should be balanced. The concept comes from a Supreme Court ruling that found voter parity is a key part of achieving effective representation by elected officials.

That concept was central to the nearly four-year review conducted by independent consultants hired by the city, who recommended a 47-ward option approved by council in 2016. That option, the consultants concluded, best achieved voter parity and other aspects of effective representation, such as keeping established communities like Thorncliffe Park, Flemingdon Park and Morningside Heights within the same boundaries and represented by a single councillor.

The boundary review set 2026 as a target for achieving voter parity to account for rapid population growth projected in some parts of the city that, the city’s consultants noted, would throw off the population balance between wards on an ongoing basis.

Article Continued Below

The city and its consultants have argued, and a provincial tribunal has agreed, that the 25-ward option does not achieve any better voter parity than the 47-ward option in 2018. And because that option does not achieve acceptable voter parity in future elections, it was ruled out for recommendation to council.

One of the city’s consultants, Gary Davidson, noted in an affidavit filed with the court, 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 a consideration spelled out in the Supreme Court decision about effective representation.

Disagreements about voter parity and the calculations used were heard last year at the Ontario Municipal Board, a provincial tribunal that previously heard most land use appeals. A majority decision found there was “no clear and compelling reason to interfere with the decision of council.” The 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.

A dissenting member of the OMB panel argued the 25-ward option should have been imposed, saying the 47-ward option did not provide acceptable voter parity in 2018.

A divisional court challenge was dismissed earlier this year.

On Friday, arguments made by teams of lawyers challenging the legislation will centre on whether it violates unwritten constitutional principles such as democracy, and charter rights such as freedom of expression, after it was suddenly introduced without warning or public consultation by Ford last month.

There are four other individuals or groups challenging the legislation, including the Toronto District School Board, and candidates, electors and community groups who say Bill 5 is “unprecedented” interference in a city election. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is intervening in the case in support of the legislation.

“This case concerns the integrity of the democratic process,” read written arguments filed by firm Paliare Roland on behalf of one group that is intervening in the case. “It undermines the rights of the almost three million residents of the City of Toronto to participate in fair elections for their city council.”

The province argues the city has no constitutional status, and that there is “no merit” to claims about the province’s failure to consult the city or residents, saying they have no duty to under the Constitution. They argue that unwritten constitutional principles cannot be used to strike down legislation or rewrite the Constitution.

Written arguments from the province also repeatedly note that city clerk Ulli Watkiss has expressed concerns about the city’s ability to return to a 47-ward election if the legislation is struck down.

“No purpose would be served by directing the city to revert to a 47-ward model to vindicate any alleged legal requirement, constitutional right or principle,” the province’s documents say.

A group represented by Goldblatt Partners also argues the legislation infringes equality rights guaranteed under the charter, saying the changing election disproportionately affects candidates and electors who are racialized, women or LGBTQ — groups that today are already under-represented on a predominantly white, male council.

“Bill 5 erects significant additional barriers to the ability of the women, racialized and LGBT candidates to campaign for and access public office on an equitable and non-discriminatory basis,” their written arguments say, “and perpetuates and exacerbates the disadvantages faced by” those groups in “achieving meaningful representation on city council.”

The province says there is no breach of charter rights, calling expert evidence submitted “speculative and anecdotal.”

Ford, who ran and lost the Toronto mayor’s race to rival John Tory in 2014 before taking power in the recent provincial election, has insisted voters don’t want more politicians and claimed the move would save the city $25 million over four years.

The city argued the legislation has “no pressing and substantial objective,” and that no significant savings can be achieved.

An affidavit filed by the city from deputy city manager Giuliana Carbone outlined how the changing election would see savings of less than $6 million over four years when the likely doubling of staff for councillors to manage much larger wards is factored in, as well as the estimated $2.5 million it will cost the city to rejig this election. That math does not account for the need to redo the council chamber and councillors’ offices to accommodate the changes, Carbone’s affidavit says.

Using the city’s calculations, the move to cut the size of council would, at best, save every Toronto resident just $2.08 over four years — less than a single TTC fare.

The court hearing begins Friday morning.