Article content continued

Don’t take my word for it, the Ontario Court of Appeal (ONCA) struck down Belobaba’s decision on Wednesday, calling it a “dubious ruling” that very likely “erred in law.”

“Unfairness alone does not establish a Charter breach. The question for the courts is not whether Bill 5 is unfair but whether it is unconstitutional,” said the ONCA ruling, which found that Ford’s bill to reduce the size of city council did not violate the Charter.

It takes quite the stretch in imagination to think that somehow cutting the number of councillors in the municipal government — an area of law explicitly not included in the Charter — was a breach of the Constitution.

Despite media hysteria, it was clear from the start that Belobaba’s decision falls outside the legal norms in Canada.

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

tap here to see other videos from our team. Try refreshing your browser, or

He took one part of the Charter (Section 3) and tried to apply it to a different section (2.b.), in a last-ditch effort to stop the will of an elected government.

And because the municipal election is just weeks away, Ford couldn’t rely on the appeals process to defend his law. Hence why he planned to invoke the notwithstanding clause — a perfectly legitimate use of that constitutional tool.

According to Howard Anglin, executive director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, Ford’s decision was proportional.

“When a court intervenes in the political process without a legal justification, it invites chaos,” said Anglin in an interview with the Sun.

Anglin noted that Belobaba’s ruling was a clear example of activism and that the premier was “justified in invoking the notwithstanding clause to defend its constitutional power to pass Bill 5,” which, in his organization’s view, “is constitutional.”