The Township of Russell’s by-law banning municipal election signs until 30 days prior to voting day, and which significantly restricts the type and locations of signs, has been struck down by an Ontario Superior Court Justice as being unconstitutional.
In Charles Frederick Armstrong v. The Township of Russell, 2025 ONSC 3790, Justice Michelle Flaherty ruled the township’s municipal election lawn sign was not minimally impairing because the council did not conduct its own analysis when creating the by-law, the expression restriction is not proportional to the objective because it only restricts municipal election signs, and because the bylaw was unconstitutional, the municipality unjustly enriched itself with fine revenue for bylaw violations.
Justice Flaherty’s decision is very concise, only 51 paragraphs with no obiter dictum. The standard Charter legal tests are applied: minimal impairment and proportionality.
The judge ruled that the municipality failed the minimal impairment test because there was no evidence they considered this while deliberating the bylaw. Instead, the municipality said it relied upon a sampling of other municipal sign bylaws.
“I make no findings about the constitutionality of by-laws in other municipalities; that is not the issue before me. However, to establish minimal impairment, it is not sufficient for the Township to say, ‘we are doing what everyone else is doing.’ The Township must present evidence of a search for a minimally impairing solution. In this case, there is no evidence that the Township, or any of the municipalities whose practices it relied on, did so,” wrote Justice Flaherty [para 39].
The Township provided “no evidence of safety or aesthetic issues related to election signs” [para 40] and many of the registers on political signs were not applied to commercial and community event signs [para 41].
Justice Flaherty ruled that impact against political speech is not proportional to the safety and aesthetic issues the by-law seeks to address.
“In conclusion, the Township has not established that the benefits conferred by the By-Law are proportionate to the harm it occasions.”
Unjust Enrichment: A Novel Aspect of This Case
During a 2024 municipal by-election, the Township seized 14 of the applicant’s election signs.
He had to pay the Township $450 to retrieve the signs.
The Township was ordered to pay damages of $450.
“By requiring payment from Mr. Armstrong in exchange for the return of his signs, the Township has been enriched by $450. Mr. Armstrong has suffered a corresponding deprivation. There is no juristic reason for this enrichment. In requiring payment, the Township relied on a provision of the By-Law that is unconstitutional. There is no reasonable expectation, nor any no public policy justification, for a candidate to be charged fees based on an unconstitutional by-law.”
The Lesson: Municipalities Should Avoid Regulation of Speech
This is just the latest Court decision in which a municipality went well outside of its purpose and, instead of focusing on municipal responsiblities, decided to regulate political speech.
The case law cited in this decision already permits municipalities to regulate signs. A similar bylaw that treated all signage the same, regardless of type of content, may have survived the challenge.
No Court is going to uphold a municipal bylaw regulating speech.
Production Details
v. 1.0.0
Published: July 26, 2025
Last updated: July 26, 2025
Author: Joey Coleman
Update Record
v. 1.0.0 original version