An Ontario municipality, Niagara Falls, is facing significant legal backlash after blocking a group of women from presenting to its city council about municipal conduct laws. The group, known as the Women of Ontario Say No, became embroiled in a contentious situation during a June meeting where they were arrested for displaying signs in the council chambers. City officials preemptively restricted the group’s presentation on modifications to conduct laws, claiming it could overlap with an ongoing legal matter involving a council member. The situation escalated when police were called to remove the advocates, who, feeling unheard, resorted to silently holding their signs in protest.
The Canadian Constitution Foundation has taken on the case, supporting a lawsuit by one of the arrested advocates, Lauren O’Connor, challenging the municipality’s bylaw that prohibits any signs within the council chambers. O’Connor’s notice of application argues that this decorum policy infringes on rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The Foundation reached out to the city multiple times, seeking dialogue and clarification, but received no response, prompting their decision to pursue legal action. This effort is part of a broader attempt to hold the municipality accountable and to foster an environment where public expression is permitted.
Christine Van Geyn, litigation director for the Canadian Constitution Foundation, expressed strong disapproval of the city’s response to the advocates. She emphasized that their actions—holding signs quietly—did not result in any disruption, suggesting that the bylaw in question not only lacks justification but also exceeds what is necessary to maintain decorum. Existing case law supports the argument that a blanket ban on signage in council chambers can be seen as an unconstitutional infringement on free speech rights, reinforcing the advocates’ claims against the municipality.
The tensions surrounding the June meeting were exacerbated by the sensitive issue the Women of Ontario Say No sought to address. They were advocating for the enforcement of a policy that would require municipal councillors charged with criminal offenses to take leave with pay while court proceedings unfold. This advocacy became particularly pressing after Niagara Falls councillor Mike Strange was charged with domestic assault. Despite his claims of innocence, the ongoing legal case created a contentious backdrop, influencing city staff’s decision to deny the group the opportunity to present their viewpoints.
In contrast to the Women’s group’s prohibition, councillor Strange was afforded the opportunity to discuss his charges during a council meeting, further amplifying perceptions of injustice and inequity regarding public expression. This selective approach to publicly addressing legal matters has highlighted discrepancies in the treatment of elected officials versus community advocates, underlining the urgency of the Women of Ontario Say No’s legal challenge and their demand for an apology from the Niagara Falls council.
In addition to seeking a repeal of the decorum policy, the Women of Ontario Say No is pursuing independent legal action to secure their right to present to city council. This dual approach highlights their commitment to advocacy while asserting their constitutional rights. The legal disputes reflect larger themes of civic engagement, the balance of power between municipal governance and community voices, and the persistent need for policies that support, rather than suppress, public participation in democratic processes.
