“If this is quashed, the city will be left with no electoral boundaries,” countered Christine Clifford, lawyer for the City of Regina.
Article content
A group of Regina residents appeared in Court of King’s Bench arguing that new ward boundaries set to come in this fall have “no authority” to be implemented due to a conflation of authority between city council and administration.
A judicial review filed by non-profit group Engaged Neighbours United for Fairness in Regina (ENUF) is calling for a judge to rule the new boundaries be “quashed” based on a statutory interpretation of the Cities Act.
Advertisement 2
Article content
“We are challenging whether the staff of the City of Regina had the authority to accept this report as filed,” Jaime Carlson, legal counsel for ENUF, told the court on Friday.
Court documents show ENUF comprises 24 local citizens representing seven out of the city’s 10 wards — nearly half listed as residents of Ward 3. The City of Regina and the Municipal Wards Commission (MWC) are named as respondents.
A boundary review is done every three election cycles or when ward populations begin to cross a variance of 10 per cent, which was the case in this review. The MWC was convened in December 2022 and delivered a final report to city council on April 5, 2023, but council rejected filing that report in a 4-7 vote.
ENUF suggests this means the new boundaries imposed by administration were not formally accepted by the city and therefore cannot be enacted this fall.
Arguing merits to Justice Richard Elson, Carlson said the phrase “filed with the city” is not defined in the relevant subsection of the Cities Act, and as such city council was acting as “the city” in this vote.
Christine Clifford, representing the city, countered that the commission’s report was properly filed to city clerk Jim Nicol and therefore is considered to be “binding upon the city,” as council appoints the clerk.
Headline News
Article content
Advertisement 3
Article content
She said to rescind the boundaries now would put undue distress on city staff, potential candidates and voters.
“If this is quashed, the city will be left with no electoral boundaries,” she countered. “We will be stuck with ‘ward boundary limbo’ heading into an election, and that does not serve the public interest.”
Recommended from Editorial
Carlson argued that ENUF holds public-interest standing to raise this issue with the court, as the representative members are acting in the interest of voters’ rights and the democratic process.
“Every boundary in every ward is changed, and so therefore everyone who is voting in the city (in 2024) will be voting in a ward that is different than in 2020,” Carlson said.
Clifford countered that a non-profit organization cannot claim public standing on the grounds of protecting voters’ rights, as corporations can’t vote.
Carlson responded that the decision to form a non-profit for this legal action was due to “fear among several members that the city will react unfavourably towards them” or any organizations, like community associations, with which they are associated.
Advertisement 4
Article content
She referenced an originating application against the city manager’s office in 2022 that involved two city councillors, who were months later served with ethics complaints and sanctions as a result.
Carlson also asked the justice to “pierce the corporate veil” and see ENUF’s members as individuals.
Chief among ENUF’s concerns is the way that inner-city neighbourhoods are treated with the new boundaries — a secondary pillar in the non-profit’s arguments that this case serves public interest, said Carlson.
A brief of law submitted by ENUF questions whether public feedback on preserving inner-city wards to protect fair representation was taken into consideration in drafting the new boundaries.
Most significantly changed is Ward 3, in that the neighbourhoods of North Central are shifted to Ward 8 and city centre to Ward 1. Ward 3 will instead encompass Cathedral, Lakeview and a portion of Albert Park.
Carlson said inner-city neighbourhoods should qualify as having “community of interest” status, as they serve to be “disenfranchised” when put in wards with a broad socioeconomic mix, where they become a minority voice.
Advertisement 5
Article content
Several members of ENUF say they voiced these concerns to both the ward commission and city council last year.
“They don’t see any of that reflected in the final report, and don’t feel like those concerns were heard at all,” Carlson said. “There is no transparency on that.”
Clifford disagreed, countering that the MWC’s report clearly states those comments were considered. She argued the commission is not required to treat feedback to the “high level of a quasi-judicial decision.”
“This is a government-adjacent policy decision,” said Clifford. “This is public feedback. This is not evidence in a court proceeding and it is not expert opinion.”
Speaking outside the courthouse, Carlson said her clients’ view is that, if the new boundaries are denied, the city would revert to the previous wards used in 2020 and another boundary review be engaged in the future.
Elson made clear his decision will rule on whether the ward boundary report was filed to the standard of procedure under the Cities Act, not to the scope or result of the commission’s work.
He reserved his decision until a future date, promising expediency given the pressure of the municipal election in November.
The Regina Leader-Post has created an Afternoon Headlines newsletter that can be delivered daily to your inbox so you are up to date with the most vital news of the day. Click here to subscribe.
With some online platforms blocking access to the journalism upon which you depend, our website is your destination for up-to-the-minute news, so make sure to bookmark leaderpost.com and sign up for our newsletters so we can keep you informed. Click here to subscribe.
Article content
