Wednesday, January 23rd, 2008 ::: Law: Titan Lawsuit

Titan Outdoor has sued the City of Toronto over fascia signs on mural permits.

Titan Outdoor seeks declaratory relief from the Ontario Superior Court that operating vinyl fascia signs on permits that specify that the sign must be “painted directly on the building” is legal. Titan claims that the Building Code Act does not regulate signs subject to municipal approval. It accuses the City, a “major player in the outdoor advertising industry,” of unfairly using “regulatory power over competitor outdoor marketers.” Titan claims that requiring a sign to be painted if it is located within 60 metres of another third party sign is an unjustifiable infringement on its rights of Freedom of Expression under the Charter, which gives the company the right to use vinyl, because louche signs, printed by computers on toxic vinyl, depicting half naked women on the side of buildings, are what Pierre Trudeau had in mind.

As readers of this blog are keenly aware, Toronto’s signs by-law strictly regulates the location and size of vinyl billboards, including specifying that vinyl signs can’t be located within 60 metres of other billboards. Painted billboards on the other hand can be put within 60 metres of other billboards. Titan Outdoor and its competitors have been obtaining permits for painted signs then erecting vinyl signs. Since the early 1990s, Building Inspectors and Municipal Standards Officers allowed these illegal vinyl signs to proliferate, often pretending that they were legal. After IllegalSigns.ca started filing complaints against these signs, including virtually every sign which is the subject of Titan’s suit, officers continued to ignore the signs and informed us they were legal. Only after this web site went public with a press release did City officials begin to take action against vinyl signs on mural permits. This lawsuit is the result of that action, the result of this web site. This lawsuit it is what an industry does to protect its sunk costs after making reasonable business decisions to invest millions of dollars in legally worthless permits under the protection of the haplessness of a bureaucracy whose haplessness it can still rely upon, but can’t quite take the bank anymore.

Unfortunately, Titan Outdoor’s solicitor, Christopher J. Williams is very good. In fact, we attempted to retain him. “Sorry, we have a conflict of interest.” No kidding. On the other hand, he is pursuing a risky strategy and, no doubt due to his client’s error, he has submitted false information to the court by claiming that two fascia permits that were revoked for false information were mural permits revoked for non-construction. He then asks the court to nullify these revocations on the basis that signs were constructed. Mr. Williams, your client is making you look very sloppy. You deserve a better client than Titan Outdoor. Here is Titan’s “Application Record”:

This is the schedule of events. The City’s Responding Application Record is scheduled before February 22, 2008.

Torontoist’s legal analyst has written about the lawsuit and the Globe’s Jennifer Lewington has written a piece on it as well

Read Christopher Williams’ “Signs and the Building Code Act, 1992″ printed in the December 1996 Journal of the Ontario Building Officials Association. In 1996 Mr. Williams predicted much of the issues he has brought forward today.

And now read Barnet Kussner’s Sign, Sign, Everywhere a Sign: Limiting Signage by Writing By-laws that Withstand Freedom of Expression Challenges and Other Constraints Kussner is currently once again defending the Town of Oakville’s signs by-law.