Thursday, May 8th, 2008 ::: Law: Titan Lawsuit
1 comment

Here it is [PDF]:

Now as readers of this blog are keenly aware, Jorg Cieslok’s Titan Outdoor is suing the City of Toronto, arguing that Titan has the right to operate vinyl billboards under permits that specify that the signs must be hand painted by an artist. As you know, permits for painted signs are very easy to obtain. Permits for vinyl signs aren’t. There are about 150 illegal vinyl billboards in Toronto operating under permits that allow painted signs. The permits were issued over the past 15 years, then never inspected by the Buildings Department after vinyl signs were built.

It is a stunning affidavit. Toronto’s Acting Manger of Midtown Community Planning shows how Jorg Cieslok of Titan Outdoor has been operating these illegal vinyl fascia signs for fifteen years.

The affidavit also indicates that Titan Outdoor repeatedly lied to Toronto and East York Community Council regarding the history of its use of vinyl on walls; that it repeatedly lied when it told City Councillors that vinyl signage is a recent development in the outdoor advertising industry that has caused the City’s 1994 signs by-law to be “out of date.” Turns out that the 1994 by-law was written to explicitly prohibit the proliferation of Titan’s vinyl signs and that Titan Outdoor’s entire Toronto portfolio in 1993 consisted of illegal vinyl fascia signs.

Let’s take a look at the affidavit, Paragraph 3:

In drafting the provisions of Chapter 297, the City considered but expressly rejected any suggestion that vinyl signs affixed to the walls of buildings are the same as or ought to be treated in the same manner as mural signs painted directly on the wall. This position was taken with the full participation and knowledge of representatives of the sign industry at the time, including Mr. Cieslok.

Now in Paragraph 10, Bain destroys Cieslok:

At the Committee meeting of June 2, 1993, both Michael Chesney of Murad and Jorg Cieslok of Cieslok Outdoor gave presentations respecting their products. Mr. Chesney was still producing some murals that were painted directly onto walls by artists who were standing on cherry-picker supports or scaffolding, and the Committee viewed pictures of a mural painted on the wall of a building on Yonge Street promoting the movie “Batman”. However, both Mr. Chesney and Mr. Cieslok stated that a majority of their signs were no longer directly painted on walls they advised that the majority of their signs were printed by computer on vinyl material, stretched or framed in a shop, and then brought to the site and affixed to the wall. This illustrates that at the time the content of the 1994 sign by-law was under discussion, the use of vinyl was already commonplace and readily used by Mr. Cieslok’s company. The use of stretched vinyl banners was specifically considered by the City and the sign industry in the creation of By-law 1994-0337. Contrary to that stated in Mr. Cieslok’s affidavit, the use of vinyl does not in any way represent an advance in technology that has rendered the provisions of Chapter 297 outdated.

Paragraph 12:

The Committee treated murals painted directly on walls as an exceptional form of sign. Because of the high cost of production of directly painted mural signs, noted in paragraph 30(b) of Mr. Cieslok’s affidavit, such signs would not be plentiful. City staff and the Committee regarded these murals as a form of temporary public art that would enliven the streetscape, create in open air studio for the public, and provide employment for artists.

Paragraph 14:

Because painted murals were expensive to create, relatively rare and more temporary in nature, City staff and the majority of sign industry representatives agreed at the meeting of June 2, 1993 that murals could be 10 times larger in size (specifically, up to a maximum of 250M2 than manufactured fascia signs, roof signs or ground signs in a mixed commercial-residential area and would not be subject to the separation of signs requirements. In contrast, a fascia sign for third party advertising in a mixed commercial-residential area (namely, a manufactured sign affixed to the wall of a building would only be permitted to a maximum size of 25M2 in area (Section 10.D.5) of By-law 1994-337) and would have to be located a minimum distance of 60 metres from other fascia signs, ground signs or roof signs (Section 10.F.2 of By-law 1994-0337).The majority of sign industry representatives and City staff on the Committee regarded mural signs painted directly upon buildings as a special case such that they would not and ought not be subject to the same restrictions as the manufactured vinyl or paper based signs that most outdoor advertising firms were erecting.

Let’s take a look at the Committee meeting of June 2, 1993, where “both Michael Chesney of Murad and Jorg Cieslok of Cieslok Outdoor gave presentations respecting their products.”

This is the presentation Jorg Cieslok of Titan Outdoor gave the committee on June 2, 1993, when he said that the majority of his signs are no longer directly painted on walls, but are made of computer-printed vinyl. He called his product GiGANTIQUE:

All of the signs Cieslok showed in that presentation were completely illegal in June 1993. His first slide was of an illegal vinyl wall sign at 260 Spadina Avenue:

This sign was legalized after Bain’s department wrote this staff report recommending approval, which we wrote about in this post. While Council approved the sign in February 1992, it wasn’t until early 1994 that the permit was issued due to Building Code issues. Note that the development of the abutting lot has caused Astral to remove and replace the sign, a job that was done without a permit.

The next slide that Cieslok showed was his illegal sign at 81 Peter Street:

Again, that sign was illegal when Cieslok showed it to Bain and the Committee in 1993. A permit was not issued for this sign until May 1995. It was able to be legalized after City Council liberalize rules for fascia signs in industrial districts.

Another sign that Cieslok showed the Committee was his illegal sign at 243 Eglinton Avenue West:

Illegal in 1992, it was not legalized until Planning recommended a variance in 1996. Murad Communications, too, gave a presentation showing its illegal vinyl signs.

At the next meeting of the committee, June 15, 1993, they talked some more about the differences between murals and vinyl fascia signs. Here are the complete minutes, and an excerpt:

Then:

So we know that Jorg Cieslok lied to Toronto and East York Community Council when he repeatedly told the Councillors that his vinyl signs represent a change in technology that was not taken into account in the signs by-law. We suspect, in fact, that Cieslok committed perjury in his affidavit. Bain states in Paragraph 22:

Accordingly, contrary to that stated in Mr. Cieslok’s affidavit, vinyl signs are not and can not be described as an advance in technology unanticipated at the time. Vinyl signs were considered by both the Committee and City Council to be just another type of fascia sign such that there was no reason to accord them any preferential or differential treatment from that accorded to other fascia signs. As indicated above, it had been determined that there was no basis for granting such signs special permissions for additional size or relief from distancing provisions from other fascia, roof or ground signs. Mr. Cieslok was an active participant in the Committee and was well aware of this.

But that’s OK because we don’t expect advertising companies to tell the truth.

Over past fifteen years, outdoor advertising companies have been applying for variances to legalize fascia signs on mural permits.

In March 1995, Murad Communications applied to Mr. Bain’s department to legalize an illegal fascia sign on a mural permit at 409 King Street West.

In July 1994, Murad Communications applied to Mr. Bain’s department to legalize an illegal fascia sign on a mural permit at 174 Spadina Avenue.

In June 16, 1998, Cieslok Outdoor applied to Mr. Bain’s department to legalize an illegal fascia sign on a mural permit at 199 Richmond Street West.

In September 2000, Mediacom applied to Mr. Bain’s department to legalize an illegal fascia sign on a mural permit a 342 Dupont Street.

And the best: In March 2000, Mediacom applied to Mr. Bain’s department to legalize an illegal fascia sign on a mural permit at 819 Yonge Street. And after City Council rejected this variance it asked the Planning Department to report on “eliminating such signs as the one presently located at 819 Yonge Street.”

That’s about one tenth of the applications made to Planning to legalize illegal fascia signs on mural permits.

All those illegal signs for which City Council rejected the variances are still there.

Then in 2005, City Council passed the following motion (in minute 7.19 of this document) :

On motion by Councillor Chow, the Toronto and East York Community Council recommended that City Council:

direct the Executive Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards to enforce Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code and remove any illegally placed signs in the Toronto East York Community Council area as soon as possible, and

request the Executive Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards to report to Toronto and East York Community Council on November 15, 2005 regarding the number of illegal signs that have been removed, and provide recommendations on measures and sanctions to deter illegal signs, such as increasing fines and imposing a shorter period of notification for removal of illegal signs.

Of course, after City Council adopted that motion, Municipal Licensing and Standards sent Officer Danny Baird to inspect over 150 illegal vinyl fascia signs in the downtown area; he determined that they were “legal” because they were operating under a mural permit. You can read about that here.