Friday, February 13th, 2009 ::: Law: Strategic Media Suit

Public Interest Represent!

In a major victory for the City of Toronto’s fight against illegal billboards, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has ruled that the City can remove illegal billboards while Strategic Media’s constitutional challenge to the City’s sign by-laws goes forward, and that the City’s actions are in the public interest because IllegalSigns.ca has “inundated” the City with sign complaints:

Because Strategic Media’s case against the City was brought for the purpose of delay — so they can earn revenue from their illegal billboards while their frivolous case drags through the courts — this represents a complete victory for Toronto.

Here are some highlights of the decision, which basically proves that being a pest really pays off:

• “The City has been inundated with complaints since 2006 from a public interest group regarding the proliferation of signs in Toronto’s downtown core. Moreover, in the process of harmonizing the various sign by-laws, the City received public input to the effect that there are too many signs and regulation of the City’s streetscape is inadequate. Thus, the City argues, there is evidence of actual public interest in this issue and harm to that interest if the injunction is granted.” Paragraph 33
• “While I can assume that the public interest favours compliance with the existing sign by-laws, there is also evidence of specific public interest in this case in the form of the complaints by a public interest group and the comments obtained by the City in the process of harmonizing its sign by-laws.” Paragraph 40
• “Mr. Daniel Pitoscia’s affidavit evidence was not convincing.” Paragraph 24
• The truth was on Strategic Media’s side, but Strategic Media didn’t tell the truth. Strategic Media claimed that it was complying with City by-laws until a few years ago, when it decided to build illegal billboards because the City’s permitting system was “confusing.” This is a questionable submission, as Strategic has always been quite dedicated to breaking the law; yet this submission hurt Strategic’s case as the court ruled that: “There was no evidence that the Applicant did not have a viable and profitable business until it ceased complying with the by-laws in issue.” Then the court decided that the removal of Strategic’s illegal signs would only represent “a short-term reduction in business” and would therefore not amount to “irreparable harm” (Paragraph 24) because “it is open to the Applicant to carry on its business in compliance with the legislation, as it did in the past.” (Paragraph 26). Yet every single sign depicted on StrategicMedia.ca is illegal. In truth, the removal of Strategic’s illegals would more or less kill the company and had the court known that, it may have decided in Strategic’s favour.
• Ironically, Strategic Media’s Pitoscia first claimed that enforcing the law against their billboards would result in the firm’s “bankruptcy.” He backtracked from this in a deposition. By backtracking, he hurt his case. Paragraphs 23 and 24.
• The Court was under the erroneous impression that Strategic’s breaking of the law only began one year ago. Paragraph 11. Yet both IllegalSigns.ca and the City have records of Strategic’s violations dating back several years. Had Strategic been willing to show that its business is almost entirely illegal, as it certainly is, it may have been able to show irreparable harm and may have won the injunction. It appears that Strategic’s too-clever lawyers shot themselves in the foot by arguing that their clients had a viable business before breaking the law; and the City’s lawyers, smartly, didn’t bother to object. Good thing the court doesn’t read IllegalSigns.ca.
• Knowing all the facts, we can only conclude that Stan “We Need an Ontario Municipal Board” Makuch bungled this case for his client big time.
• Strategic Media submitted that unless it can earn revenue from its signs, it will not be able to afford the legal fees for its charter challenge. See how perfect justice is for all concerned? Paragraph 28.

It is now up to the City to remove Strategic’s signs and put the worst billboard company back in court - bankruptcy court.

The Ontario Court of Appeal has no record of an appeal of the decision being filed. The decision is dated January 29, 2009, and Strategic has until the end of this month to file an appeal, if it can still afford Mr. OMB in these recessionary times.