Simulation 1:
To: TBL, Board of TBL and owners of the billboard
From: MMPA, S.D. Law Firm
Date: May 15, 2014
RE: Legal issues regard to the advertising billboard according to City By-Law #2014-982
FACTS:
§ A driver was distracted while driving because of an advertising billboard of FM105 at the intersection of Bay Street and Gardiner Expressway in Toronto and caused an accident
§ The driver claimed that the billboard was sexual and distracting, therefore it caused the accident. § The Council of the City of Toronto passed the Municipal By-law that prohibits the display of poster or billboard that exhibits partial nudity following this incident.
§ Subsequent to the passing of the By-law, Tafftt Broadcasting Limited (hereafter referred to as “TBL”) that operates FM105 was charged in a closed session, along with their CEO and two members of the Board of Directors.
§ The two members were randomly selected out of the 10 individuals that make up the
TBL Board at random and the lawyers for TBL and the Directors were not allowed to make oral or written submissions to the Council.
ISSUES:
1. Will the retroactive sentencing and application of the City By-law on this case appropriate under the law?
2. Is it fair that the two individuals that were charged were selected at random from a group of ten members?
3. How is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom (hereafter referred to as the
“Charter”) violated by the denial of oral or written submissions to the Council to defend their rights and present their case?
4. Does the newly passed By-law constitute a conflict with the Charter?
DISCUSSION
1. TBL built the poster prior to BY-LAW #2014-982 come to effect, however, the City of
Toronto charged the company on ground of newly made law against activity done prior to the establishing the by-law. The applicable legal rule here can be found in Charter under legal rights 11g:
a. 11g. Any person charged with an offence has the right not to be found guilty of on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or International law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations.
2. The implication being that an act or omission of act cannot be found guilty unless there had been Canadian law or international law set in place or the act or omission is criminal in nature. In this case, there had not been any law Canadian or international set in place at

the time when the billboard was constructed, and billboard advertisement is not criminal in nature, thus charging TBL is in violation of the charter.
3. In this case, two randomly selected individuals were charged with fine in TBL’s board of
10 people. The legal rule applicable here is under Charter 15.1:
a. 15.1: Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.
4. The implication here is that unless those two directors are trialed and found guilty while the rest are found innocent, the law should be applicable to all and all who are found guilty or innocent should receive equal treatment.
5. In this case, TBL was found guilty after a closed session of the Council, lawyers and directors were told the matter will be addressed by the Council at some future date, they were not allowed to make oral or written submissions to Council to defend their rights. The applicable legal rule is in the Charter 11b and 11d.
a. 11. Any person charged with an offence has the right
b. to be tried within a reasonable time;
c. to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;
6. The implication here is that TBL should be given the right to demand a trail under the
Charter, and