Changes may be coming to local government public notices

After several centuries of top-down requirements, the proposed changes mark one of the few spaces where local governments will be able to customize local rules that best suit their context.

By Jennifer Wolowic and Jasmin Senghera

The announcement on October 27, 2021 to propose updates to public notice requirements in the Community Charter is an example of governance updating to the times.

During the Development Approval Process Review (DAPR) (2018), the Ministry of Municipal Affairs heard there was “significant interest in and high importance placed on increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the public input process” and the requirement to post in the newspaper was a barrier. “The North placed specific importance on replacing advertising requirements with more modern methods.”

Thus the second post in our special series is dedicated to this proposed change. Public notice has also been core to the evolution of public hearings and common law duty of procedural fairness. We take you through where they came from, what values are embedded and what opportunities and limitations are ahead.

What might be changing?

The biggest impact of the proposed change will be a shift from provincial standards to local customization. Basically, local governments would be able to pick what communication format they will use to share a notice with residents, rather than being required to use newspapers.

The Bill proposes the following addition to the Community Charter and then edits other sections to make both the LGA and the Charter consistent with these changes.

The addition put some specific requirements on the choices that local governments can make, while also allowing municipalities to continue to use newspapers. The change also allows the Minister to make further recommendations.

Duty of Procedural Fairness

Common law duty of procedural fairness was not a term we knew existed until we started exploring public hearings. It came up early and often in our research and conversations. The principles dictate much of the current experiences, procedures and requirements of public hearings.

Current rezoning public hearings are legislated to be quasi-judicial spaces. Council members are supposed to preside in an unbiased manner like judges of a court. All sides must be given all the information they need to provide input. Everyone who believes they will be affected by the decision has a right to be heard. Council and chair must remain neutral throughout the experience. If they fail in their duty, the city can be sued and decisions reversed.

Cities do not get sued because they approve density. They get sued when a plaintiff believes the city did something wrong in the procedures that led up to a decision to densify. It might be an accusation that the city forgot to post in a newspaper, did not release the notice within legislated time frames, did not give the public all the reports related to a development, or if the statements made by council prior to hearing showed they had already made up their mind. Any of these could send the city to court.

You won’t find procedural fairness steps and processes in the Local Government Act itself, but some details, like the current and proposed changes about public notices, are legislated. Instead most of these procedures are embedded in common law (the precedents created by the outcome of court cases).

We've learned from lawyers, that among land-use decisions and public hearings, “There is no shortage of cases in which seemingly innocuous breaches” of procedures have caused council decisions to be overturned by the courts (Bradley and Patterson, 2020). So these procedures do matter.

But it is also important to note that statutory law– what is named in bylaws, and provincial acts– takes precedent over the common law. Thus if these proposed changes are approved, judges will look to the updated Community Charter and local bylaws to assess any future accusations of procedural fairness violations. This is why this update may impact future land use decisions.

If approved and municipalities decide to create bylaws for alternative means of public notice publications, they will have to be clear about their procedures and chosen means of publication. Residents have a right to fully understand how municipalities will continue to fulfill their duty to inform residents as part of procedural fairness and the courts will protect those rights. Municipalities will also have to be careful to select forms of communication are clear and easy to access for all community members.

Municipal outreach must also be mindful that any future bylaw should ensure all residents, who feel they are affected by a decision, have access to the information they need. The courts have ruled that this information must be clear, and accessible so that residents have enough information to decide if they want to participate in the process and can access the details of proposals. Any future bylaws for public notices must meet the public's right to know.

Right to Know

The right to know is not only part of procedural fairness, but an increasingly core democratic value.

In the 20th century, “Visibility and disclosure have become part of our lives, expectations, and instinct; their erosion or retrenchment today would evoke a sense of loss, of injustice, of outrage” (Schudson, 2015, 13). The public insists on government transparency and accountability. Being able to know what is coming up in a city’s decision-making schedule is part of the public’s expectations.

Municipalities want to meet these expectations and that is why local governments recommended changes to the newspaper requirements in the DAPR process. It is also why municipalities already go above and beyond the legislated minimum requirements and use social media, translate notices into multiple languages, use websites and other means in addition to newspapers.

If the changes are approved, municipalities and regional districts will also have to make sure the communication formats they choose allow for enough and the right information to easily reach residents. “In other words, does the notice provide sufficient information to allow members of the public to fairly consider whether to exercise their right to be heard; a fundamental requirement of procedural fairness” (Bradley and Patterson, 2020).

In addition to the format, the language used is increasingly important. Case law such as a 1982 decision (Peterson v. Whistler (Resort Municipality)) has ruled that postings need to be clear and understandable as well as available. Signs and postings need to avoid technical jargon.

Time will tell if this case law expands to include rulings related to local languages used in the community. While French and English are Canada’s official languages in statutory law, equitable public engagement will need to go beyond that. In our increasingly multi-language communities, these notices will need to be in several languages to provide equitable access and meet the expectations of the public’s right to know.

Final Thoughts: What's the city versus the individual's responsibility?

Prescribing local formats and continuing to reflect on and improve equitable communication are ways that local governments can step up to meet the democratic expectations embedded in simple rules about public notices.

Individuals also needs to remember, our governments can only do so much.

In the 19th century, being informed meant residents had to walk past and stop to read a notice on a door in town. In the 20th century being informed meant taking the time to read the post in the newspaper. The 21st century will require residents to choose to follow the right information channels and pause from their endless scrolling to absorb the information cities are publishing.

Residents have to recognize their role in staying informed of land use decisions and upcoming public hearings. Residents have a civic responsibility to stop and read notices in order for the duty of procedural fairness to function well.

Local governments are often accused of not notifying residents. In the 1965 Wiswell v Winnipeg case, the absence of a sign on a property– even though notices were posted in the newspaper– was enough for a local homeowner’s association to take the City to court and win. A more recent example is the Westside residents of Vancouver who say “the city has been deficient in its notification and consultation process.”

Local governments are required to create opportunities for the public to encounter information that will help people decide if they want to get more involved in an issue. Cities are required to take the time to write and post notices. Failure to meet these expectations results in court battles over procedural fairness.

But our liberal democracy places no requirements on citizens to take the time to read the newspaper or stop to read a sign on a street. Collectively, we are less unified on what level of civic participation is expected of residents so that they are informed.

Thus as we look across the history and values embedded in the proposed update to our Community Charter, we can see the proposed changes may make it easier to reach residents, but it will only succeed in removing barriers and adding equity if individuals make a choice to take the time to be informed.

More than that, these proposed changes inspire us to think about the other factors involved in people’s right to know. What equitable communication methods can be used across communities? Which multi-language and multi-media channels are best used to reach communities that are often siloed? What procedures can narrow the gap between cities and residents? What is the individual’s responsibility to seek information on issues they care about or affect them?

Now that the province is proposing prioritizing local contexts for defining the means of public notices, municipalities have an opportunity to engage with their communities to shape future procedures. They will need to carefully consider how to navigate procedural fairness with these new means of communication. Our hope is that municipalities consult with communities that are often left out or misrepresented in public hearings to inform future bylaws so that they will succeed in meeting 21st-century expectations for procedural fairness and the right to know.