Busted for Leaving the Leaves

Emily Noel reached out to me a few years ago with a question about some native woodland plants that were struggling in her shade garden. I suggested amending the soil with compost and mimicking a forest floor by adding dead leaves to the bed and replenishing them every year. I encouraged her whole-heartedly in this soil-boosting and pollinator-friendly practice, and, as far as I knew, that was the end of it.

Little did I expect that Emily could be busted for following my advice.

Emily lives in Oshawa, and has been gardening for about five years in the front yard, back yard, and boulevard. She’s included many native plants in her garden (golden Alexanders, prairie smoke, eastern wild columbine, Virginia mountain mint, little bluestem, tufted hair grass, among others) along with non-natives she hoped would make the neighbours happy and appease any concerns they might have.

Despite Emily’s efforts, and some neighbours telling her they love her flowers, someone complained about the leaves in her garden. In Oshawa, leaves are explicitly included in the bylaw definition of “waste” and must be removed.

The “offending” leaves in Emily’s boulevard garden. (Photo courtesy of Emily Noel)

When a bylaw officer showed up a few weeks ago to warn Emily that there had been a complaint and to inspect her garden, Emily was armed with print-outs. (A neighbour had been yelling at Emily about her leaves, so she was anticipating some trouble.) Oshawa is a “Bee City” and so Emily showed the officer the text where Bee City recommends leaving the leaves as crucial pollinator habitat. Indeed, in Oshawa’s 2021 report to Bee City, the municipality notes that “The biggest challenge is shifting the perspective of citizens from a mindset that considers lawns or parks with weeds as undesirable, or un-raked lawns over winter as unsightly.” In the report, the City then commits to promoting “a paradigm shift in public attitude.” Apparently, the bylaw department didn’t get the memo.

Emily also showed him a print-out from the City’s website. In a section called “What you can do for pollinators,” it says “Leave…leaves, dry stems and dead branches to create habitat.” Emily pointed out that she was following the City’s own advice.

(Photo courtesy of Emily Noel)

None of that mattered, according to the officer. The bylaw is clear. Leaves are waste that must be removed.

He agreed to speak with his supervisor. First, though, he asked Emily if she’d consider removing the leaves, and Emily responded with an emphatic “NO.”

One can only guess what the Supervisor said, but another bylaw officer arrived several days later, again to discuss removing the leaves. The meeting did not go well, says Emily.

Although the bylaw officers were focused on the leaves as an infraction, Emily is also in contravention of a clause in Oshawa’s boulevard bylaw. This bylaw allows plants other than turfgrass on the boulevard, as long as the vegetation doesn’t exceed 3ft in height; Emily’s low-growing plants don’t exceed that height limit. But the bylaw also requires that boulevard plantings be set back 2ft from the sidewalk and 4ft from the road curb, essentially disallowing any landscaping on boulevards that are narrower than 6ft, as most are. Emily’s boulevard is wider than that, but her planting does not include a setback.

(Photo courtesy of Emily Noel)

Some people might be intimidated or unprepared to spend the time and effort, and emotional resources, required to fight bad bylaws that cause harm when you’re doing good. Not Emily. She’s spent years as a volunteer working to green Oshawa. She’s a David Suzuki Foundation Butterflyway Ranger and has done training on habitat creation. She sat on the Oshawa Environmental Advisory Committee and wrote a critique of the City’s boulevard policies, making recommendations to enable plantings other than turfgrass in these quasi-public spaces the adjacent resident is required to maintain. And now she’s leading an effort to reform Oshawa’s property standards bylaws.

And do Oshawa’s bylaws ever need reforming! Both the Lot Maintenance bylaw and the Property Standards bylaw prohibit having nurse logs, brush piles, leaves, and garden clippings (no “Chelsea Chop” allowed here!) in the yard. Not only are these pollinator-supporting and soil-building practices outlawed, but the Property Standards bylaw also mandates that your garden must be maintained with “a good appearance” and be “in harmony with the neighboring environment.” It must also be “clean and tidy.”

Oshawa’s bylaw requires that your landscape be “in harmony with the neighboring environment.” In Emily’s case, that means lawns. (Photo courtesy of Emily Noel)

Such vague terminology, open to subjective interpretation, has already been ruled “unenforceable” by the Ontario Court of Justice in the Sandy Bell decision decades ago. Unfortunately, Oshawa is not alone in keeping an unconstitutional bylaw on the books and in enforcing it, too.

It’s only when people stand up and fight back, or work proactively with their municipalities to change these bad bylaws, that habitat gardens will be safe from arbitrary enforcement.

If the City of Oshawa doesn’t back down, Emily is prepared to fight this. (She meant it when she said “NO” to removing the leaves.) Emily is hoping to work collaboratively with the City to amend the bylaws in support of pollinators. If it comes to a legal fight, though, she’ll start a GoFundMe.

(Photo courtesy of Emily Noel)

In the meantime, please help to reform these bad bylaws and enforcement practices across the country by clicking on the David Suzuki Foundation Action Alert below. This is one simple and immediately do-able way to let your municipality know that you support habitat gardens and you want bylaws and enforcement practices that support, rather than punish, them.

Supporting Bylaw Reform: Fighting Back Against Unfounded Complaints

The growing season has barely even begun, and already I’m hearing from native plant gardeners who are receiving Notices of Violation from their municipalities because of their habitat gardens. The good news is that people are starting to fight back—both individually and in groups organizing to urge for the reform of outdated and anti-ecological “grass and weeds” bylaws in their communities.

For groups starting to organize on this issue, there are some great resources and advocacy materials available. The national campaign for bylaw reform is a good place to start.

The Ecological Design Lab at Toronto Metropolitan University has loads of useful materials on Bylaws for Biodiversity.

My blog, under the Tag Grass and Weeds Bylaws has links and information and stories of people fighting back.

This native plant habitat gardener has rallied community support to advocate for change. (Photo courtesy of Brenna Lattimore)

And for anyone who has received an unfounded Notice of Violation, post your experience on social media if you are able to. Feel free to reach out to me via the contact button on my website if you’d like support.

And for anyone considering advocating for change to your municipality’s “grass and weeds” bylaw, here is a link to a very helpful document that lists “Key Features of Biodiversity-Supporting Bylaws.” Many municipalities don’t follow the practices outlined in this document, but change is only going to happen if we all start advocating for bylaw reform. This “Key Features” document provides guideposts for where municipalities can and should be with “grass and weeds” bylaws that support habitat gardens! Please consider using this checklist when advocating for bylaw reform in your municipality.

A Court Challenge to Mississauga's Grass and Weeds Bylaw

A significant victory today in the legal effort to reform grass and weeds bylaws and to bring sanity to enforcement of these bylaws.

Wolf Ruck of Mississauga was in the Ontario Court of Appeal today, arguing that Mississauga’s enforcement actions against his naturalized garden—including two complete mowings of his yard—were unjustified, arbitrary, and unfair under Administrative law.

Wolf Ruck’s naturalized front yard, in Mississauga, in June 2023. Wolf maintains his naturalization with mown paths and borders.

Because Wolf’s case raised Constitutional issues, the three appeal court judges basically sent Wolf’s case back to the Ontario Superior Court for a new hearing that includes Charter arguments. It was great to hear the three judges suggest that, for Wolf’s Charter rights to a natural garden to be infringed, the onus was on the City of Mississauga to prove that Wolf’s naturalization presented such danger that his Charter right to express his environmental beliefs through a naturalized garden could be infringed. Good luck with that. Wolf’s case will put municipalities across the country on notice.

Wolf’s naturalized yard in late October, 2024. The City of Mississauga mowed it down shortly after this photo was taken.

Specific municipalities' property standards bylaws: critiques and recommendations

For many years and for different reasons, I’ve been writing critiques of (and recommending changes to) various municipalities’ property standards/grass and weeds bylaws. Sometimes it’s to support a community group that’s interested in advocating for bylaw change. Sometimes it’s for staff and/or Councillors in various municipalities who have expressed an interest. And sometimes it’s just to gather my thoughts into a format that might be useful, somewhere, somehow, sometime.

As part of the national campaign for bylaw reform I’m involved in (with the Canadian Society of Landscape Architects, Canadian Wildlife Federation, David Suzuki Foundation, and Ecological Design Lab), I’ve decided to post these critiques of specific bylaws in specific municipalities (Ottawa, Burlington, Hamilton, Kingston, Mississauga).

Keep in mind that these critiques were written for various audiences. I hope they provide useful guidance for municipalities and community groups interested in working to reform property standards/grass and weeds bylaws in support of biodiversity and naturalized yards and gardens in their cities and towns.