On January 8 the City of Mississauga’s nuisance weed and Tall Grass Bylaw was ruled unconstitutional, a violation of Charter-protected expression via naturalized gardens.
This past Wednesday, the City voted to replace the nuisance weed bylaw with less restrictive legislation. Unlike the previous bylaw, which banned 25 plant species, this proposal prohibits ony five plants that the City says present clear health and safety risks.
See the new Mississauga bylaw here.
photo credit: Ray Hennesey
According to staff, this bylaw is a first step for future regulation of naturalized gardens in the City. This looks like the beginning of a long discussion between municipalities and proponents of naturalized gardens throughout the province.
A key element will be the 20-centimetre limit on turfgrass. It is defended as a simple, uniform way to prevent “neglect,” control pests and allergens, and maintain neighbourhood property values, but that rationale is increasingly being challenged. Critics argue that there is no evidence a fixed 20-centimentre limit is necessary to protect health or safety, that it suppresses ecologically valuable naturalized gardens and that it amounts to an aesthetic rule that infringes on residents’ freedom of expression in their own yards.
As this excellent article in The Pointer explains, a close-cropped lawn cannot transform into meadow grass if it must be constantly kept below 20 centimetres. Frequent cutting can aggravate pollen discharge, and fumes from lawn mowers and noise pollution from mowers and leaf blowers must be taken into account. In addition, although around 30 percent of the general population is affected by tree pollen allergens, trees are never cut down for health reasons.
Across Canada, cities are emerging as vital havens for birds, pollinators, and other wildlife, especially as natural areas outside municipal boundaries are degraded or lost. By allowing more naturalized yards, parks, and boulevards, municipalities can provide the diverse, layered habitat these species need to find food, shelter, and nesting sites. Those same wilder, less manicured spaces benefit people too, improving mental health, cooling neighbourhoods, managing stormwater, and connecting residents with everyday experiences of nature close to home.
The Mississauga example should be a wake-up call for Stratford, as we have a bylaw similar to their former unconstitutional one. And in an election year, this could be an opportunity for advocates of naturalized gardens.
Like its Missisauga counterpart, our bylaw here in Stratford relies on a fixed 20 cm height limit for “turf grass or weeds” and uses a broad reference to “noxious and local weeds” via the Weed Control Act, rather than a short, clearly defined hazardous-plant list. Also, our bylaws do not clearly distinguish between conventional turf grass and naturalized or native-plant gardens, and the requirement that landscaped areas be “maintained in good repair” is potentially subjective and aesthetics-based.
See the Stratford Maintenance and Occupancy Bylaw, here
Our bylaws are out of step with a modern understanding of biodiversity and climate resilience, and may also be on shaky constitutional ground if they punish residents for expressive landscaping choices that support pollinators and reduce emissions. The City now has a clear opportunity and an obligation to modernize our property standards so they target genuine health and safety risks, not the wildflowers in our front gardens.