Mississauga weighs response to tall grass bylaw ruling

Mississauga reviews next steps after court strikes down tall grass bylaw rules

A Superior Court judge found parts of the city's weed and tall grass bylaw violated a resident's Charter right to free expression. City staff say they are still reviewing the ruling.

By Mississauga Voice Staff

January 14, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. · 2 min read

The City of Mississauga says it has not yet decided how to respond to a court ruling that struck down key parts of its bylaw on long grass and weeds, a decision that could change how the city deals with naturalized front yards.

Ontario Superior Court Justice Michael T. Doi released his decision on Jan. 6 in a case brought by Wolf Ruck, a 79-year-old resident who has spent years fighting the city over the wild garden in front of his home near Etobicoke Creek in the city's east end. The judge found that the sections of the Nuisance Weeds and Tall Grass Control By-law limiting grass to 20 centimetres and requiring owners to remove listed nuisance weeds infringed Ruck's freedom of expression under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and struck them down.

A garden as expression

Ruck, who moved to the property in 1973, began letting his grass grow past the limit in 2021, allowing wildflowers such as goldenrod to spread. The city hired contractors to cut the grass in 2022 and 2023 and added the cost to his property tax bill. CP24 reported the city charged $287.59 for the mowing.

In his ruling, Doi said he found no basis to exclude Ruck's unconventional gardening from Charter protection, describing it as a way of conveying his views on biodiversity and living alongside nature.

The provisions serve to restrict societal expression at a landowner's home.
— Justice Michael Doi, Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Ruck represented himself throughout the case. Under the judgment, the mowing fees are to be removed from his tax bill, INsauga.com reported.

What the city says

In a statement to INsauga.com this week, the city said staff were still studying the decision.

As the Superior Court of Justice ruling in the Ruck v. City of Mississauga case was issued very recently (Jan. 6), City staff are still reviewing the decision and considering next steps.
— City of Mississauga statement

In court, the city argued the bylaw was meant to address public health and safety risks and to set reasonable minimum property standards, while conceding that the provisions infringed Ruck's freedom of expression.

Wider implications

The Canadian Constitution Foundation, which intervened in Ruck's appeal, said the judge found the city had offered no evidence that it considered how to limit the impact on free expression when it passed the rules. The foundation's lawyer, John Mather, called it a significant decision for natural gardeners across Canada.