this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2025
353 points (99.7% liked)

Canada

10384 readers
922 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A Burlington homeowner is fighting charges over her “naturalized garden” of native plants in her front and back yards. The city is taking Karen Barnes to Provincial Offences Court, seeking up to $400,000 in fines for violating a bylaw order to cut it down.

Barnes is challenging the case on constitutional grounds, arguing her right to freedom of expression through gardening is protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

She says her garden supports pollinators, biodiversity and wildlife, reflecting her environmental and spiritual beliefs. She appeared for a pre-trial hearing on Wednesday and is scheduled for a two-day trial in November, according to her lawyer, Vilko Zbogar.

Zbogar says the case is about more than the fine. “Courts have recognized since at least 1996 that freedom of expression under the Charter protects natural gardens as expressions of profound environmental values,” he said. “For Karen, it’s also a spiritual exercise — tied to her creed and beliefs. This falls under Sections 2(a) and 2(b) of the Charter: freedom of conscience and religion and freedom of expression.”

Experts say naturalized gardens and meadows can attract far more pollinators than regularly mown lawns, while also using less water and improving soil health.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] k_rol@lemmy.ca 138 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (15 children)

Damn I hope they win against the city. The typical law has to die, it's ridiculously useless and detrimental to biodiversity.

Why should we have to maintain one type of plant which has problems surviving without lots of upkeep?

[–] 9488fcea02a9@sh.itjust.works 47 points 2 days ago (4 children)

The term "weed" is stupid. Arbitrarily deciding that certain native plants are undesirable is such a colonizer mindset

[–] Binzy_Boi@piefed.ca 13 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I think the term is fine if you approach it from an "invasive species" mindset rather than an "undesirable" mindset.

I don't know if it was intentionally done by my teachers, but that's the impression I always got about the term since it was usually brought up in the context of introduced species of plants causing harm to native species. Stuff like dandelions and such.

[–] Wolf@lemmy.today 6 points 2 days ago

I understand what you are saying, but growing up the term 'weed' was always used in the 'undesirable plants' sense and the term 'invasive species' is more accurate when you are discussing them specifically. When I first started gardening, the guy who trained me defined weeds as 'any plant the client doesn't want growing on their property'.

Stuff like dandelions and such.

Dandelions are a complex topic. While some consider them "Noxious Weeds", other people recognize their value as important sources of food for insects, they attract pollinators, and they also release ethylene which is a gas that encourages fruit setting and fruit ripening, so they are sometimes grown as 'companion plants'.

Dandelions are only weeds if you don't want them there, like any other 'weed'.

[–] DeathsEmbrace@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

This is the real problem. Where the fuck did you find a plant only native in South America?

[–] nyan@lemmy.cafe 12 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Mmh, I'd describe it more as self-centered in general, since there are plants the world over that get called weeds. "We don't see any value in this, therefore it should be eradicated in favour of things we can use."

[–] SreudianFlip@sh.itjust.works 13 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It’s also, in the simplest way, incompetent.

All those weeds provide some ecological service in some way. If you look at my yard and note it's covered in tall straggly white flowers, you could say weedy, and be right. I would clarify that wild carrots are helping convert our heavy clay soil into good tilth, and supporting a massive number of pollinators and pest predators.

And why would we put up with yellow dock going to seed everywhere? It’s the most nutritious chicken fodder, and it also gives tilth to heavy clay.

Don’t get me started about dandelion!!

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 points 2 days ago

there is even non-native plants that naturalized, but not invasive.

[–] HakFoo@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 2 days ago (2 children)

In favour of things which we have no use for as a status symbol.

[–] nyan@lemmy.cafe 5 points 2 days ago

Displaying a status symbol is a use—just a very poor one.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Your only comparing it to grass doesn’t help.

[–] Lemmyoutofhere@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 days ago (2 children)
[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 4 points 2 days ago

kudzu, ivy, and any vine plants. although kudzu is now being combatted with the weevil.

[–] ryan213@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago

F yeah, allergy brother/sister!

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 3 points 2 days ago

they usually use the term noxious weeds

[–] AlexLost@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago (2 children)

HOAs in general and all the bs that goes with it like this "law" are a thing of the past and don't reflect the current world we live in. Pristine manicured yards have caused problems across the globe for the underlying systems that keep the earth healthy and vibrant. We need to relearn how to live in the environments we find ourselves in, not cater them to our own self deluding fantasies of perfection.

[–] DerisionConsulting@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

HOAs aren't really a thing in Canada, she is being taken to court by the city.

[–] AlexLost@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago

I am aware, I was alluding to the whole idea of it, which the city has taken the role of in this case. I believe it is ridiculous beyond maintaining house size for sanity sake. I get there is building code for things, why is there garden code? Stay out of my yard!!

[–] Wolf@lemmy.today 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

HOAs are the invasive species

[–] DerisionConsulting@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago

It sounds like they are, but thankfully they haven't taken root in Canada.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 27 points 2 days ago

400,000 in fines? Fuck them. Even if I disagreed with her argument I would still agree with her for that alone. That's just obscene.

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 80 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

This is some fucked up NIMBY shit. Outlawing local natural wildlife is something few cities would dare to do. What an embarrassment to Burlington.

Karen is a hero.

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago

Meanwhile ... it's OK for the government of Ontario to sell off protected environmental habitats to mow it all down, dig it up and put up a luxury condo for a private enterprise to make money off while destroying irreplaceable natural habitat (irreplaceable during our lifetime or within several hundred years that is)

We should be encouraging people to plant and maintain wild habitat ... not cutting everything down to turn it all into your person living room. It's the outdoors that is shared with animals, not your personal property that looks like it has an ugly green throw rug. It's a natural habitat and no matter what ideas, laws, regulations or rules you want to create or invent, nature will always take over and grow over it all, no matter how entitled you feel you are to the piece of property you call your own.

I live in northern Ontario where it's hard to grow things. But I've adapted and now I grow a wild hedge of Caragana bushes (although not native, they are about the only thing that grow this strong in the northern cold environment)

I mowed down my ugly grass lawn to the dirt and planted clover and now my lawn is green all year long and I cut it only once or twice a year. Previously, I was cutting it every two weeks because of the tall overgrown grass and every month it would grow over with a huge bloom of dandelions, the lawn was literally yellow. As nice as the dandelions are, they only last about two weeks, then turn into the puff balls that leave behind an ugly lawn with headless flowers and tall grass. Clover grows low to the ground and never gets high, plus its a nitrogen fixer which means it actually feeds the lawn over time on its own, growing more clover with deeper roots making them all stronger.

This is also the second year I've grown a wild flower garden and this August was the first major bloom I've had. Beautiful flowers that are just starting to die off now. I'll be planting more this fall and hoping for more in years to come.

Honestly, the lawn used to look like an abandoned lot before with overgrown grass and dandelion crops. Now it actually has colour, I don't have to do much to take care of it and it actually has life, colour and interest to it all. And I don't do a thing other than to let everything grow on their own.

Compare that to my next door neighbour who keeps a manicured lawn. His lawn is like a carpet with grass 3" tall evenly cut across his small plot. He contracts lawn specialists to cut, trim, aerate, thatch and fertilize his lawn at least four times a year. He spot fertilizes any foreign flower, dandelion or plant that appears anywhere. I'm sure it costs him a fortune to maintain it all .... compared to mine where I spent some money and work up front but don't spend much on maintenance annually, other than to mow the lawn once or twice a year.

[–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 46 points 2 days ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 day ago

Only question I would have is which path is she stood on in that picture? If that is a public footpath then there might be an argument that she should cut the edge back a little. Otherwise: The bees are happy, leave her alone.

[–] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 25 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Wonder how much this fruitless battle is costing taxpayers.

[–] Lyrl@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Unfortunately many tax payers will support it, because non-standard property appearance drags down property values. Or people just get their panties twisted by stuff. Some of my city's aldermen are trying to make it illegal to grow corn (technically "vegetable gardens over six feet tall") in city limits because they have gotten so many complaints from neighbors. Having a food plant visible near a residence? The horror!

[–] Mpatch@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Corn is a garbage crop to grow at home. The height thing is kina dumb, because they probably wouldn't bat an eye about sunflowers and roses up on a trellis. But corn basically robs all the nutrients in the gardens soil incredibly fast, starving the other crops. Also as produce corn is the cheapest and most abundant staple and to grow a some what substantial amount you gota give up a significant portion of your garden.

[–] Lyrl@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 days ago

There is a house a few blocks from me that, due to the shape of their property, has no backyard, it's all front. They have maybe fifteen young chestnut trees (bloomed for the first time this spring, but don't seem to have set), hazelnut bushes between all the trees, and maybe a ten foot by six foot bed of corn. I think other stuff, too, but those are the eye catching things.

I have no idea what they think they are going to do with all those nuts once the trees and bushes start producing, or whether they are growing some interesting variety of corn or just find it entertaining to grow a supermarket variety themselves, but it's their property and I feel like they should be able to do what they want (garbage crops included) without the city getting up in their business.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 19 points 2 days ago

Only slightly less than the 400,000 they’re seeking in “damages” ffs.

People need to get ousted for allowing this insanity

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 11 points 2 days ago

This has to be the most inane thing I've heard this week.

load more comments
view more: next ›