This situation poses the following issues:

1. The case relates to a matter of enforceability of law, to be more exact a public law.

2. In the process of developing an answer to the case, we need to consider the factor of

preliminary issues, which need to be dealt with before the main issue is addressed. In this

case one preliminary issue, may be considered the following: is the cousin Louie

employed or not by the owner of the deli shop.

3. The specific legal problems are the following:

- Does the city of Newille have any authority of enacting any law in this area?

- Also, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms must be considered if any violations are against the owner and to which extent to the cousin.

- Is the competition law violated?

Since the case relates to a matter of enforceability of a public law, we need to start from

the very bottom. The municipal governments obtain their power to enact bylaws through

the Municipal Government Act. The first issue that must be addressed is, if the city of

Newille has any authority to enact a bylaw in regards to advertising in a manner contrary

to public safety. The authority that the Provincial Government delegates to the Municipal

Government gives a wide variety of power to control local matters by the way of bylaw.

The law presented in the Sections 91/92 of the Constitution Act 1867, divide the

authority to legislate between the federal and provincial governments. Since the issue

addresses a local matter, it is likely that the city of Newille is able to make this kind of

bylaw. The preliminary issue present in this case is that there is no statement from what

will result that the cousin is a legitimate employee of the deli shop. Therefore it rises

couples of issues, such as, for one, if the cousin is employed by the deli shop, if he gets

charged, then the owner of the deli shop will be charged under the bylaw 123A.

Secondly if the cousin is not employed by the deli shop, if he gets charged, he and only is

responsible for the charge, the downside is that the owner is not getting charged, and the

cousin may take legal actions against the owner of the deli shop, since probably the

owner was aware of the bylaw 123A and did not inform the cousin.

Generally speaking, competition is vital for any business, regardless of its area. It

promotes new ideas, products and services. The Competition Act, c-34 purpose is to

maintain and encourage competition in Canada “in order to ensure that small and

medium-sized enterprises have an equitable opportunity to participate in the Canadian

economy and in order to provide consumers with competitive prices and product

choices.” By the bylaw 123 the Competition Act is violated therefore the owner can make

reference to it, and argue it in court. Also, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has to be

considered in this case, because the owner, based on what the bylaw 123A states, will

not be allowed to express himself, for business’s purposes therefore the fundamental

freedoms are violated; also the mobility rights must be considered, in which Section 6

#2(b), states that the pursue to gain a livelihood is valid for every citizen of Canada,

going against the bylaw 123A.By definition livelihood is “means of obtaining

the necessities of life”, to go further in, the word necessity, by definition is “…

2. something essential. 3 a situation that requires a particular course of action”. The point

here is that, through mobility rights under Section 6 #2(b) from its definition, the owner

will be incapable of obtaining the necessity of life – which his deli shop is providing him

with the means of life – and by necessity, which for the owner is advertising, the

Competition Act is violated; now the only arguable part left is, whether if the owner’s

choice of the necessity – which in this case is to choose somebody, dressed in a food

product to attract customers – is necessary the way he chooses to.

Consequently the owner would probably be successful in challenging this law in court.

Although the city of Newille is acting within its delegated authority in enacting this

bylaw, the bylaw though violates the Competition Act c-34, as well as the mobility rights

Section 6 #2(b), and the fundamental freedoms under the Charter of Rights and

Freedoms.