Fairest action

It’s said there’s an exception to every rule—except when it comes to a municipal bylaw.
One certainly can feel for Marie and Lynwood Anderson, who had sought—and received—permission from the town last winter to erect a fence to protect their Sixth Street East property from damage being caused by munching deer.
It was meant to be a temporary measure, but the couple then asked council in May to be allowed to keep it up because, as everyone is well aware, the deer problem has not gone away. It’s as bad as ever, if not worse (a deer was spotted wandering down First Street West behind Subway in broad daylight just early yesterday evening).
After much debate, council decided at its June 22 meeting that, in fact, the deer fence violated Bylaw 13/01 and so had to come down.
Needless to say, the Andersons weren’t thrilled with the decision and now are planning to take their case up with the Human Rights Tribunal, arguing their right to protect their property from damage and other dangers, such as Lyme disease, supersedes any municipal bylaw.
In the meantime, by denying the Andersons their fence, the town rightfully is forced to make sure every other property in Fort Frances is compliant with the bylaw, including any fences, hedges, shrubs, or trees.
The town really has little choice on the matter. First, it’s a safety issue, particularly if it involves blocking line of sight at intersections (which, in turn, falls under the Highway Traffic Act and even over-rules the so-called “grandfather” clause affecting those fences and hedges/trees that were built/planted prior to passage of the bylaw in 2001).
Secondly, the town cannot compel one person to abide by the bylaw while allowing others to be non-compliant.
What applies to one must apply to all. It’s the only way to be fair—and the only way to prevent one exception from setting a precedent that opens the door to a flood of others.