A Canadian woman's decade-long dedication to creating a wildlife haven in her garden has escalated into a high-stakes legal battle with her local council, centring on unconventional religious beliefs and property laws.
A Garden of Faith and Flora
Karen Barnes, a resident of Burlington in the Greater Toronto Area, has spent the last ten years cultivating a naturalised garden across her property. Her method involves spreading wildflower seeds, allowing native species to flourish, and notably avoiding mowing. This approach is designed to attract and support wildlife, particularly the endangered monarch butterfly, which relies on the aster flowers and milkweed she nurtures.
Central to the dispute are Barnes's deeply held animist beliefs. In an affidavit submitted to the court, she explained that her religion recognises 'personhood' in all forms of life. Consequently, she views traditional lawn maintenance as an act of violence. "As I started to implement the natural garden, I formed relationships with the plants who grew there, and felt that it would be sacrilegious to harm them," her statement read.
Council Bylaws vs. Religious Expression
The City of Burlington has bylaws requiring property owners to cut any vegetative growth exceeding 20 centimetres in height. After years of complaints from neighbours and numerous visits from officials, the council has taken firm action. Authorities have forcibly mowed Barnes's garden on two occasions and, following a decade of non-compliance, have issued her with fines totalling $400,000 (approximately £235,000), which she is contesting in court.
Barnes's defence hinges on an exception within the bylaw for naturalised areas. The clause defines such an area as one deliberately planted with species like wildflowers and ornamental grasses, which is "monitored and maintained by a person." Her legal team argues her garden meets this definition, noting that city officials have failed to clearly explain how it does not.
In 2024, a city landscape architecture supervisor, Nick Pirzas, visited the property. His report identified only three species as 'invasive' or 'aggressive' and suggested maintenance rather than removal. He explicitly stated the garden fell under the naturalised area definition, though noted it was not 'meticulously maintained.' Barnes's lawyer countered that 'meticulous' is not a requirement in the bylaw.
A Precedent for Gardening Rights?
Barnes has launched a legal defence fundraiser on the Small Change Fund platform, framing the fight as one to protect "Canadians' rights to freedom of expression through gardening." The campaign had raised nearly $9,000 of its $30,000 goal as of Monday afternoon.
"To me, it’s really absurd that the city would take me to court for growing a garden," Barnes told the Toronto Star. "It’s not just about me, but it’s about the wildlife that I’m trying to save." She believes the objections are primarily aesthetic, stating, "Ecological gardeners will often garden for function rather than look."
In a statement, the City of Burlington said it is "supportive of naturalised gardens" but clarified that they "do not mean abandoning lawn maintenance altogether." It warned that unmaintained growth can introduce invasive weeds and pests. The city added that severe enforcement only occurs "after all avenues are exhausted" and noted the final penalty would be determined by the court.
Barnes remains resolute, determined to continue her fight against the council's orders. The outcome of her case could establish a significant legal precedent regarding the intersection of ecological gardening, personal religious freedom, and municipal property regulations.
