Yes No Share to Facebook
Ongoing Offences Continuing Bylaw Breaching Conduct
Question: Can a person be accused of the same bylaw violation more than once?
Answer: Yes, if the offence is ongoing and not resolved, a person may face repeated charges for continuous bylaw violations. At Woodcock Legal Services, we understand the complexities of municipal law and can assist you in navigating your legal challenges effectively.
Can a Person Be Repeatedly Accused of a Bylaw Breach?
Continuous Violation of a Bylaw May Lead to Repeat Charges and Fines.
Understanding the Inapplicability of the Res Judicata Principle to Continuous Bylaw Violations As Ongoing Offences
Generally, the law forbids a person from being charged twice for the same offence. The concept, informally known as double jeopardy, prevents a person from being accused of, and needing to defend against, the same offence more than once. However, although a person is protected against being charged twice for the same criminal offence or same provincial offence, in some circumstances, the offence is continuous and may result in repeated charges.
The Law
The legal principle formally known as res judicata, which is loose Latin meaning "things decided", generally applies to prevent a person from being charged repeatedly for the same offence; however, such is only applicable to the same singular offence, such as failing to stop at a red light while driving, rather than being applicable for a continuous offence as may occur with a bylaw violation. The case of R. v. Nolis, 2012 ONCJ 446, delved into the question of the res judicata doctrine being , generally, inapplicable to ongoing bylaw violations where it was said:
[57] In Re EnerNorth Industries Inc., 96 O.R. (3d) 1, [2009] O.J. No. 2815, 2009 ONCA 536 (O.C.A.), R. A. Blair J.A., in delivering the judgment for the court, describes the doctrine of res judicata, starting at paragraph 53:
The doctrine of res judicata is a common law doctrine that prevents the re-litigation of issues already decided. It is founded on two central policy concerns: finality (it is in the interest of the public that an end be put to litigation); and fairness (no one should be twice vexed by the same cause). The doctrine is part of the general law of estoppel and is said to have two central branches, namely, "cause of action estoppel" and "issue estoppel."
Cause of action estoppel refers to the determination of the cause or causes of action before the court. The applicable form of res judicata in this case, however, is issue estoppel. Issue estoppel prevents a litigant from re-litigating an issue that has been clearly decided by a court of competent jurisdiction in a previous proceeding between the same parties or their privies even if the new litigation involves a different cause of action.
[58] In the matter before me, the applicable form of res judicata is issue estoppel. For issue estoppel to be successfully invoked, three conditions must be met: (1) the issue must be the same as the one decided in the prior decision; (2) the prior judicial decision must have been final; and (3) the parties to both proceedings must be the same, or their privies (Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 460, 2001 SCC 44, at para. 25, per Binnie J.).
Drawing from the Nolis case, the res judicata principle, as is also known as issue estoppel, pertains to a particular legal matter that was already resolved by the judicial system. This leads to the examination of the question regarding what was previously resolved by the courts. To simplify, when an person commits a singular violation, like driving through a red traffic light, the person could face a charge for this act only once; however, if the person repeats the violation on a subsequent day, the person could be subject to a charge for committing the violation a second time. Despite the apparent logic, confusion can emerge when, instead of committing an offence anew, a person fails to cease the initial offence. An example would be allowing excessive noise to persist after facing an initial charge for a noise violation. The Dysart (Municipality) v. Reeve, 2000 CanLII 16841, case delved into the distinction between an ongoing bylaw violation and an offence taking place at a single moment in time, affirming that despite the res judicata doctrine, repeated charges could be applicable if an ongoing offence is occurring whereas in Dysart it was said:
[22] ... Multiple prosecutions of an accused or a defendant may well, at some point, justify a stay. See, for example, R. v. Jack (1997), 1997 CanLII 356 (SCC), 117 C.C.C. (3d) 43 (S.C.C.) and R. v. Mitchelson (1992), 1992 CanLII 4018 (MB CA), 71 C.C.C. (3d) 471 (Man. C.A.). But the context is important. These defendants were charged not with a Criminal Code offence, but with regulatory offences, with violating the municipality’s land use requirements. The offences are not alleged to have occurred at a discrete point in time but to be ongoing violations. The practical effect of a stay would be to give the defendants a legal non-conforming use by court order without the merits of their position ever having been adjudicated. Viewed in this way, it seems to me the community’s tolerance for successive prosecutions is greater than it might be in other kinds of cases. At least for now, the community’s interest in enforcing its land use requirements outweighs any unfairness in prosecuting the defendants again.
Summary Comment
In cases where a person fails to cease an ongoing bylaw breach or enables perpetuation of the bylaw breach, the person may be subjected to repeated charges for the violation.
