Yes No Share to Facebook
Ongoing Offences Continuing Bylaw Breaching Conduct
Question: Can a person face multiple charges for the same bylaw breach?
Answer: Yes, a person can face repeated charges if the violation is ongoing and not a singular, isolated incident. This means that if the violation continues, such as excessive noise or an unkempt property, municipal authorities have the right to issue new charges and fines over time. Crystal Clear Legal Services is here to assist you with navigating these complex legal matters effectively.
Can a Person Be Charged With a Bylaw Offence Over and Over Again?
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 referred to as res judicata, loosely meaning "things decided in Latin", serves to prevent repetition of accusations against a person for any one instance of a unique wrongdoing; however, res judicata pertains solely to a distinct solitary violation, such as neglecting a red traffic signal while driving, rather than being relevant to a continuous offence as might arise from an ongoing 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.).
As shown by the Nolis case above, the res judicata principle, often termed issue estoppel, pertains to a specific legal matter that was already resolved by the courts. As a consequence, debate over what legal issue was previously resolved by the courts occasionally arises. To put it simply, when a person commits a single offense, such as failing to come to a complete stop at a red traffic light while driving, the person may only face a charge for that action once; however, if the person repeats the offence at some other time, the person may face charges for committing the offence a second time. While this might seem logical to most people, confusion can arise when, as opposed to committing an infraction for a second time, a person allows continuance of the initial infraction. An example would be permitting excessive noise to persist after receiving an initial charge for a noise violation. The case of Dysart (Municipality) v. Reeve, 2000 CanLII 16841, tackled the contrast between an ongoing bylaw violation and an infraction transpiring at a single moment by confirming that despite the notions within the res judicata doctrine, recurrent charges may arise if an ongoing infraction is involved. Specifically, Dysart stated:
[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
A person who fails to cease a bylaw breach or otherwise allows a bylaw breach to continue in an ongoing manner may be charged repeatedly with an offence for doing so.