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 Repeatedly Accused of a Bylaw Violation?
Bylaw Violations May Involve Prolonged Conduct. In Situations Where a Prolonged Bylaw Breach Occurs, Repeated Charges May Result.
Understanding the Inapplicability of the Res Judicata Principle to Continuous Bylaw Violations As Ongoing Offences
The law, generally, prohibits an individual from facing a multiplicity of the same charges for the same transgression. The principle, colloquially referred to as double jeopardy, stops a person from being accused of identical wrongdoing. With this said, while an individual is shielded from multiple accusations for a singular incident of a criminal offence or a provincial offence, there are scenarios wherein the offence is perpetual and may lead to repetitive accusations.
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 R. v. Nolis, 2012 ONCJ 446, case shed light on the question of the whether the res judicata doctrine applies to ongoing bylaw offenses by stating:
[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. 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.
NOTE: A significant amount of online searches for “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically indicate a pressing need for effective legal help rather than a specific title. In Ontario, licensed paralegals are governed by the same Law Society that regulates lawyers and are permitted to represent clients in certain litigation circumstances. Key elements of their role include advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural expertise. Crystal Clear Legal Services provides legal representation within its licensed authority, focusing on strategic positioning, evidentiary preparation, and compelling advocacy aimed at securing efficient and advantageous outcomes for clients.