Towing By-Laws

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-04-28
CLNP Page ID:	2281
Page Categories:	Highway Traffic
Citation:	Towing By-Laws, CLNP 2281, <https://rvt.link/92>, retrieved on 2024-04-28
Editor:	MKent
Last Updated:	2023/09/22

Waterloo (Regional Municipality) v. Pahal, 2020 ONCJ 73 (CanLII)

[4]          We have an Agreed Statement of Facts attached as Schedule 1, where Mr. Pahal agrees he operated a tow truck owned by Able Regional Towing and Recovery Ltd., positioned his tow truck  on September 20^th 2018 within 200 metres of an accident or a vehicle involved in an accident and he agrees he offered services of a tow truck to Arbresha Shala the driver of a motor vehicle involved in an accident within 200 metres of the scene of the accident on Bleams Road, a highway, in the City of Kitchener  which are not in issue. Mr. Pahal also agrees he was not at the scene of the accident at the request of a police officer, a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer, or a person engaged in highway maintenance or a person involved in the accident.

(...)

[57]       I conclude Waterloo Region By-Law 18-023 amending By-Law 16-023 is inconsistent or conflicts with the general provision under section 177. (3) of the Highway Traffic Act. The by-law does not enhance the exemption for tow truck assistance in emergencies but rather eliminates it in its entirety. An accident is an emergency. The permission to tow truck operators to offer service in emergencies under section 177. (3) is paramount province wide and is binding on the Region.

[58]       By-Law 16-023 as amended by By-Law 18-023 literally prohibits any tow truck driver to be within 200 metres of an accident notwithstanding there may be no other emergency services on scene. Therefore, a tow truck who is the First responder, or one of other tow truck responders where there are multiple vehicles involved, would be commit an offence against the by-law by offering assistance or from approaching within 200 metres of the scene of an accident to determine the extent of the emergency. This conflicts with the general exception for emergencies under section 177. (3) of the Highway Traffic Act.

[59]       As stated in the Hudson case [Tab 4 in the Prosecution’s brief of Authorities]: “A finding that a municipal by-law is inconsistent with a provincial statute … requires, first, that they both deal with similar subject matters and, second, that obeying one necessarily means disobeying the other.” [60]       I find the amending By-Law 18-023 is inconsistent as per section 195 of the Highway Traffic Act and therefore invalid as per the Jeff decision. According to section 195 (1) the By-Law is deemed to be repealed upon a finding that it is inconsistent with the Highway Traffic Act. The original By-law 16-023 remains in effect. I am dismissing both charges against the defendant Mr. Pahal.