Municipal Bylaws - As Evidence in a Hearing

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-12-25
CLNP Page ID:	2449
Page Categories:
Citation:	Municipal Bylaws - As Evidence in a Hearing, CLNP 2449, <>, retrieved on 2024-12-25
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2024/12/18

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Grand Central Ottawa Ltd. v. Ottawa (City), 1998 CanLII 18876 (ON SC)

Section 76(1) of the Municipal Act:

76(1) A copy of any document in the possession or under the control of the clerk of a municipality purporting to be certified by the clerk and under the seal of the corporation may be filed and used in any court or tribunal in lieu of the original and shall be received in evidence without proof of the seal or of the signature or official character of the person appearing to have signed the same, and without further proof, unless the court or tribunal otherwise directs.

Section 29 of the Ontario Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.23:

29. Where the original record could be received in evidence, a copy of an official or public document in Ontario, purporting to be certified under the hand of the proper officer, or the person in whose custody such official or public document is placed, or of a document, by-law, rule, regulation or proceeding, or of any entry in a register or other book of a corporation, created by charter or statute in Ontario, purporting to be certified under the seal of the corporation and the hand of the presiding officer or secretary thereof, is receivable in evidence without proof of the seal of the corporation, or of the signature or of the official character of the person or persons appearing to have signed the same, and without further proof thereof.

Section 24 of the Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5, contains provisions similar to s. 29 of the Ontario Evidence Act.

When statutes conflict, the rules of statutory interpretation dictate that the general act (in the case at bar, the Interpretation Act) yields to the specific Act (the Municipal Act): see Part III, Interpretation of Statutes, Canadian Encyclopedic Digest, para. 50. Section 1 of the Interpretation Act states that the Interpretation Act applies except where it is inconsistent with the intent or object of the Act. Sections 76 and 127 of the Municipal Act and s. 29 of the Ontario Evidence Act clearly set out the method of introducing by-laws into evidence and such procedure is unaffected by s. 7 of the Interpretation Act. It is my conclusion that the trier of fact cannot take judicial notice of municipal by-laws.

As indicated previously R. v. Dowslay, supra, was not referred to in either the Lockyer or Smith decisions. R. v. Dowslay held that a municipal by-law must be proved by the tendering of a copy certified by the clerk to be a true copy and under the corporate seal pursuant to the legislation then in force.

This has been the generally accepted method of proving municipal by-laws: see R. v. Snelling, [1952] O.W.N. 214 (H.C.J.); R. v. Bleta, [1965] 2 O.R. 108 (C.A.); Wigmore on Evidence, para. 2572; McWilliams, Canadian Criminal Evidence, 2nd ed. (Aurora, Ont.: Canada Law Book, 1984), p. 121; Ewarb, Documentary Evidence in Canada (1984), p. 178.

Since I have concluded that the trier of fact cannot take judicial notice of municipal by-laws the convictions cannot stand.

The appeal is therefore allowed and acquittals will be entered.

Appeal allowed.