Yes No Share to Facebook
Ongoing Offences Continuing Bylaw Breaching Conduct
Question: Can a person face multiple charges for the same bylaw violation?
Answer: Yes, a person can face multiple charges for the same bylaw violation if the violation is ongoing in nature. This means that if a person continues to breach a bylaw, such as noise regulations, they may be charged repeatedly for each instance of non-compliance. At Denali Paralegal Services, we provide assistance with family law matters and are dedicated to helping clients navigate complex legal challenges with ease and understanding.
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 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. In the case of R. v. Nolis, 2012 ONCJ 446, the inapplicability of the res judicata doctrine to ongoing bylaw offences was addressed whereas 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 seems logically to most people, confusion can arise when instead of committing an offence for the second time, a person fails to cease the first offence such as allowing excessive noise to continue after being initially charged with a noise violation. The case of Dysart (Municipality) v. Reeve, 2000 CanLII 16841, addressed a continuous bylaw violation versus an offence that occurs at a single moment in time by confirming that despite the res judicata principle, repeated charges may apply where an ongoing offence occurs. Specifically, 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
When a person fails to halt an ongoing bylaw violation or enables continuation of a bylaw violation, the person could face recurrent charges for the offence.
NOTE: A significant multitude of inquiries featuring “lawyers nearby” or “top lawyer in” typically indicate an urgent requirement for capable and effective legal assistance, rather than pinpointing a particular professional designation. In Ontario, “licensed paralegals” are governed by the same Law Society that supervises lawyers and possess the authority to advocate for clients in specific litigation contexts. Central to this role are advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural expertise. Denali Paralegal provides legal representation within its licensed parameters, focusing on strategic positioning, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy aimed at securing efficient and advantageous outcomes for clients.