How bylaw officers can trespass on your property—without a warrant

By: on September 13, 2012 |

Cops can’t trespass on to your property without a warrant—but bylaw officers can

By Peter Jaworski

Loretta Newton was home alone sleeping on her couch in Cambridge, Ontario when she was awakened by several men pressing their faces against her backyard window. Startled, she jumped off her couch to get to the phone to call her husband John, dislodging a medical tube in her breast. She had recently had a breast removal surgery.

By the time John came home, the men were gone, and a nurse was re-attaching the tube.

“The blood on the floor was something I’ll never forget,” then-63-year-old John would later write in a story for The Landowner, the magazine of the Ontario Landowners Association.

When Erica Davis came home to Guelph from a funeral in another country, she discovered that her in-ground swimming pool had been damaged. Someone had gone into her backyard while she was away, cavalierly removed the tarp from her pool, and drained the water below the escape vaults that keep the water circulating. The lining had dried, and earth started caving in.

Erica would later take her city to court, in a case that reached the Ontario Court of Appeal. You read that right: Erica Davis was squaring off against her own City, in part to try to recuperate the costs of the damage to her pool.

The men who drained Erica’s pool in Guelph, contributing to its damage, were not random vandals. The men whose faces were pressed against Loretta’s window, peeking into her living room in Cambridge, were not peeping Toms and they weren’t potential thieves scoping out their next home invasion. In both cases, the culprits were city officials, on official duty, representing the City of Guelph and Cambridge, respectively.

In neither case did they have a warrant, and in neither case did they even notify the homeowners that they will be sending representatives to traipse about in their backyard. They didn’t have to. There is nothing illegal about municipal law enforcement officials pursuing some bylaw complaint by going into your backyard. They can even climb over your fence and take pictures, as the City of Orillia did to Barbara Nicol when a bylaw officer took it upon himself to check if Barbara had complied with an order from the city. Her “No Trespassing” sign afforded her no protection.

In Ontario, the power to enter onto your private property is bequeathed onto municipalities by section 436(1) of the Ontario Municipal Act. According to the section, municipalities may pass bylaws that permit their officers to enter onto private property without notice and without warrant at all “reasonable times.” They can do this in order to pursue an investigation stemming from a complaint, or an inspection following an order by the city.

Bylaw officers: More powerful than cops

No such similar provision exists for police officers, pursuing criminal investigations. In fact, courts have strongly upheld our privacy against investigations in the criminal context. This has been the record of Supreme Court decisions regarding the engagement and applicability of section eight of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Section eight protects each of us against “unreasonable search and seizure.” Famously, Justice Dickson of the Supreme Court of Canada described the section as protecting “people, not places,” emphasizing that it did not protect property, but privacy. Specifically, it protects a “reasonable expectation of privacy,” according to the precedent set in Hunter v. Southam [1984], the first SCC case to test section eight. In Hunter, the Court insisted that a warrant based on “reasonable and probable grounds” was required for any investigation or inspection to pass section eight muster.

This raises an intriguing question: If police officers cannot climb your fence, go in your backyard, or peek under your tarp to see if nothing contrary to law is hiding under there, why can municipal law enforcement in the pursuit of bylaw infractions?

The answer is a set of incoherent and confused cases dealing with section eight of the Charter. As it stands, courts have constructed an analysis that points in multiple directions simultaneously.

Hardly anyone endorses an absolute protection of our privacy. We all recognize that there are circumstances where our privacy interests are trumped by other interests. In particular, there may be times when the values of public safety, health, and well-being outweigh the values secured through strict privacy protections. The courts have recognized this. They carve out an exception for police having to secure prior authorization through a warrant in cases of “hot pursuit” or cases where an illegal activity is being done on private property but “in plain view” of the public.

This suggests that the balancing is to be done akin to the measurement of weight. Place the values secured through privacy on one “pan”, and the values to be secured through an investigation or inspection in the other, and see which way the scale tips. That is, indeed, what courts do. Sometimes. If they were to be consistent with this balancing, criminal investigations would require fewer section eight safeguards than investigations for purposes of seeing if there is a bylaw infraction. The values secured by the former are of more weight and significance than the values secured by the latter.

But on other occasions, the courts have placed privacy interests in one pan, and the penalties or harms of permitting violations of our privacy interests in the other. They discuss the lesser penalties and “stigmatizing effect” related to administrative as compared with criminal investigations. This attempt to strike a balance suggests that the more severe the consequences, the more assiduously must the Courts cling to the protections established in Hunter. And so here we come to the reverse conclusion, that criminal investigations, with their more severe consequences, require more section eight safeguards than administrative investigations.

That’s confusing. It also leaves us with no certain standards about whether, in a particular case, we can expect robust or deflated section eight protection against municipal law enforcement. What the courts should do is embrace the former method of balancing, and reject the latter method.

Librarians can’t seize your overdue books…

The fact that I have overdue library books on the desk in my office does not in any way entitle the university’s librarian to go in my room and take them, even if I have left my office door wide open. It is no defense of the seizure to point to the fact that the overdue book fine is negligible. Ensuring that books are promptly returned is not worth the price of privacy. The potential penalty is not relevant.

There is also terrible confusion about whether the “reasonable expectation of privacy” should focus on what we can reasonably expect given how people in fact behave (a descriptive standard), or what we ought to expect, especially from state officials, in a free and democratic society (a normative standard).

Suppose that it was customary for neighbours to peek in each other’s windows, that this is to be expected, and common. If we focus on section eight as protection against unusual or unexpected invasions of privacy, it would be consistent with section eight for bylaw officers to join the neighbours in peeking in our windows. But if we change our focus to what we ought to reasonably expect in a free and democratic society, we may come to believe that even though neighbours do this as a matter of course, certainly no officer of the state should.

The Court agreed with the latter approach (in R. v. Tessling [2004]), explicitly saying that the “[e]xpectation of privacy is a normative rather than a descriptive standard.”

Even the precedents that established diminished section eight protection over internal business operations — including business-related tax returns, and expenses — are best understood according to the normative, rather than descriptive, standard. The reason why business-related information sees fewer section eight protections is because, as Justice La Forest has written, business records and documents “do not normally contain information about one’s lifestyle, intimate relations or political or religious opinions. They do not, in short, deal with those aspects of individual identity which the right to privacy is intended to protect from the overbearing influence of the state.”[1] So if something contains these “aspects of individual identity” then section eight is engaged, and the state cannot peek in your windows even if they did it in the past.

But here, as elsewhere, the Court decided to sow confusion by also referencing the descriptive standard. Almost as an afterthought, the Court said that regulators in the past have subjected businesses to frequent and unannounced regulatory inspections, so you can’t reasonably expect privacy. So which is it? Does section eight protect “aspects of individual identity” from the gaze of the state, or does it protect us against new and unusual ways the state has invented for peeking through our windows?

The Court should abandon the descriptive standard entirely for one simple reason: this standard is circular. As University of Toronto law professor Lisa M. Austin puts it: “subsequent state intrusions are reasonable because you do not have much of an expectation of privacy and you do not have much of an expectation of privacy because of the existence of previous state intrusions.”[2]

Our homes are not akin to businesses

While internal business operations may not include such aspects of our individual identity, our backyards and living rooms clearly do. These aspects take the form of campaign posters on walls or signs stored in our sheds, religious books and icons on our bookshelves or as backyard ornaments, prescription medicines left on our living room table visible from backyard-facing windows, or clear indications that the other person living with us is not just a housemate who happens to be the same gender as us, but a lover. We all have legitimate reasons to sometimes keep that information private. 

These places are to be your sanctuary. And access to this private sanctuary should not come as easy as an anonymous complaint from a neighbour, or, possibly, a jilted ex seeking to make life difficult for you. It should come at the price of your consent, or, if you give them the finger rather than a welcoming gesture, a warrant.

The circular reasoning at the Ontario Court of Appeals

That is not, unfortunately, how the Ontario Court of Appeal saw things in Erica Davis’ case. In Davis v. Guelph (City), Justice R. A. Blair unnecessarily highlighted the circular descriptive account of section eight in his judgment, thereby further bolstering this mistaken interpretation and ignoring entirely the normative standard. In finding against Erica, Blair did not look at a possible violation of section 8, and ruled only on the reasonableness of the actions of the City under section 436, the enabling statute. That still leaves open the possibility of challenging the reasonableness of the statute itself under section 8.[3]

Blair’s mistake, however, was based on an earlier Court of Appeal precedent in Barbara Nicol’s case. In R. v. Nicol [1997], the court erred in two ways with respect to section eight. First, they struck the balance by focusing on the consequences to Barbara of an investigation rather than on the value of the goals of the investigation: “There is not the same stigma involved and the penalty attached to regulatory searches is less,” they wrote. And, second, in saying that “[p]eople in today’s society are accustomed to regulation,” they invoked the circular reasoning that animates the descriptive account of section eight.

The Supreme Court declined an opportunity to fix these mistakes when, in May of this year, they dismissed Erica’s appeal. None of the three women, Erica, Barbara, and Loretta, found protection under section eight. Erica discovered that bylaw officers could traipse into her backyard and start messing with her swimming pool. Barbara discovered that bylaw officers can hop fences and ignore “No Trespassing” signs. And Loretta discovered that bylaw officers in Canada do not always shy away from peeking through windows.

In a free and democratic society like Canada’s, it is unacceptable for municipal law enforcement officers to climb over our fences, to press their faces against our windows, and to help themselves to no-notice, no-warrant walks around our property.

To add insult to the injury done to our privacy, these powers of entry are entirely unnecessary. The provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan all require that bylaw give reasonable notice. They must then seek a warrant if they get a “get off my land” rather than a “by all means, officer, have a walk about” at the door. So do all three Territories. The suggestion that these provinces and territories have dysfunctional municipalities because they lack no-notice, no-warrant powers of entry would be viewed as some sort of joke.

Only British Columbia, Quebec, and Ontario give municipalities the extraordinary power to barge onto private property without notice nor warrant for purposes of an investigation stemming from an anonymous complaint, or randomly and at any officer’s discretion for purposes of an inspection to see if an order is being complied with.

A warrant requirement would cut down on city’s and grouchy neighbours using bylaw officers as their personal, private bully service. An independent body that ensures there are good reasons for pursuing an investigation or inspection would cut down on the pursuit of malicious or vexatious complaints, and would give us back some of our lost privacy.

And it might have been enough to keep Loretta and John Newton in Canada.

“We have started giving away our belongings,” Loretta’s husband John explained to Marlene Black, editor of The Landowner, in an email on April 20, 2011, “and hope to be on a plane out of Canada the day our first OAP cheque arrives.” They’ve since left, unable to cope under the heavy gaze of the corporation of the city of Cambridge.

[1] See Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada (Director of Investigation and Research, Restrictive Trade Practices Commission) [1990]

[2] See Austin, Lisa M. (2007). “Information Sharing and the “Reasonable” Ambiguities of s.8 of the Charter” 57 University of Toronto Law Journal 499, at p. 9.

[3]  An earlier version of this story erroneously suggested that Davis v. Guelph (City) passed judgment on the constitutionality of section 436 itself. Instead, a better interpretation of the judgment is that the Court merely ruled on the reasonability of the actions of bylaw officers under the statute, rather than on the reasonability of section 436 under section 8 of the Charter.


A still from video security footage of a bylaw officer, in the Town of Pelham, inspecting private property while the homeowner is away

Peter Jaworski teaches business ethics at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business. He will deliver a talk on this topic, entitled “Bylaw Bullies,” at the Canadian Property Rights Conference ( being held Sept. 14 – 16 at the Lord Elgin Hotel in Ottawa. 

Enjoy reading C2C Journal? Please consider making a donation of $5, $25, $50 or more to help us continue producing C2C. To donate please click here.

About Peter Jaworski

98 thoughts on “How bylaw officers can trespass on your property—without a warrant”

  1. Julie Silvert says:

    really really scary, I am very protective of our family’s privacy…this sounds like big brother watching …to the extreme…

    1. Bleo says:

      laws are to be followed,period!! The problem is when a neighbor or whoever complains, it is the municipality’s responsibility to enforce the laws and protect the community from laws suits which in turn will be passed on to taxpayer in the form of taxes being raised. Do you wants this to be you? Obey the laws, comply with orders and you will have no problems. 

      1. Anonymous says:

        You truly don’t understand do you? The problem isn’t with people not following the laws, because the bylaw officer doesn’t know until he checks out your private spaces whether you are breaking a bylaw or not. If you really don’t mind having your privacy invaded at will by a city employee maybe you should think of others. Is it safe to leave our teenage daughters at home if they might decide, in the complete privacy of their fenced and gated backyard that no one can see into even with a telescope, to sunbathe with their tops off? What if a senior lady wants to put on a bikini and get some sun, although her bikini is a deep dark secret that no on would ever be allowed to see her in. Seriously – you are ok with no one having any rights? If no one else can see it why is it a problem anyway? We are talking about private spaces here, not spaces other people can see.

        1. Anonymous says:

          What if your dog is in your backyard when the bylaw officer invades it and thinks it is under threat so tries to defend itself. Now you dog is taken as dangerous and killed by the city, even though you left it safe in your secure back yard. Even with locks on the gates bylaw can go over the fence. Is that ok too?

          1. TINY says:

            If a bylaw officer see a dog in the backyard and still enters then maybe that bylaw officer should rethink his officer safety protocol. I personaly wouldn’t enter, just leave a message at the door requesting a phone call, and come back at a better time for the inspection…… but that goes without saying, what if a kid lost his baseball in your backyard and hops the fence to retrieve it and your dog attacks? The child had no intention of inspecting your backyard just getting his ball back…… I think if you are keeping a dog that is that aggressive then yes your dog is considered dangerous and yes it could be euthanized.

          2. mia says:

            mmmmmm – no. An attack dog on private property is in control. A person who enters cannot claim harm. This is a bit of a straw man, don’t you think?

        2. TINY says:

          most peoples yards are not that private, again there is some expectation of privacy but not the same as your house, car, or personal effects that are not in plain sight.

          1. TINY says:

            I think Bleo understand completely! If the bylaw officer receives a complain they investigate it…. a bylaw officer isn’t just going to pick some random home to peek in their backyard…. that would not be lawful, (not saying their isn’t a bylaw officer out there that might do that) They need a reason/complaint to be there for investigative reasons or….. they drive by and can see in plain sight that you are not in compliance with the law… simple as that.

          2. mia says:

            Except you don’t understand that a complaint is still not reason to investigate what a person is doing on their private property, house, yard, or WHATEVER. If they are doing no harm, they must be left alone under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

          3. mia says:

            You don’t understand – it doesn’t matter what can or can’t be seen, unless the person that is observed is CAUSING HARM TO ANOTHER’S PERSON, PRIVACY OR POSSESSIONS, any bylaw, legislation, or whatever is unlawful and thus null and void, under Common Law in Canada. People just don’t know their rights!

      2. mia says:

        Bylaws are UNLAWFUL under Common Law, which underwrites all legislation in Canada. If unalienable rights are violated, that bylaw is NULL AND VOID. Look it up! How dare people try to decide what is best for others! Laws are to be followed period?????? OMG????? So you would support mandatory wife-sharing, or slavery, or a ban on Cornflakes if they were laws? It’s not silly to ask this!!! Think about it!!!!!!!

    2. TINY says:

      not that scary….. these are bylaws, the intent is not to invade your privacy. Like Bleo states below, follow the laws be that a bylaw, provincial law or criminal law and their is no problem….. don’t follow them and get a visit from whatever enforcement agency has jurisdiction…… Relax, the bylaw officer isn’t there to spy on you in your home and see what your doing inside……

      1. mia says:

        It most certainly is their intent to invade your privacy, make no mnistake about that. NO ONE has the right to decide how YOU live. DO NO HARM is the essence of Common Law, and ALL CANADIAN LEGISLATION that violates it is null and void.

  2. Serenitysoul says:

    Maybe a barbed wire fence will keep them out, or they’ll rip their pants.

  3. Peter, you are a troublemaker and this is why I respect you. Its great to see someone having the courage to say outloud what everybody thinks quietly…cheers

  4. Christine McLeod says:

    I haven’t reviewed all of these cases but the issue I see from Davis, which I am familiar with, is that the person challenged the bilaw officer’s right to take the actions they did under the law as it exists – rather than challenging the law itself as being unconstitutional.  If one were to challenge the enabling statute itself for being too broad then it would invite the supreme court to provide judicial comment and decision on whether or not the section of the Municipal Act that permits such bylaws is inherently unconstitutional unless read narrowly to conform to s. 8 case law.   

    1. Thank you for this, and it has been pointed out to me by someone else familiar with the case as well. It appears that there are at least two plausible interpretations here: Yours, which is beginning to seem more and more plausible, especially in light of the otherwise confusing par. 50 in the judgment, and the one I offered in the piece. Mine relies on the reference to two separate elements of s. 8 jurisprudence in the judgment — the claim that we have a diminished expectation of privacy in our backyards, and the claim that we distinguish administrative/regulatory searches and seizures from criminal searches and seizures. Those may or may not be obiter, and it is difficult to see whether the Appeals court was approving of s. 436 as passing s. 8 muster, or merely discussing some related issues. It would make me happiest if it turned out that the Appeals court has not passed judgment on the reasonableness of s. 436 itself, since that would mean that a Charter-based challenge is still available to those of us who view this statute, and administrative/regulatory no-notice & no-warrant powers of entry in general, as egregious violations of our right to privacy.

  5. Tax Payer says:

      Think people,
    It is the character of the By-law Officer and not all by-law officers should be put in the same category.  It is no different than a police officer with questionable conduct.  It is the officer that should be investigated suspended or even fired in the event he goes to the extent of looking through windows of occupied dwellings.  That’s not their mandate for the most part.
     The problem isn’t the Municipal Act. If the government changes the Act to require a warrant for by law officers to enter onto land the courts would be so back logged and overwhelmed with warrants.  That’s every city by-law officer requiring a warrant that is ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!  If the officer is found doing inappropriate things like looking through a window etc, if proven guilty they should lose their job period.  In general bylaw officers are permitted enter on to land without a warrant for the purpose of investigating a by-law infraction in the yard only.

    1. Anonymous says:

      well, I’ve had one bully me, without the courage to speak face to face, lied about having a supervisors consent, lied about having spoken with a roads supervisor, failed to check the file, to see that my “violation” had been approved by roads, and zoning.  When the order was duct taped to my door, I was forced to comply, all the while, not receiving a call back from- Mayor,Town Clerk, Bylaw supervisor, customer service, roads supervisor, after all above had been sent a copy of my request and approval. They are all lazy bullies, who I’m not done with yet.  They all now have a large thorn in their side.  Innisfil, Ontario has a new problem. 

      1. Sheenamaca says:

        We are also having tons of trouble with the innisfil bylaw . This dept is a bullying joke we have paid 500 dollars to have our case revued they cancelled are date for feb because they are to busy and now want to give us a fine for taking to long to settle the matter. All over 12 inches of fence height on a busy street facing corner lot . I curse the day I set foot in this town with its bullying by law usless mayor and council not to mention the very friendly ladies behind the counter at the municipal office, bublic service workers my xxxxxx.

        1. thebatprotectsthedog says:

          The reason Innisfil has problems is because it would seem nobody working for the Town of Innisfil administration is qualified to do the job. I don’t know who should be contacted to bring this to order, but it should be done.  Innisfil has 16000 outstanding building permits to be inspected. There is no possible way to bring this number down. Uninspected means, not safe. I bought a home here, soon after found things not up to code. Lawsuit with the town to follow.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Hopefully they make these changes before a bylaw officer trespasses on the wrong property.  As a recent case in Alberta has proven, not every property is safe to just barge into.  Can you imagine a bylaw officers surprise, poking around that backyard in Barrie?  One moment of surprise, before an untimely death.

  7. Forblo says:

    I am a former By-Law Officer and former SPCA Investigator. As a by-Law Officer I did go on people’s property (not if there was a no trespassing sign) if there was no answer at the door to investigate a compaint. As an SPCA Investigator I could go on if I was investigating neglect of an animal but could not enter a building w/o a search warrant unless I could visually see an animal in distress. If an owner was home in both instances w/o a warrant and ordered me off their property I had to go and I did. If I needed assistance at someone’s property I would call the police. But I would never have wandered around the property without first seeking out the owner. It depends on the circumstances and the safety of all concerned (common sense to be exact).

  8. Murray says:

    Peter, I took a look at the case, Davis v. Guelph (City), 2011 ONCA 761, out of an interest in legal privacy matters. I too am quite concerned about protecting privacy rights against infringements by the state. Your arguments and the case were really interesting. Nevertheless, I have to say that this case has both a terrible set of facts against it as well as a few unusual legal quirks that make it both problematic and an interesting example. 

    Based on the findings of fact in the case, the pool cover had standing water during the time when there were significant concerns over West Nile Virus, the circulating pump was not running, two inspections had been made followed by a notice of violation, only when no reply or action was taken did the city enter the property. The actions taken by the officer followed his consultation with pool experts and were found to be consistent with their recommendations. Furthermore, the damage to the liner was pre-existing and was confirmed by photographic evidence (para.  14).

    The legal quirks are several. First, it was an appeal of an order than the city share the costs of the repair, which the court found was not an available remedy. Second, the right of entry to property question is limited to whether the pool area should be considered a dwelling under the Act. If it were a dwelling then it would have been improper to enter the property because dwellings are specifically excluded in the Municipal Act. As all this took place in light of the perceived danger to health and safety of the community posed by the standing water it was probably going to be a fairly high standard against which the privacy right was to be measured. That we perhaps do not see West Nile Virus as significant a concern now as it was then is not applicable to what was reasonable at the time.Finally, the reasoning for the constitutional issue at para. 50 is buried in the discussion of dwellings and backyards (at para 39). The Court cites R. v. Puskas, 104 OAC 310, where the Ontario Court of Appeal basically said that there is not the same expectation of privacy ina  backyard as in the home (where the respondent was growing marijuana in their backyard); and Nichol, which says similar things, as you point out above for the purposes of criminal and municipal enforcement respectively. I do think the constitutional issue was addressed here and found to be not applicable as it sits entirely consistently with those prior cases. Based on R. v. Tessling, 2004 SCC 67, which is cited, where the line is drawn is, as you point out, based on a normative rather than descriptive standard. However, I don’t think the Court is using normative the way that you are. They likely mean it is based on a subjective-objective hybrid rather than an entirely subjective one or objective standard(at para 42). In Tessling they seem to suggest that if a reasonable person, the proverbial “man [person] on the Clapham Omnibus”, would view a situation as private combined with the actual reasonable expectation of the person whose privacy was ultimately invaded. Further, although the court does not cite it, in R. v. Patrick, 2009 SCC 17, the Supreme Court said that it is even okay for police to seize garbage still on private property and use it as evidence because the privacy interest has been abandoned. They also say “the reasonableness of an expectation of privacy varies with the nature of the matter sought to be protected, the circumstances in which and the place where state intrusion occurs, and the purposes of the intrusion.” At this point I would argue that this makes some sense but provides no real guidance – very similar to your position. The thing is, we arrive back here with the case having done nothing to further define the principles. It tells us nothing further about this standard, but reaffirms it. It does however tell us something about municipal enforcement with respect to property that is not a dwelling, it is the third in a line of cases that say municipal and criminal offences being committed in backyards (in general, and unless there are facts that push in the other direction, i.e. something was inside a backyard garage) do not gain s. 8 protection. In light of the facts in this case and given the concern for community health and safety existent at the time based on the above facts, I would have been surprised if the judges had found otherwise. I would view this as a rational trade-off between one’s privacy right and the right of a property owner to keep hazards to community health and safety on their property. Could they be required to obtain a warrant? I am not sure if it is a good idea in all instances. I think I would need evidence of the current system not working, which is  not apparent to me in this case. Protection from busybodies has to be balanced with protection of the health and safety of the public. That is why this is such a bad case – it actually demonstrates why we might want to let officers go onto people’s properties. There was notice, there was massive non-compliance, and frequent remedial action had to be taken to mitigate the risk of harm. This would essentially be a waste of the court’s time in this instance. Normally I would agree that getting a warrant is not that arduous, but there are all sorts of actual hazards that are handled by administrative enforcement that would be difficult to enforce if had to go though a court. For example, some properties would be difficult to even observe to get sufficient evidence to obtain warrant. What further work would a warrant do in a case such as this? Now, don’t get me wrong, entry into dwellings for electrical inspections based on power-draw with significant fees to the homeowner regardless of whether a violation is found, as in Vancouver, is another matter entirely.

    1. mia says:

      Ahhhhh – PERCEIVED DANGER. This is where you fell off the footpath, my fine friend. Just sayiin’ Oh, and Municipal Acts are subject to Common Law.

  9. Ira Zinman says:

    It’s not much better out West. Bylaw departments are often as corrupt as the cities they work for–ignoring serious issues, like unlicensed businesses and major demolition and construction work (e,g., entire infills), because the property owner contributed to a local official’s campaign. Then, there are cases like this:

    And these PARE exam flunk-outs want to pack heat?!

    1. TINY says:

      All bylaw officer want to be cops? what about the cops who retire and become bylaw officers?? Some sure, but i personally like the life of bylaw as opposed to being a police officer… I work monday to friday mostly 9-430…. where when i was a cop i was 12hr shift rotating day and night and most weekends….. and im glad im not packing heat anymore.

  10. Perrdice1 says:

    Yes it’s  a wonderful legal system isn’t it, I am experiencing a similar dilemma here in Kingston Ontario Canada, my Neighbor (who initiated all this as a result of a
    support on my fence crossing his property line) knows at the city that would
    have them fabricated all these alleged infraction in order to  simply have a 2×4 support removed and further
    cause a city representative to Trespass and  enter my prior
    notice or permission to further unlawfully take down and possibly run license plates
    thru Dmv?
    I have now posted the property 
    “no Trespassing” and intent to “attempt” prosecute any
    further such actions!

    A female Bylaw enforcement officer from the city was observed on my property in my absence without notice
    or permission taking down license plates and in fact the only means by which
    the snap shot of letter inclosed below letter could of been generated as the said vehical and its plates were not even visable from the road on my 1.5A + property!

    1) ” 4.41.10 Yards, compounds and lands whether
    vacant or not shall be kept clear and free from vehicles which are unlicensed,
    and not validated or are in an inoperative condition. The unlicensed grey BMW
    shall be removed from the property including all parts, tires, and mechanical
    equipment which is dismantled and in an in-operative condition.”

    Further I verily believe the city has no right or business telling me what
    vehicles I may or may not park on my property licensed or not! The said BMW
    belonged to my son who was intending to put on the road but has since changed
    his mind
    and  has now been removed but not as a result of any Threat from the city but because
    he lost the key and I can’t move it  so I
    myself wanted it gone be fore winter snow fall. ( but hey there is an – app:) – bylaw for that!

    2) 4.3 Fences, barriers and retaining walls shall be kept in good

    The wood fence and wood retaining wall on the west side of the property is in
    disrepair. The boards supporting the fence from the adjacent property shall be
    removed and repairs are required to ensure the fence and retaining wall is
    structurally sound and capable of sustaining its own weight. Yet the same complaining neighbors fence has an identical type support but at the recent $84.00 fee property standards hearing the same By law enforcement officers reply was their fence was not the subject of the hearing lol  ironic I’d say.

    @)The fence is not in disrepair! B) The “2!” boards supporting the
    fence from the adjacent property are only necessary to keep it plumb (as I told the 2 city
    personnel that attended prior to my residence when I was outside in the yard
    and prior to the most recent unauthorized intrusion on my property)
    because the complainant neighbor was allowed to build his home next door
    without having to follow the subdivision agreement and lot grading and drainage
    plan which has cause flooding on my property and erosion, …as I told the
    city personnel >

    I would  be happy to remove the 2 barely noticeable supports as soon as the
    Neighbor is made comply with the subdivision agreement and lot grading and
    drainage plan …but clearly he seems to have some pull or connection with
    the  city that it would allow him such
    serious infractions yet threaten to persecute me for a raft of fabricated red
    hearings in order to get me to comply to “his ” demands the
    catalyst  for the cities alleged
    infractions on my part. !

    3) 4.18, 4.19 Guardrails shall be
    installed and maintained in good repair around all landings, porches, and
    balconies. Guardrails, balustrades and handrails shall be constructed and
    maintained rigid in nature. The porch on the north and west sides of the building
    do not have adequate guards; suitable guards shall be installed.

    Guardrails (Interior &
    Exterior) 4.1

    Guardrails shall be installed
    and maintained in good repair around all landings, porches, and balconies. Note: (Doesn’t say anything about
    permit in by-law) yet at the committee hearing they were quick to vote an order I be made comply and get  a permit at which will be of course at a further expense)

    NOTE: A building permit is required, please contact the building
    department before starting any repairs.

    Note: Please ensure that any required permits are
    obtained through the. Building Section, prior to any work being carried out.

    Question WHY??? I would need a building permit to repair the railings on an
    existing deck the railing was removed because they were aged and getting unsafe
    and to prepare the deck to act as a deck for future pool the yard is fully
    fenced and I have sole access to said deck it is not a danger to anyone. The cities best response ” well if someone unlawfully enters my property and falls off or gets injured as a result ..”then the city would be liable” …. if they didn’t force me to remedy yet they don’t want to accept liability for the flooding and damage to my property and belongings and the expenses I have had to incur to remedy  the run off as a result of their not enforcing the grading and drainage plan and subdivision agreement on the said neighbor’s lot  in first place… Clearly it’s not what you know but who you know!  Sorry for this long tale of woe  the bottom line is just I agree its crazy how the last of our right are being eroded and one home is certainly no longer thier castle and this is what our every risibg obseen property taxes get us!

    1. Anonymous says:

      Ditto:! Those of us who view this statute, and administrative/regulatory
      no-notice & no-warrant powers of entry in general, as egregious
      violations of our right to privacy.

      1. TINY says:

        Again, as a bylaw officer and former police officer it comes down to common sense and respect. If i need to enter onto your property to investigate a complaint or compliance with bylaws then i will do so as i am legally allowed to, though I will most likely inform the property owners before hand… If you are reasonable and respectful of me, I will educate you regarding the offense and give you time to comply…. if you start yelling and threatening me then i probably wont be so forgiving!

        1. mia says:

          You may be LEGALLY allowed to, but violating a person’s lawful claim of right is UNLAWFUL and YOU as a person, no matter if you are working for the city are liable to monetary punishment for violating said rights. I don’t care what your bylaws say, they are null and void in Canada, i f they violate unalienable rights (LOOK IT UP!!!!)and YOU are liable as a living person (no hiding behind the city!) Let’s hope you never try this on my property! lol

        2. Grace Joubarne says:

          That is called summary judgement Tiny…you do not have the right to be judge and jury and you have assumed the right to go onto that person’s property and collect evidence without a warrant as required by law. You are one of those tyrants that the UN loves…someone who can be easily taught to throw their weight around. The Nazis were like that, if you really nice to them you might get to be at the very back of the line into the gas chambers. What you do to others you will have done to you soon enough.

    2. jim says:

       I sympathise with you–going through the same issues–I am filing a lawsuit against the city–best remedy.

      1. Anonymous says:

        Sorry to say good luck with that, Judges in Canada aren’t elected there chosen by the politicians, who in turn are elected / appointed by the Fat cash / fat cats. If you go to court against John Doe its simple math best lawyer wins not the facts or truth, Go against gov., odds not be in your favor…but improve somewhat with significantly deep pockets, just the facts. Life’s to short learned hard way just not worth it best revenge living well:)

    3. TINY says:

      The bylaw states above as you so pointed out, so comply or face the consequence….. the law also states that you can’t kill someone….. it sounds like you are just upset that you got caught and now have to clean up… your “home” is still your castle, its just the property around it that’s in question…. and anyone driving by can see onto that it most cases!

      1. mia says:

        Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong wrong. Do a little research, it will do you immeasurable good!

    4. mia says:

      LAWFULLY they cannot tell you what you can and cannot have on your property! Bravo for you! It violates your LAWFUL CLAIM OF RIGHT. Stand your ground! Refuse surety in any court. Research this to see what I mean (HINT: there is a difference between you JOHN HENRY SMITH and John Henry of the Smith family.) Dont mix up the two and you keep your unalienable rights.

  11. Rudy says:

    Do we really own our properties? Maybe the Municipal Law Enforcement Officers are just checking up on the corporation’s interests, maybe the land is going to be expropriated by them, they need it back. I guess the Officers are ensuring a good return on investment (taxes)…if you are in violation they penalize you with a fine or a tax bill for the violations and clean-up.

    Maybe if you are not in violation by keeping your yard clean, your grass cut, your  fence in good repair, you have nothing to worry about. Don’t  live like a slob and you have nothing to fear.

    99% of Ontarians will never meet their local Municipal Law Enforcement Officer because they are responsible upstanding clean members of society!

    1. Carolmatthew147 says:

       BS.,  99% of Ontarian’s should be so lucky!

    2. Anonymous says:

      Really, having your privacy invaded is ok with you? I guess you don’t have a teenage daughter that likes to sunbathe with her top off so she doesn’t get lines? Is it really ok with you that it’s not safe for any girl or woman to feel she has some privacy in her own back yard? Or any guy for that matter. How can you say it’s ok to not have any right to privacy in this country? That’s one of the basics of Canadian culture, our freedoms and our rights. Letting them go is not ok.

      1. TINY says:

        think of your property as separate from your house! Most people don’t have fences that you can see through, so in sense like my home where i have a chain link…. anyone can see onto my property. This being said becomes plain sight doctrine! just like police if they see something in plain sight they can act on such… like when you get pulled over on the hwy and the cop sees a bag of cocaine on the front seat…. the cop doesn’t need a warrant to arrest you at that point!

        1. mia says:

          Your property is NOT separate from your house. People cannot trespass on your property,for ANY reason, unless you are causing harm to someone, but they are free to ogle!

    3. mia says:

      Where do I start? You are so very wrong in so many ways. First of all, any legislation that controls anything you do on your property as long as you DO NO HARM is null and void – look it up. And even if you don’t violate a bylaw, the government will still try to steal what is rightfully yours, make no mistake about that! lol

      1. Grace Joubarne says:

        That’s right Mia, because the government we think we elect doesn’t run things …. the shadow government called the UN is doing so through the Agenda 21 Policy…read it, it’s 400 pages and it tells you that what is happening one property at a time is exactly what the One World Order they serve wants done. It’s all in writing…it’s not just a theory. Talk to any ethical planner and they’ll tell you how bad it is.

  12. B Johnson says:

    so i’m wakling on the side walk with my dog, he is not on his leash, animal control stops and asks for my ID so he can write me a ticket. Can I refuse and simply walk away with my dog?

    1. Spartacus says:

       IF there FAT like most ..Run forest Run:)

    2. Jeff Rittenour says:

      WOW that’s an ignorant question. LEASH YOU FUCKING ANIMAL YOU JACK-ASS… I believe there is a law that says you can kill an unleashed, ‘stray’ dog if you feel your life is threatened. What if your dog chased a squirrel or cat into someone’s yard and they freaked out and killed it. Or if it harmed a cat or even if it ran in the street chasing something. You can’t predict an animal’s behavior no matter how well you know them… Your a dummy – dogs AND cats should be leased when walking. I hope that guy fined you GOOD.

    3. Matthew says:

      Yes, the question you need to ask is… “what i.d. do I need to walk my dog? Do I need a dog walking licence?”… the will say “no”, your next response is, “then how can I identify myself?” they will say “verbally”, then you say… “I choose to remain silent as is protected by the Charter of Rights”. Done.

      1. TINY says:

        Again, not “done” if your going to be a prick about it their are other options a bylaw officer has to get your name. Just because you choose to “remain silent” doesn’t mean its over and done with…… good luck with that though when the police show up!

    4. TINY says:

      Yes, bylaw officers do not have the power to “demand” ID…. unlike police. You can refuse to give id to a bylaw officer though it doesn’t take much for them to follow you until you return home, call the police for assistance and then you end up with 2 fines…. one for dog of leash and a much heftier one for obstructing a bylaw officer in the course of their duties…. just so you know…. I personal as a bylaw officer am not that zealous… Id tell you to put the dog on a leash next time, ask for your name for my report, and then away i go!

    5. Grace Joubarne says:

      No you cannot, because you are on crown property. They can make rules for crown (municipal property) because they own it, but they cannot enforce their rules on your private property…but they will try for sure.

  13. This is why put a sign up Trespassers will be shot AND ACTUALLY follow through Your land you pay taxes on they need to mind their own business

    1. Anonymous says:


    2. TINY says:

      this is CANADA you nut! move to the states if you wanna shoot someone waltzing through your property! you shoot someone on your land for trespassing and they are not posing a threat to you or your family…. thats called murder!

      1. veteranrcs says:

        It should be like the states, people should stay on their land and not wonder on other people’s property. Canada as laws that’s only good for criminal’s and not lawful citizens

        1. mia says:

          Nope, Canada has the same basis as the states. Any legislation that violates unalienable rights is null and void.

        2. Grace Joubarne says:

          Actually as a result of the UN Agenda 21 Policy, the problems of private property take-over by the UN for the One World Order started about 10 years ago….millions of private property owners have been displaced and forced off their farms, ranches, private homes. The Agenda 21 is about ending all private property ownership. Read Eco-fascists by Elizabeth Nickson to understand what is going on.

      2. mia says:

        You make a point about the shooting, but actually both US and Canada legislation is all subject to COMMON LAW. The person you responded to is right that they need to mind their own business, but not the shooting. lol

      3. Grace Joubarne says:

        Sorry, but there are many court cases where the verdict was ‘self-defence’. I am a woman and I can guarantee you that if someone came barging into my house without my consent and invitation, they would meet whatever I had in my hand first…and then I could ask them later what they wanted. I think it was Ted Bundy who use to gain access to victims homes by claiming to be a city authority of some sort. Anyway, as long as I believe I live in a democracy and as long as I believe I’m in danger, I will take the action I believe is appropriate to protect myself. Just because someone wants in doesn’t mean they should be let in…city by-law or not.

        The UN Agenda 21 Policy signed onto by that hateful Mulroney in 1992, set the stage for the complete takeover by tyrannts and as the Policy so eloquently states, it starts at the local level…they train and embolden the naturally tyrannical in jobs such as by-law enforcement and slowly everyone becomes frightened, angry, confused and overtaken.

    3. Grace Joubarne says:

      Until the UN AGenda 21 Policy was signed onto by Mulroney in 1992, there was an understanding that no one came onto private property uninvited…in fact, in many communities event the Police would not go onto a man’s property to sort out a domestic dispute. There was also an unspoken, but clear understanding that trespassers could expect real trouble if they trespassed. If we don’t soon start demanding that our government remove Canada from the UN Agenda 21 Policy agreement, we will have lost all private property…that is the written mission of the Agenda and you are seeing the method they established to ensure this happens.

  14. Jay says:

    I have recently received a notice of inspection of my property. It did not specify the reason so I called the city office (Edmonton) and found out that it was stemmed from a complaint. The city office also would not reveal about the name or the nature of the complaint. The city office also said I refused, they would get a court order and its cost would be added to my annual tax roll. Does the owner have the right to know at least on the nature of the complaint before the inspection?

    1. mia says:

      The owner has the right to refuse entry, no matter by whom for a bylaw complaint. They are bluffing.

    2. Grace Joubarne says:

      Read up on Canadian Criminal act re: search warrants. Just because they say they can do something, doesn’t mean they can. They may get a court order, but it better be according to the rules.

  15. Shogy says:

    We live in the Township of West Lincoln. We have 2.5 acres and leave a vehicle not plated at the back of the property. The neighbors complained about it being there yet before we moved here the mechanic who lived here, at times had between 7 to 15 cars not plated but with no complaint. We installed a light on our new barn because the neighbors son burnt down our other barn and got away with arson, because the Township did not want to have it investigated because of cost. Now they complained to the police and Township that the light was to bright and they can’t sleep. The bylaw officer came with the police, luckily I had a day off when they showed up unannounced and took pictures of the car and the light to find out if I’m breaking any bylaws. The police should have not had the right on our property with no warrant. We are today waiting to see if a bylaw was broken only because we have bad nossy Shogyneighbors. We do believe that the neighbor is somehow friends with the township in some way. We are getting more pissed off with this harassment and are at wits end. .

    1. mia says:

      Lawful Claim of Right. Learn about it.

    2. Grace Joubarne says:

      The police are the worst offenders…anytime they can break the laws they were duty-bound to uphold they do.

  16. Von says:

    If the court can decide that section 436 over rule charter right section 8. Why not charter right over rule section 436. How do court know one is better than the other why not other way!

    1. mia says:

      NO LEGISLATION CAN OVERWRITE Common Law as expressed in the Charter!!! The mistake a person going to a court is giving jurisdiction of the court over their person.

    2. Grace Joubarne says:

      The Charter was dictator Pierre Trudeau’s personal effort to over-ride the Constitution of Canada and make it appear that we had no rights until he gave us rights under the Charter. Many legal beagles say the Charter has no force…that all the protections we need are written right into the Constitution. You will notice that the Charter actually appears to remove constitutional rights with the words ‘notwithstanding’.

  17. amelia says:

    I am a victim of a vexatious neighbour. My neighbour has called bylaw on me almost every week for a year and a half about things that don’t exist simple because they got in trouble for doing something dangerous and they could have blown up my house. Bylaw officers lie, don’t enforce bylaws equally, don’t return phone calls and are utterly obnoxious. I live in Ontario and the rules for bylaw officers need to change. They are uneducated and even their manager lies. I am at the point where I want to sue the city. I just need to find a lawyer that hates the city

    1. TINY says:

      I don’t think making a general statement about all bylaw officers is fair. I am a former police officer, now bylaw and I am very well educated thank you. As for enforcement equally it comes to discretion! does every police officer have to give you a speeding ticket? no, it comes down to how serious of an infraction and how reasonable you are with the officer…. If you have a good attitude towards the officer maybe they will cut you a break…. get up in my face and start off that way then chances are you are getting a ticket!

      1. Grace Joubarne says:

        It sounds as though this officer is suggesting that the ‘nicer’ you are Amelia, the better the ‘reward’ will be from the officer…so perhaps lifting your skirt will keep you safe. I wonder if this is the same bylaw officer I heard about who use to be a police officer and then retired and went to work for the City of Kawartha’s as a by-law officer???? That bylaw officer did 3 searches of a man’s property without a single warrant.

        Canada is truly lost…few people, including those sitting on the bench, recognize our constitution anymore. Few people really believe we live in a democracy. The Supreme Court of Canada has completely neglected it’s duty to keep all citizens safe from tyranny and so now we have tyranny at the MPAC level…where even this private company enters private property, takes pictures, harasses property owners and ‘negotiates’ property value assessments depending on how ‘nice’ the property owner is and how much they are willing to abandon their property rights instead of fighting them.

    2. Grace Joubarne says:

      Call Terence Green of Green and Associates in Ottawa…he specializes in property rights and can guide you.

  18. Essa says:

    Im finding most people on here have no idea how to interpret or read a bylaw. Further most people seem to think that your yard is completely private and no one should ever peek into it….. people need to understand what is reasonable and whats not. There is very little expectation of privacy related to you yard surrounding your house as almost everyone can see into or onto it…. Think of it this way, if you built a house made of glass with no curtains/blinds would you have an expectation of privacy? probably not. People should educate themselves on the laws in their respective communities, and follow them…. simple and reasonable.

    1. mia says:

      Sadly, you are completely misinformed in everything you stated here. You really need to do some research. It is exactly this kind of ignorance of unalienable rights that leads to the meddling of the government into people’s lives.

    2. Grace Joubarne says:

      Essa, this is ridiculous. Just because people can see into your glass house does not mean they have a right to enter it anytime they wish without your invitation or consent.

  19. Shawn Bonte says:

    I posted this on the Owen Sound Facebook network ( )
    Any help sheding light int to vexatious neighbours using the bylaw office to do the bullying for them would be greatly appreciated.

    We have lived and have been proud to be a long time resident of Owen Sound. Till now…

    Our family moved from another country into Owen Sound on Our recommendation. We vowed that it was a clean safe community without prejudice or corruption.

    Upon moving into a home they had purchased they began to have difficulty with a neighbour who continually removed boards from the fence separating the properties. He would yell at them and hurl racial comments in an attempt to harass them. Thanks to the Owen Sound Police the verbal harassment ceased. The neighbour then found a new ingenious method of harassing my family. He called the By Law officer and made claims of bylaw infractions. The bylaw officer arrived unannounced and gave them a list of minor suggestions which were in turn rectified. Since then the bylaw officer has returned time and again with more and more petty recommendations. The final straw being some weeds growing between the shed and the fence line obstructing the neighbours view of peeping onto my families property. They have since been fined for the weeds.

    At what point does the city of Owen Sound use their judgement and recognize that this not a bylaw issue but an issue of neighbours disputes and stop participating in the bullying of good respectable citizens?

    Our family has since contacted a lawyer for advice. It is indeed an injustice that the good citizens of Owen Sound are being bullied by a select few who have the city bylaw office on speed dial.

    1. mia says:

      The mistake they made was responding to the minor suggestions. They assigned away their rights. Sadly, many lawyers are not aware of Common Law that underwrites all legislation in Canada, except Quebec.

      1. Perrdice1 says:

        Hi Mia are you a lawyer?

      2. Dino says:

        Correct! By complying with the orders, consent was given to contract with bylaw therefore they have gained authority over them. Mia speaks the truth regarding common law vs unlawful statutes.

  20. sandra olson says:

    I live in chilliwack BC. Recently a by law officer walked right into my back yard to take photos of my back yard due to a complaint of UNSIGHTLY property. IT is construction material as the house is under renovation. IT is not visable from anywhere unless you are standing next to our property or ON our property, OUr land is on a slope and completely surrounded by trees. Large ones, I have just been told they can do as they please with taking photos while standing on our land if they had a complaint. I have just told them this weekend a fence is going up there and If they enter again, I consider it tresspass. How do I get rid of these guys?

    1. mia says:

      Post a LAWFUL CLAIM OF RIGHT. Be sure that your name at the bottom below your signature is NOT in all caps, but in upper and lower case, i.e. John Henry Smith, NOT JOHN HENRY SMITH. Asserting your rights will keep them off your property.

  21. veteranrcs says:

    A good way not to have people nose around on your land is to fence it, post signs of guard dogs, and have 2 big well trained Rottweiler free on the property. By law officers don’t come on my land without calling me first! You pay for the land, it’s private and it’s yours, it’s not a public park!

  22. mia says:

    Wrong, wrong, wrong!!!!!!! Any legislation in Canada that violates unalienable rights of Canadians is NULL AND VOID. Common law. Look it up. This author should feel very silly!

    1. Grace Joubarne says:

      He is providing fact Mia…he didn’t make up the court decisions. We need to organize a massive pushback against this…a demand that the Ontario Building Code stick to it’s original mandate of ensuring safety of crown-owned property (which does not mean private property).

  23. mia says:

    You catch them on your property, demand PERSONAL ID with their name, and take a pic, then inform them you will be filing a civil claim for trespassing, a violation of your rights under Common Law, supported by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, if they don’t leave immediately, or dare to return. You tell them THEY as a person will be the defendant, not the city or county, or whatever. They will trip on their way to the car.

    1. Anonymous says:

      Mia I’d really like to talk to you to find out more, I have goggled and searched and seen some of the generic declarations I’m now about to embark on another battle w/ city over in-law suite(s) or secondary units in my home / same shit by laws etc building permits to “dry wall ceiling in garage” according to fire marshal order and building inspection letter! Before i go down this road i just want to make sure I’m not just buying more grief and troubles with city, input and advise would be appreciated I’m on msn and handle is perrdice1, thanks

  24. Invest in Knowledge says:

    When neighbors disrepesct their neighbors, then, someone neds to step in
    and try to investigate and rectify the problems. Nowadays, many rentals are drug houses and the resulting garbage left behind..rat problem is disgusting!

    1. Grace Joubarne says:

      That’s what the already-in-place health by-laws are for. No need for more by-laws at all.

      1. Invest in Knowledge says:

        For many municpalities health by-law are only related to
        outside garbage which may attract rats…does not include extensive mold in houses nor as in this instance, municpalilty shut off water and residents and squatters in drug houses defecating in back yard and neighbors on each side andanother house defecating inside the house.

  25. Invest in Knowledge says:

    Lost privacy..yes, when drug dealers, who do drug deals in front of your house,
    attract drug addicts, who use drugs in front of your children…drug house..enough garbage to fill a gravel truck, rats….constant foot traffic……
    And neighbors,w ho park their vehicles on the lawn, leave wrecked cars parked
    on the lawns…garbage etc…is it fair for everyone to look at it.
    Time is important…….it takes up to two weeks to submit a letter and a revist
    if the garbage etc. not cleaned up….to the editor of this article..are you willing
    to put up with all of this….do you think one persons privacy outweighs 8-10
    neighbors privacy..the respectful neighbors, who abide by the by-laws?
    You obviously have not lived in a problem neighborhood!

    1. Grace Joubarne says:

      That’s what the Nuisance ACt is for…so you can take civil action. By using the City bullies to do your bidding, you are forcing property violations on everyone, including someday, you yourself if someone doesn’t like what you are doing on your property.

      1. Invest in Knowledge says:

        Actually, nuisance deals with noise, garbage, it does not deal
        with stone drunk and high people, people, constant foot
        traffic, walking across neighbors lawns constantly…
        We live in a different time and the problems are different and
        bylaws need to be updated and new ones implemented to give neighbors peace and safety from bad rental and/or landlords.

        1. Grace Joubarne says:

          Hi Invest…from your comment I take it that you wouldn’t mind being told where to be and when and where to walk and when.
          If someone crosses your lawn, you need only put up a fence or short prickly hedge as a deterrent…that is better than having more by-laws for even more psychopathic by-law officers to use as weapons against everyone. But repeated trespass and damage by someone definitely comes under Nuisance Act…a civil remedy. Constant foot traffic is normal…people need to walk, move, just as you do. The already-in-place by-laws respecting noise after a specific hour works just fine. If people want to get high after 11 pm and they are within the noise by-law, then that should not bother you a bit.

          Remember, every time you demand another by-law, someday it will be used against you and you won’t like it one bit to be told what you can and cannot do on your own property.

          1. Invest in Knowledge says:

            The residents do have their back yards fenced and they just climb over the fences and trapse across people front lawns like they own the place…there’s a driveway and roadway for that…the foot traffic are people coming and going to purchase drugs at the drug house….there’s been
            a bottle bomb thrown on the front lawn, fights….how
            much do you expect neighbors who own their properties to tolerate.
            Let me know where you live and we’ll send them to your place…no need for by-law officers…no problem…

  26. MB Ray says:

    Is this a fact in Manitoba ?…I have a By Law officer repeatedly entering my posted private property unannounced and has taken pictures without consent… I cannot believe his arrogance when asked to leave ..He contends that he is the By Law Officer and has the right to enter the property . Since challenging him he now seams to show up every second day knit picking every thing even things done by the previous owners !!!.
    Who do I contact to get this guy put on a leash ? The RCMP ?, Justice Minister ?

    1. MB Ray says:

      LOL…Once again I received a visit from my friendly By Law Officer to serve me notice to get a permit for a deck left incomplete by the previous owners…Oh and of course a fine is attached

Comments are closed.