Markham (City) v. Paul, 2015 ONCJ 480

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE CITATION: Markham (City) v. Paul , 2015 ONCJ 480 DATE: 2015·08·28 IN THE MATTER OF an appeal under subsection 135(1) of the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, as amended; BETWEEN: THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF MARKHAM Respondent — AND — BRIAN PAUL Appellant PROVINCIAL OFFENCES ACT APPEAL Before Justice Joseph F. Kenkel Heard on August 28, 2015 Reasons for Judgment released on August 28, 2015 Ms. Olga Pankou ............................................................................... agent for the Respondent Ms.

Fatema Dattu .................................................................................. agent for the Appellant On appeal from the conviction by Justice of the Peace T. Benn-Ireland on March 25, 2014 at Richmond Hill. KENKEL J.: Introduction [ 1 ] Mr.

Paul was convicted at trial of parking in a designated handicapped parking space without a permit to do so contrary to Bylaw 2005-188 Section 11(1). [ 2 ] The appellant admits that he parked in the handicapped space without the required permit as alleged, but submits that he cannot be convicted unless the sign at that location displayed the number of the applicable Bylaw. He further submits that the City did not prove the spot was properly designated as there was no evidence of a painted handicapped sign on the pavement in the spot.

Accessible Parking [ 3 ] The Markham Bylaw states, “No person shall park … a motor vehicle in a designated handicapped space unless an Accessible Parking Permit is displayed …”. [ 4 ]

Section 11 of Regulation 581 RRO 1990, to the Highway Traffic Act RSO 1990 c.H-8 sets out the requirements for

accessible parking permit signs to designate spaces for persons with a disability. [ 5 ] Neither the bylaw nor the regulation requires the bylaw number to be displayed on the sign. The regulation does not require a painted sign on the pavement to indicate accessible parking nor does the bylaw. Mr. Paul is correct that it’s recommended as a best practice by the municipality. Conclusion [ 6 ] The trial justice did not err in finding that the sign met the statutory requirements and that the prosecution proved the offence. [ 7 ] The appeal as to conviction is dismissed.

The appeal as to sentence is allowed on consent and sentence is varied to the minimum fine of $300 plus costs. Released: 28 August 2015 Justice Joseph F. Kenkel