In my case, the charge was failing to obey a (no u-turn) traffic sign (182.2). That regulation, as far as I can see, makes no mention of requiring a by-law. Should I still propose a Motion of Non-Suit if I don't get a by-law in the disclosure?

So where is the requirement for the by-law?
Reg 615 s. 23 covers what the sign should look like. And the requirement for a by-law is under the Municipal Act s. 10 (2) 10. and 27.

By-laws

(2) A single-tier municipality may pass by-laws respecting the following matters:

...

10. Structures, including fences and signs.

By-laws

27. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, a municipality may pass by-laws in respect of a highway only if it has jurisdiction over the highway. 2001, c. 25, s. 27 (1).

Beware the pre-trial trap! Just before court commences everyone sees the prosecutor to tell her how they are going to plead (guilty/not guilty). At that point the prosecutor may say something like "Oh, this is for you", and she will attempt to hand you some papers. It's the by-law and she's trying to give you disclosure. Don't accept it. You can't argue you didn't get disclosure if you are holding it in your hand!

Second,in R. v. Egger, [1993] (2 S.C.R. 451), the Supreme Court stated "disclosure must be made early enough to leave the accused enough time to take any steps that may affect that right..." In other words, you can't simply disclose at the last minute.

In R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] (3 S.C.R. 326), the Supreme Court stated that the element of surprise had no place in modern trials since "acceptance of the principle that justice was better served when the element of surprise was eliminated from the trial and the parties were prepared to address issues on the basis of complete information of the case to be met."

A certificate of parking infraction issued for an infraction under a by-law of a municipality is not insufficient or irregular by reason only that it does not identify the by-law that creates the offence if the notice of trial given to the defendant identifies the by-law. 1992, c. 20, s. 1 (1).

I just learned how much it cost to file an appeal. Forget it, no way.

The cost of the transcript depends on how long your trial was. The longer it took, the greater the amount to be transcribed. You will be asked to pay a nominal $25 deposit to start the process. When the reporter examines the recording, she will provide an estimate that you will have to pay. It will cost a minimum of $60 to upwards of several hundred dollars. When the transcript is ready, you will likely be charged a final settlement amount if it was higher than expected. This is on top of the fine you've already paid to start the appeal process.

OTTAWA - McKellar Park residents, tired of drivers using Windermere Avenue as a shortcut, have been benefiting from fake stop signs at a key intersection for nearly a year.

In July someone installed three stop signs at the T-intersection of Windermere and Crossfield avenues. They were identical to authentic City of Ottawa stop signs and the culprit painted the road with the standard white lines to match.

The plan went off without a hitch until an alert crew of city workers noticed the signs weren’t set in concrete, the way official stop signs are. And so last week, the city took them down.

The intersection is on the eastern side of McKellar Park. Residents say drivers looking for quick passage from Carling Avenue north to Richmond Road zoom down Windermere, right by the park.

The move has angered residents. Catherine Adam, who lives on Windermere, notes that the city provides recreational activities in McKellar Park, but won’t take steps to protect the children entering the park.

“It’s a tragedy waiting to happen,” she said.

“Cars often will race along here at 70 to 80 kilometres an hour,” said another resident, Chris McKillop.

“If there’s any place in the world that deserves a stop sign it’s right there,” said Geoff Wright, adding that kids from nearby Nepean High School often use that intersection to get to the park.

Residents kept mum about who they thought put up the signs. Kitchissippi Councillor Christine Leadman supports a stop sign for the area, but, contrary to rumours relayed by some residents, she says did not have a hand in supplying the illicit signs.

She recently sent an e-mail explaining that illegal, improperly installed signs could fly off in an accident or bad weather and hit someone, or the installer could damage wires or pipes in the ground, leaving him or her on the hook for costs.

A criminal investigation is under way, searching for the perpetrator. Violators of the city’s various bylaws governing signage face fines of $5,000 per infraction.

It is also possible — though unlikely — that the perpetrator would be charged with public mischief, which, at its extreme, carries a penalty of five years in jail.

Residents on Windermere are not alone in feeling neglected by the city. A Barrhaven resident recently spent $300 of his own money on signs reminding motorists to avoid rolling stops. Added to existing stop signs, his notices fell afoul of a bylaw meant to keep views at intersections from being obstructed and the city ordered them taken down.

In October, residents of Grenfell Crescent in Nepean staged a demonstration to discourage commuters from using it as a shortcut.

Since 2003, Ottawa police say they’ve been treating traffic enforcement as a top priority, adding 18 officers to the traffic section and cracking down on particular offences on a monthly schedule: This past May, stop-sign violations were the theme; this month it’s impaired driving; in July, it will be pedestrian safety.

While councillors have input, the city’s traffic department has final say about where to put signs. A study two years ago showed the traffic on Windermere didn’t warrant stop signs, but another study is under way.

“There has to be recognition that these communities are now having to cope with more and more traffic,” Leadman said, pledging to fight for a legal set of stop signs. “I’ve certainly let (the city’s traffic) staff know my position on this issue.”

With the department’s approval, new signs could be up in a matter of weeks. Otherwise Leadman will have to take the matter to a council committee for a vote ordering the signs be erected, but she said new staff at the traffic department had “really taken the community needs into consideration.”