"Bilingual Defence" - Where it can be used

One of the most frequent tickets we get asked about on this forum is "Disobey Sign" of some sort. In many parts of Ontario, if the sign is not bilingual, there is a possibility that it may be challenged as invalid. This is because of O.Reg 615 (which sets the standard for road signs) requiring bilingual signs in a designated bilingual area, which was initially backed up by the R. v Myers case. A bilingual sign is either pictogram-only, or if it lists specific times when the sign is in effect, it says, for example "MON - FRI" and also "LUN - VEN." While it may seem rather strange that Toronto (which has 1.4% of the population as French-speaking but substantially larger populations that speak Mandarin, Cantonese, Hindi, Urdu, Vietnamese, Arabic, Tagalog, Italian, Greek, Portuguese, Spanish, etc) requires French signs, it is an option. It is not, however, bulletproof. Myers was appealed and the defendant pled guilty, so no precedent was set. If you wish to use this defence, you must state that O.Reg 615 requires bilingual road signs, and even though the municipality itself may not have committed to providing French services, the province of Ontario clearly has. As such, the ticket affects your provincial driving record and demerit points, so it is logical that the sign should be bilingual. Will they accept it? Maybe, maybe not. If, however, the sign is on a PROVINCIAL highway (e.g. 401, hwy 3, etc), then the sign must be bilingual.

If you're wondering whether your city is a designated bilingual area, here is a list of the current designated bilingual areas, as of May 20, 2009:

City of Toronto

City of Mississauga

City of Brampton

City of Ottawa

City of Hamiton (does NOT include the areas of Waterdown, Ancaster, Flamborough or Dundas)

City of London

City of Windsor

City of Kingston

City of Greater Sudbury and the District of Sudbury

Regional Municipality of Niagara

District of Algoma

District of Cochrane

District of Nipissing

District of Timiskaming

Township of Ignace

Municipality of Callander

County of Stormont

County of Glengarry

County of Russell

County of Prescott

County of Simcoe (Town of Penetanguishene, and the townships of Tiny and Essa only)

County of Renfrew (Town of Pembroke, townships of Stafford and Westmeath only)

District of Thunder Bay (Geraldton, Beardmore, Longlac, Marathon, Manitouwadge, Nakina and Terrace Bay)

Essex County (Belle River, Tecumseh, Tilbury, Colchester North, Maidstone South, Sandwich West, Sandwich South, and Rochester only - but not Leamington, Amherstburg or Kingsville)

If your ticket for disobey sign was in one of those regions, bilingual defence could be applied if the sign was not bilingual. However, the following are some examples of places that are NOT designated bilingual areas:

Regional Municipality of York (Markham, Richmond Hill, Vaughan, Stouffville, Newmarket, Aurora, etc)

Regional Municipality of Durham (Oshawa, Whitby, Ajax, Pickering)

Regional Municipality of Halton (Oakville, Burlington, Halton Hills, Milton)

Regional Municipality of Kitchener-Waterloo

Oxford County

Dufferin County

City of Peterborough

City of Trenton

And so on.

Also, "STOP" signs are designated by Ontario Regulation 615, which outlines acceptable signage, as acceptable, even though they are in only one language. "STOP" signs cannot be challenged on the basis of not having "ARRET" also written on them, even in a designated bilingual area.

Hi, I recently lost the case (dec., 18, 09) by using this case of R. v. Myers to defend my case of turning right onto Richmond from southbound of Bay during a period of restriction time. This sign was Mon-Fri, and English Only. However, the prosecutor argued that City of Toronto never approval or adopted this bilingual option. He further mentioned that the City has appealed and won the case from the superior court. The justice of peace was in favor of him. Can you please update me on this? I am going to appeal. Should I stick to the bilingual or not? Any strong evidence to will be much appreciated. Otherwise, I will most likely seek for a less fine or points by an explanation at the appeal.

Some of the discussions that happened since this was posted indicated that bilingual defence would not work. The story is, the City of Toronto appealed R. v. Myers, and then Myers pled guilty instead of going through another trial... go figure that one. We also found that only a Superior Court Justice may make a declaratory order, and the JP and appeal court Justice who ruled on R. v. Myers were clearly not Superior Court Justices... but the City of Toronto may have gone beyond the initial appeal to a Superior Court of Justice and obtained an order preventing use of bilingual defence ever again... but I don't know if they did or not. If they didn't, then the option to use it may be available but it depends on the JP.

Long story short: I'd only suggest the bilingual defence as "try it and see if it works," but not to rely on it.

Some of the previous post that I wrote was edited as a caveat.

RI - do you have a link to these listings? There are some (towns etc) there that are no longer in existence

The most current information is maintained by the Office of Francophone Affairs:

http://www.ofa.gov.on.ca/en/flsa-mapdesig.html

Looks like they haven't updated the municipalities though.

Radar Identified wrote:

Looks like they haven't updated the municipalities though.

that is what i see too. I see one municipality listed that has not existed for 11 years

hwybear wrote:

I see one municipality listed that has not existed for 11 years

Which one? I'll edit the first post on the thread to remove it.

Radar Identified wrote:

hwybear wrote:

I see one municipality listed that has not existed for 11 years

Which one? I'll edit the first post on the thread to remove it.

Chatham-Kent is NOT on the list on the FSL link and should be removed.

Kent County is listed on FSL link, but has not existed for 11yrs.

Edit to list done.

Please also note that the french sign requirement for the City of Hamilton exists only for the City of Hamilton as it existed prior to January 1, 2001. The City of Hamilton amalgamated with Waterdown, Flamborough, Ancaster and Dundas on January 1, 2001, so the french sign requirement does not apply to these areas since, prior to January 1, 2001, they did not form as a part of the City of Hamilton.

I discovered this when someone here suggested this defense to me and I looked into the Hamilton city limits as I was charged on a Hwy, but not within the City of Hamilton as it existed prior to January 1, 2001.

Thanks, Marquisse. 1st post edited.

HTA OREG 615

52. A municipality situated in an area designated by the French Language Services Act is not required to comply with the sign requirements for such areas unless it (Municipality) has passed a by-law under section 14 of that Act.

what's the status of the "bilingual defence"? Is R v. Meyers still applicable?

Personally I'm at the point of only suggesting bilingual defence as an option, but not to rely on it. It may work in some isolated cases, but in most cases it does not. The Myers case went to appeal and she pled guilty instead of going through a trial; as far as I know, that's how it ended.

Oh noes,

I wish I had known this earlier. I had court yesterday and indicated to the justice I was going to use bilingual defence. The prosecution said this wasn't fair as she had not been provided with the sections of the hiway traffic act I would be quoting.

It was close to 4:30 so the justice didn't start my trial saying it was a very complicated case (she also added she didn't think I would win) ... so my trial got pushed back to September 10th 2010. My ticket is dated May 9th 2009.

I'm wondering if I have grounds to request a Stay under 11b of the Charter ? The new court date will place me at 16 months when I go to trial again. Seems unreasonable ...

Bamelin wrote:

Oh noes,

I'm wondering if I have grounds to request a Stay under 11b of the Charter ? The new court date will place me at 16 months when I go to trial again. Seems unreasonable ...

You can always request an 11b it's just whether or not the JP accepts your argument. 16 months puts you in a pretty good position unless you have caused a delay in the trial process already (which it doesn't sound like you have). Good luck.

Does anyone think that this process is abusive?

You clearly speak English as you've noted by your near flawless command of the language...so you would have understood the sign and for some other reason didn't obey it.

Isn't that the real issue here?

What would you say if a fluently English person disobeyed a stop sign and ran over a child, your child?

I understand, it's ok, the sign wasn't in French for this Anglophone?

I understand and respect rights, but not as a charade to play games. Those rights were established so that Francophones could have a trial in a language they understand, so they had a right to fair comprehension and defence...not to be abused as a stalling tactic to let people avoid answering for their behaviour, right or wrong, this abuse of the law is disgusting and if the authorities played those kinds of games there would be an uproar about fair play...

Sad that people play these games rather than take responsibility for their actions...

FyreStorm wrote:

Does anyone think that this process is abusive?

You clearly speak English as you've noted by your near flawless command of the language...so you would have understood the sign and for some other reason didn't obey it.

Isn't that the real issue here?

What would you say if a fluently English person disobeyed a stop sign and ran over a child, your child?

I understand, it's ok, the sign wasn't in French for this Anglophone?

I understand and respect rights, but not as a charade to play games. Those rights were established so that Francophones could have a trial in a language they understand, so they had a right to fair comprehension and defence...not to be abused as a stalling tactic to let people avoid answering for their behaviour, right or wrong, this abuse of the law is disgusting and if the authorities played those kinds of games there would be an uproar about fair play...

Sad that people play these games rather than take responsibility for their actions...

It's not about me trying to "beat the system" it's about me defending myself in court to the best of my ability which is a very important right, one I take seriously. The bottom line is that if bilingual defence argument is accepted in court then no law has been broken.

The reason courts follow the "letter of the law" is to ensure everyone is treated fairly under the law. Once you start trying to argue "oh the law only needs to be "close enough" that is a slippery slope my friend to being tried unfairly. Personally I believe it is the DUTY of citizens to use the law to defend themselves and the law itself is impartial to "right or wrong" ... it is simply the law.

People died to give us the freedom to exercise these rights.

I do understand what you are saying Fyre but I don't agree with you at all. Among other things, the system exists to give everyone a chance to challenge the "legality" of what they are being accused of.

I understand and respect rights, but not as a charade to play games. Those rights were established so that Francophones could have a trial in a language they understand, so they had a right to fair comprehension and defence...not to be abused as a stalling tactic to let people avoid answering for their behaviour, right or wrong, this abuse of the law is disgusting and if the authorities played those kinds of games there would be an uproar about fair play...

Respectfully disagree. 1) That is a very small portion of why the FLSA was enacted. Read the Constitution and some history books for a more complete and thorough perspective. 2) Arguing that upholding the law is abusing the law, is, well, bizarre, and a little frightening coming from a police officer; 3) some police officers and some prosecutors have been known to play the odd game, believe it or not 3) The law works both ways. You do not always choose to disobey the law, and yet, the law says that if you commit an absolute liability offence, no mens rea is required. Is that fair play? Doesn't matter. That's the law.