I am getting conflicting information. According to the Ticket Combat site, an urban stop sign requires a municipal bylaw; a copy of which is to be provided by the prosecutor. This is the cut and paste of the section:

In other words, there must be a by-law creating the stop sign. Under Step 3, examples are given of signs that require by-laws. Under disclosure, you should receive a copy of the by-law. If you don't, you can argue improper disclosure and adjourn or stay your trial.

Elsewhere i have been told that this is no longer required.

Any idea which is correct?

Thanks again in advance

The existence of the sign creates the presumption that it has been erected legally and in accordance with all applicable laws. The onus is on you to prove otherwise.

I think you are reading this wrong - when it comes to prosecuting a bylaw offence - a certified copy of the City/Town bylaws must be present in the court - you are not entitled to a copy of the bylaw any more than you would be entitled to a copy of the Highway Traffic Act.

This is different if you have been charged with an HTA offence which has been resolved with a bylaw - in that case, the bylaws need not be present in the courtroom.

Ticket Combat site has been around for a long time and some of the information is outdated.

The courts have decided that the existence of a Stop sign (applies to Speed limit signs as well) is proof enough that a bylaw exists and therefore the bylaw does not need to be brought to court and does not need to be produced. You need to prove that the bylaw does not exist.

So what you need to do is contact the municipality and ask for a copy of the bylaw related to the sign in question. Assuming it actually does exists then you just need to make sure that it is correct related to the charge you have.

If the bylaw exists and is correct then there is nothing you can do.

If the bylaw exists and is NOT correct related to the charge, then bring a copy with you to court.

If no bylaw exists, then you will need to keep some notes of your emails and phone conversations about who you talked to and what they said. It is very hard to prove that something does not exist, so I am not sure what the court requires in this instance. Maybe this information will be enough, but if not, then maybe you can you ask the JP to order somebody from the municipality to come and testify that no bylaw exists. I still do not know exactly what the proper procedure is, for proving it does not exist, but maybe somebody else has a better idea how to do this.

thank you jsherk. Yes, that was the information i was seeking. What Ticket Combat suggested was contrary to other information I had found elsewhere. I was trying to establish which was valid.

I've never been to traffic court before but assume that nothing is more aggravating to the court than to have a defendant cite outdated information so wanted to be certain before I proceeded down that path.

Thanks again everyone for the help