R v Ryan-Lee Investments Inc.

R. v. Ryan-Lee Investments Inc.

[2005] O.J. No. 3560
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice F.L. Forsyth | May 16, 2005

Background

Ryan-Lee Investments Inc. owned a piece of land on the east side of Eighth Line in Oakville that was zoned M2 industrial. On September 26, 2001, bylaw officer Fred Somersett found the company growing oats on the property. Since crop farming wasn't a permitted use in an industrial zone, the Town of Oakville charged Ryan-Lee under section 9(1) of Zoning By-law 1984-63.

Ryan-Lee's defence was clever: they argued the land qualified for a "non-conforming use" exemption under section 11(2) of the bylaw. Their expert planner, Peter Walker, testified that the property had been used for farming back in 1954 (proven by aerial photos), and when a strip of the land was dedicated to the Township of Trafalgar for road widening in 1955, section 11(2) should allow the agricultural use to continue on the remaining "balance of a lot."

Issues

1. Did section 11(2) of the zoning bylaw create an exemption that applied to Ryan-Lee's farming operation?
2. Was the wording of section 11(2) so ambiguous that it couldn't be properly interpreted?

The Ambiguity Defence

Justice of the Peace Phipps never actually decided whether Ryan-Lee met the requirements of section 11(2). Instead, he found the section itself was fatally ambiguous. Section 11(2) allowed non-conforming use of "the balance of a lot" for purposes it was "legally used" when land was conveyed to the municipality — but it didn't specify whether the use had to be continuous, and it didn't set any fixed dates for when the exemption would apply.

The expert planner testified that other municipalities had much clearer non-conforming use provisions requiring continuous use or setting specific cutoff dates. Mississauga's bylaw, for example, froze non-conforming uses as of April 10, 1953, and required them to continue uninterrupted. Oakville's bylaw had neither requirement, making it impossible to determine whether a decades-old farming use could be revived in 2001.

On appeal, the Town argued this interpretation would create absurd results — allowing property owners to resume any historical use regardless of how long it had been discontinued. But Justice Forsyth upheld the acquittal, finding no palpable error in the trial judge's reasoning that ambiguous bylaw provisions must be resolved in favour of the defendant.

Key Takeaway

When a municipal bylaw is genuinely ambiguous about what conduct it prohibits, that ambiguity must be resolved in favour of the defendant.

This case shows that poorly drafted bylaws can create their own defence. If you're facing a zoning or bylaw charge, look carefully at the exact wording of the provision you're accused of violating — vague language that leaves key requirements unclear might be your best argument.