Yes No Share to Facebook
Ongoing Offences
Continuing Bylaw Breaching Conduct
Last Updated: June 11 2026
Question: Can you be charged with the same Ontario bylaw offence more than once if the violation continues?
Answer: Yes, if the bylaw breach is ongoing or repeats on different days, municipalities can lay additional charges because each day or continued non-compliance may be treated as a new offence rather than “double jeopardy.” For practical help responding to repeated bylaw charges, negotiating compliance timelines, or preparing for court, contact Forseti Legal Services (Paralegal serving clients across Ontario) at (705) 806-7577 for clear, cost-effective guidance.
Can a Person Be Charged With a Bylaw Offence Over and Over Again?
Continuous Bylaw Violations May Lead to Repeated Charges and Aggregate Fines.
Understanding the Inapplicability of the Res Judicata Principle to Continuous Bylaw Violations As Ongoing Offences
Generally, the law forbids a person from being charged twice for the same offence. The concept, informally known as double jeopardy, prevents a person from being accused of, and needing to defend against, the same offence more than once. However, although a person is protected against being charged twice for the same criminal offence or same provincial offence, in some circumstances, the offence is continuous and may result in repeated charges.
The Law
The legal principle formally referred to as res judicata, loosely meaning "things decided in Latin", serves to prevent repetition of accusations against a person for any one instance of a unique wrongdoing; however, res judicata pertains solely to a distinct solitary violation, such as neglecting a red traffic signal while driving, rather than being relevant to a continuous offence as might arise from an ongoing bylaw violation. The R. v. Nolis, 2012 ONCJ 446, case shed light on the question of the whether the res judicata doctrine applies to ongoing bylaw offenses by stating:
[57] In Re EnerNorth Industries Inc., 96 O.R. (3d) 1, [2009] O.J. No. 2815, 2009 ONCA 536 (O.C.A.), R. A. Blair J.A., in delivering the judgment for the court, describes the doctrine of res judicata, starting at paragraph 53:
The doctrine of res judicata is a common law doctrine that prevents the re-litigation of issues already decided. It is founded on two central policy concerns: finality (it is in the interest of the public that an end be put to litigation); and fairness (no one should be twice vexed by the same cause). The doctrine is part of the general law of estoppel and is said to have two central branches, namely, "cause of action estoppel" and "issue estoppel."
Cause of action estoppel refers to the determination of the cause or causes of action before the court. The applicable form of res judicata in this case, however, is issue estoppel. Issue estoppel prevents a litigant from re-litigating an issue that has been clearly decided by a court of competent jurisdiction in a previous proceeding between the same parties or their privies even if the new litigation involves a different cause of action.
[58] In the matter before me, the applicable form of res judicata is issue estoppel. For issue estoppel to be successfully invoked, three conditions must be met: (1) the issue must be the same as the one decided in the prior decision; (2) the prior judicial decision must have been final; and (3) the parties to both proceedings must be the same, or their privies (Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 460, 2001 SCC 44, at para. 25, per Binnie J.).
As per the Nolis case above, the res judicata principle, or issue estoppel, applies to a specific legal matter that was already decided by the courts. Accordingly, the issue of what was already decided by the courts sometimes comes into question. Simply put, where a person commits a singular offence, such as failing to stop at a red light while driving, the person may only be charged for doing so once. However, if the person fails to stop again the next day, the person may be charged for committed the offence for a second time. Despite the apparent logic, confusion can emerge when, instead of committing an offence anew, a person fails to cease the initial offence. An example would be allowing excessive noise to persist after facing an initial charge for a noise violation. The Dysart (Municipality) v. Reeve, 2000 CanLII 16841, case delved into the distinction between an ongoing bylaw violation and an offence taking place at a single moment in time, affirming that despite the res judicata doctrine, repeated charges could be applicable if an ongoing offence is occurring whereas in Dysart it was said:
[22] ... Multiple prosecutions of an accused or a defendant may well, at some point, justify a stay. See, for example, R. v. Jack (1997), 1997 CanLII 356 (SCC), 117 C.C.C. (3d) 43 (S.C.C.) and R. v. Mitchelson (1992), 1992 CanLII 4018 (MB CA), 71 C.C.C. (3d) 471 (Man. C.A.). But the context is important. These defendants were charged not with a Criminal Code offence, but with regulatory offences, with violating the municipality’s land use requirements. The offences are not alleged to have occurred at a discrete point in time but to be ongoing violations. The practical effect of a stay would be to give the defendants a legal non-conforming use by court order without the merits of their position ever having been adjudicated. Viewed in this way, it seems to me the community’s tolerance for successive prosecutions is greater than it might be in other kinds of cases. At least for now, the community’s interest in enforcing its land use requirements outweighs any unfairness in prosecuting the defendants again.
Summary Comment
When a person fails to halt an ongoing bylaw violation or enables continuation of a bylaw violation, the person could face recurrent charges for the offence.
NOTE: A considerable amount of online searches for “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically indicate a pressing need for reliable legal support rather than seeking out a particular title. In Ontario, licensed paralegals fall under the same regulatory body as lawyers, which is the Law Society, and they hold the authority to represent clients in specific legal disputes. The core aspects of this role include advocacy, legal reasoning, and procedural expertise. Forseti Legal Services provides legal representation within its authorized mandate/scope, focusing on strategic positioning, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy to achieve prompt and beneficial outcomes for clients.