The Town of Huntsville is considering a different method of enforcement for some of its bylaws—one that would reportedly be more efficient and less costly—using Town resources rather than the provincial court system.
At its Dec. 15 meeting, Huntsville’s general committee heard about Administrative Monetary Penalties (AMPs), an alternative to traditional bylaw fines.
Rather than being processed by the court system, an AMP is both issued and processed by the municipality.
If implemented, the program would apply to violations under Part I of the Provincial Offences Act, which are primarily minor offences. The Town already uses AMPs as part of enforcement of its outdoor burning and short-term rental licensing bylaws, and is looking to expand them to its other bylaws—like noise or clean yards, for example—as appropriate.
A similar program for Part II tickets, which cover parking infractions, would be considered in the future.
Currently, to issue a Part I ticket, a bylaw officer must deliver the ticket in person. “We do have difficulties with that in tracking down the person…to hand them, physically, the ticket,” noted Andrew Stillar, the Town’s chief bylaw enforcement officer. “This way, with sufficient evidence from a complainant, we can actually fill out the administrative penalty and send it in the mail.”
Once notice of the monetary penalty has been put in the mail or delivered by courier, after five days it is considered delivered.
“The biggest advantage for the municipality is it keeps us out of the courts… everything is handled in-house,” said Stillar. That saves staff time and therefore costs the municipality less, and also would speed up the process for those who have received notice of an infraction.
Stillar stressed that sufficient evidence remains a big part of the process. “We just can’t take a phone call or someone coming to the front counter and complaining,” he said in response to a question about a burning bylaw infraction, as an example. “Either we need to go out and find that, or they need to give us some sort of evidence, and pictures are always the best way of doing that.”
An AMP notice must also be issued within 30 days of the infraction.
Those who receive an AMP notice would have the ability to request an extension of time for a review of the AMP as well as an extension of time to pay an AMP.
The right to appeal would still be part of the process, but instead of being handled by the courts, it would be the responsibility of a hearing officer. That officer would not be the person who issued the AMP notice, but rather would be an impartial third-party, likely retained on a contract basis, who would have the ability to modify, cancel, or affirm penalties. The cost of the hearing officer would be offset by the penalties issued.
If an AMP is not paid, it would be considered a debt to the municipality and could be added to the taxes for the property on which the AMP has been issued.
The Township of Lake of Bays is in the process of implementing a similar AMP program, and other municipalities across the province are currently using one successfully, including Hamilton, Kitchener/Waterloo, and Brampton.
Staff have been directed to bring back a draft Administrative Monetary Penalty Bylaw in the new year for committee’s consideration.
Don’t miss out on Doppler!
Sign up here to receive our email digest with links to our most recent stories.
Local news in your inbox three times per week!
Click here to support local news
Ray Vowels says
The town should start checking out the disabled parking in all the parking lots in town. at $300 for every infraction they could make a fortune.Not only do people park in them illegally but sometimes park between them when the space is large enough. I have had that happen a few times and it makes it so tight I had a very hard time getting into my car . A person in a wheelchair would never be able to. Also there should be a fine for leaving a shopping carts in a disabled spot Problem a lot of people who do that are disabled but can push the cart all the way out of the store but not another twenty feet to the cart rack. In the last 15 or so years I have only seen one bylaw officer in one parking lot and he was there doing something else not checking parking. Why make a law if you are not going to enforce it.
Travis Mosbaugh says
Seems like what we are doing here is surrending rights to trial in exchange for the cost savings thereof. That is not a good thing.
How ‘impartial’ do we expect the third party hearing officer to be when her income is soley provided by the town? Moreover, If the town is not favorable of the appeal outcomes, they can simply find someone more of like mind for future judgements.
This should only proceed providing that a 2nd appeal can be challenged in a provincial court. This keeps everything honest, and I imagine most will capitulate either at time of infraction, or the first appeal.
Residents should never surrender their right for court proceedings. The town can enforce payment via propery tax and this puts your property at risk.
Bill Beatty says
By-law needs to enforce clean yards legislation in Huntsville/ Port Sydney now .There are disgusting properties that need attention .This is a Tourist destination and having trash laden residences in urban and rural areas that defile the Beauty of Nature and well kept properties is unacceptable .Whatever system is chosen for enforcement use it aggressively and consistently !!!
Christine Heron says
Ok. Yards and parking, now- what later? To which degree are we willing to allow this sub-litigation to take place?
If I’m accused of something I didn’t do- I would like to know that the person making judgement on me is a judge.
Look at the following statement from the above article:
“The right to appeal would still be part of the process, but instead of being handled by the courts, it would be the responsibility of a hearing officer. That officer would not be the person who issued the AMP notice, but rather would be an impartial third-party, likely retained on a contract basis, who would have the ability to modify, cancel, or affirm penalties. The cost of the hearing officer would be offset by the penalties issued.”
I find this concerning. Who is the ‘non-partisan’ officer?
What fee is he/she receiving? And why? When monetary incentives are given to people, it more often than not encourages selfish motives.
And like I said, maybe now, I get a ticket for some tires in my yard- but what about later when the stakes rise and a judgement of a
non-judge becomes the key factor of an outcome that determines whether or not I’m allowed to work or shop or vote?
This is making me think of the early onset of the Chinese social credit system- if you’re not familiar, look it up. If you are familiar, think again about how groovy Huntsville’s fun, new, skip the court initiative ISN’T.
Wendy Brown says
Ok I can mention the house next door was empty after the woman died, the person who inherited it didn’t look after it. The grass was literally waist deep and I called the by law.The by law states that the grass cant be like that in town now, everyone who is saying take your by law infractions to a judge are out of line. Add it to there taxes because when I complained to the by law officer I was told oh I’ll look after it. He didn’t I had to call the mayor. Now how do you say the by law shouldn’t be enforced or they should have to prove it, the by laws are all pretty obvious. How do you say oh no that grass isn’t too deep, or no I can get away with burning in town in the afternoon in the summer. All you people who think you need a judge to decide need to actually read the by laws.
Mark Gibbesh says
As a landlord I have been a victim of this type of system. A tenant broke a fire ban bylaw in Gravenhurst. The fire department was called to attend and deal with it. The tenant was not fined on the spot. I later recieved a bill in the mail. It indicated that if payment was not made then the outstanding amount would be added to the property taxes.
This makes it easy for the municipality to collect the fine but from the wrong person. This is completely wrong! The person who broke the bylaw should be liable for payment no matter how difficult it is for the town to collect.
Craig Nakamoto says
I think this is a great idea to save money and streamline the process. The courts are too busy and too expensive to handle these minor infractions. I can’t believe all of the people who are complaining about this. The bylaws are very clearly written and while there could be some situations that are murky – I suspecct that it would be extremely rare. As long as they are using the AMPs for specific, easy-to-prove infractions (like parking, noise, and clean yards as mentioned), I have no issue with it. And as for tenants breaking bylaws on their rental property, that should be the landlord’s responsibility.
Allen Markle says
Christine Heron uses an example ( the Chinese system of ranking a persons value as a citizen) that is a little further advanced than what this AMP program proposes. But it is a start. And it is a fine example of how citizens can lose those ‘rights’ they are always claiming.
There will be no court, where the accused can face the accuser.
An ‘impartial adjudicator’ under contract to the town!
Photos? Who will guarantee the provenance of those?
A scenario if you will allow me.
A well known community member is invited to an outdoor party. BYOB. He arrives with a bottle of Buffalo Trace and a dozen beer chasers. Well into these he becomes rowdy and obnoxious. The home owner, just an average guy named Bob, suggests he get a cab and depart.
The man departs but is severely miffed. A call is made to the By-law office, reporting a party where there were some loud, obnoxious people.
How can you imagine that playing out? Ordinary Bob squaring off with a well known community member.
That is just a ‘what-if’ scenario. Very CBC.
In my opinion, AMP is just an end-run to the money. And I think a lot of our bylaws are enforced at the convenience of the town. Ray Vowels, your suggestion that handicap parking should be for people needing those spots will be ignored. Even if you get the photos.
If you aren’t able or willing to have the people available to administer and enforce your bylaws, don’t write them.
Rodger King says
Whoa. While this is very convenient for the Town of Huntsville, it fly’s in the face of almost 1000 years of legislative history. Distinct separation of the legislative, executive and judicial branch of government has been a cornerstone of our democracy. Our ancestors have fought for and died in some cases to get us to this point. What has evolved is a good system to protect the individual against the power(and resources) of the state. We are already progressing on a slippery slope if “expediency” is the only reason for this fundamental change.
While I am not condoning bad behavior, it should be difficult for the state to enforce the law. That difficulty right now is largely composed of many steps that the executive branch must go through in order to enforce the law. Right now the judicial branch does not care about the state of the town’s finances or whether they are going to get paid this week if they render a “not guilty” verdict. What is proposed through “Administrative Penalties” is just plain wrong. If efficiency is the objective why wouldn’t the Town simply eliminate hearing component of this process and have the municipal enforcement officer collect the fine as well, just like what happens in corrupt third world countries.
Our constitution does not have specific “protection of property” provisions but I think that most would agree that it is a pretty important component of our Canadian life. This proposal, taken to its logical end, could mean that someone loses their property simply through bureaucratic bungling or not having the resources to counter the Town’s assertations.
Robert Carville says
To issue a Part 1 Offence is one thing .Confrontation and service is another. It is simple to issue a ticket but the process is not complete until it is served. With AMP you will see the bylaw infractions rise as no personal contact by the Officer is made. Any money that is generated in this process will go to the town . If the provincial courts system is used ,and there is a conviction ,they retrieve the funds. If the township controls this process using a third party mediator all infractions and results will be in their playing field . This process must not be allowed . The provincial courts system with appeals, and plea bargaining is the only way to proceed.
Angie Blaney says
I’d like an assessment from the Ombudsman of Ontario on this process. If smaller towns and municipalities are to use an extended AMP by-law system, it has to still be regulated for fairness. An employee – whose salary is paid for by the fines he gathers for the city under this very program – has the ‘appearance’ of conflict, right from the get-go. I’m sure the Ombudsman has some ideas on alternate ways of doing this.
2 things I wanted to link to, for residents and the city staff to read:
1 – An example of the AMP being done poorly, at the expense of it’s residents:
https://www.ombudsman.on.ca/resources/reports-and-case-summaries/reports-on-investigations/2018/by-law-surprise#Executive%20Summary
2 – A ‘Best Practices’ manual from the BC Ombudsman – it won’t address everything in our system, to be sure, but it does define by-law enforcing processes in regards to fairness and equality to everyone. If we are to go down this path of using an extension of the existing AMP to enforce additional by-laws, then a ‘Best Practices’ manual should be designed and published for the town (and approved in a vote that includes concerned citizens) – and whomever is hired to enforce the AMP should ensure they are always adhering to the Best Practices set out by the town and it’s people.
https://bcombudsperson.ca/assets/media/Special-Report-No-36-Bylaw-Enforcement-Best-Practices-Guide-for-Local-Governments.pdf
Tim Jones says
More bureaucracy less freedom more and more like the city all the time taxes go up service goes down and we have less and less options it’s time to think of a change from the people that are supposed to represent us Canadians are way too passive