ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
THE KING (CITY OF TORONTO)
— AND —
ESTATE OF EVELYN ALICE GRAYDON
Before Justice of the Peace Beverly Brooks
Heard on February 3 and March 24, 2026
Reasons for Judgment released on April 27, 2026
Counsel: P. Hooshman, Counsel for the Prosecution W. Graydon, Agent for Heather Graydon H. Graydon, Executor for Evelyn Alice Graydon
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE BROOKS:
1I conducted this Part III trial under the Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 693 Signs Election and Temporary Section 693-1.4(9) on February 3, 2026, and March 24, 2026, in Toronto.
2The Estate of Evelyn Alice Graydon was charged as follows:
(i) On or about the 9th of June 2025, at 3 Mossom Place, in the City of Toronto, did commit the offence of display or permit to be displayed a sign attached to tree, contrary to the City of Toronto Municipal Code Section 693-1.4(9).
3A plea of not guilty was entered by William Graydon, the grandson of the deceased owner, Evelyn Alice Graydon, and agent for his mother, Heather Graydon, the executor and daughter-in-law of the deceased defendant, Evelyn Alice Graydon. I conducted a trial in this matter. I am satisfied that these are strict liability offences.
PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE:
Background:
4The Prosecutor’s evidence is mainly based on the testimony of a City of Toronto Property Standards Officer, Arvydas Blauzdziunas, Badge Number 6223. In addition, she relied on specific provisions of the Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 693, Signs, Election and Temporary. A certified copy of the Municipal Code Chapter 693, Signs, Election and Temporary was the first exhibit that she presented during this trial and is marked as Exhibit 1. The Prosecutor stated that this bylaw contains the charging section (693-1.4)(9) which prohibits signs from being attached to a tree. In addition, the Prosecutor presented the following documents to the court, asked that they be marked as exhibits and relied on them as evidence:
the Evidence Act Notice (Exhibit 2) which includes a cover page, a chart of the evidence and a list of the documents relied upon by the prosecution. The Evidence Act Notice also includes the charge, is dated July 22, 2025, and is signed by Nicole Richardson, Municipal Licencing and Standard Division, City of Toronto. The Evidence Act Notice includes the Affidavit of Service and was mailed by registered mail to the defendant’s address on August 8, 2025. The Evidence Act Notice states that the charge is “Display or permit to be displayed sign attached to tree”;
the certified Land Title certificate document (Exhibit 3) from the Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery, which indicates that the property at 3 Mossom Place has been owned by the defendant, Evelyn Alice Graydon, since September 22, 2000, and includes the property summary and legal description of the property;
five photos (Exhibit 4) which included a photo taken by the bylaw officer on June 8, 2025 of the “No Trespassing” sign that was posted on a tree which was on City of Toronto property adjacent to 3 Mossom Place (Photo 1 of 5); a photo of the aerial view of the property at 3 Mossom Place and the property line which shows that the tree on which the sign was posted is on City of Toronto property (Photo 2 of 5); a photo taken on June 8, 2025 after the “No Trespassing” sign was removed by the Officer and placed in the officer’s vehicle (Photo 3 of 5); a photo of the second “No Trespassing” sign that was posted on June 9, 2025 on the same tree but higher in the tree (Photo 4 of 5); a close up photo of the second “No Trespassing” sign taken on June 9, 2025 (Photo 5 of 5). The Officer testified that he took the photos with his work issued cellular phone. During his testimony, the Officer provided the times at which each of the photos were taken on June 8 and 9, 2025;
and the Municipal Licencing and Standards Division status letter (Exhibit 5) which states that the defendant, the Estate of Evelyn Alice Graydon, did not hold a permit issued by the Municipal Licencing and Standards Division of the City of Toronto on July 9, 2025, for the “Temporary Sign/Mobile Sign”. The letter is signed by Gadi Katz, Director, Business Licencing and Regulatory Services, Municipal Licencing Standards.
Testimony of Officer Arvydas Blauzdziunas
5Officer A. Blauzdziunas testified that he is a Municipal Standards Officer and Provincial Offences Officer for the City of Toronto. He stated that his title is Municipal Standards Officer designated as a Provincial Offences Officer. He conducted an investigation into this matter, shortly after he inspected the property at 3 Mossom Place on June 8 and 9, 2025. The Officer asked for permission to consult his notes and the court gave him permission to do so to refresh his memory.
6The Officer testified that because of a complaint made to the City of Toronto from the public (Compliant Number 25169963) he attended the address of 3 Mossom Place in the City of Toronto.
7When he arrived at the property, he noted that a “No Trespassing” sign was posted on a tree on City of Toronto property rather than on private property, which he confirmed by consulting the City of Toronto mapping application. The Officer also stated that there was no valid permit issued by the City of Toronto for a sign to be placed on City of Toronto property at 3 Mossom Place.
8He testified that the Court Liaison Unit confirmed that there was a letter from Gadi Katz, Director, Business Licencing and Regulatory Services, indicating that on July 9, 2025, the Estate of Evelyn Alice Graydon did not hold a permit for this “temporary sign” to be placed on City of Toronto property near 3 Mosson Place.
9The Officer also stated that after he removed the first sign, he knocked on the door of 3 Mossom Place several times so that he could determine if the residents at 3 Mossom Place knew that they required a permit and to obtain more information from the property owner about the complaint the City had received.
10The residents at 3 Mossom Place, however, did not answer the door.
11Before taking down the sign, he took a number of photos of the “No Trespassing” sign posted on the tree (Photo 1 Exhibit 4) and of City of Toronto interactive mapping (Photo 2 Exhibit 4) which enabled the officer to confirm that the tree was on City of Toronto property.
12He then left his business card on the front door. The Officer returned to 3 Mossom Place on June 9, 2025, because he received information from the complainant that a new sign had been posted at the same address.
13The Officer noted that the second sign had been placed higher in the tree and that he confirmed by using City of Toronto interactive mapping application that this sign was posted in the same location as the previous sign i.e. on City of Toronto property.
14The Officer knocked on the door again, but no one answered the door.
15The Officer noted that because the second sign was posted higher in the tree than the first sign, he had to call the City of Toronto Transportation Services to remove the sign.
16The Officer explained that under Section 693-1.4(1) of the Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 693, Signs, Election and Temporary, a property owner must have a permit to post a sign and under 693-1.4(9) of the Toronto Municipal Code a sign can not be posted on a tree.
17When he attended 3 Mosson Place on June 8, 2025, Officer Blauzdziunas testified that he knocked on the door of the residence “on three separate occasions” but there was no answer. The Officer then left his business card on the front door in hopes that the property owner would contact him.
18The Officer, with assistance from his partner, Officer Supervisor Shefkui, removed the sign. The Officer took photos of the sign through out the investigation before and after it was removed.
19The Officer explained that Photo 1 shows the sign, which was posted in a tree on June 8, 2025, before it was removed. The Officer noted that the tree was on City of Toronto property and was very close to the city sidewalk.
20The Officer explained that Photo 2 was a screen shot taken from the City of Toronto interactive mapping application. It shows the aerial view of the property as well as the property line. As previously stated, the Officer pointed out that this photo is how he determined that the sign which was posted on a tree was on City of Toronto property because the photo shows the property line and that the tree on which the sign was posted is within the boundaries of City of Toronto property.
21Photo 3 was taken after the sign had been removed from the tree that was on City of Toronto property and placed inside the Officer’s vehicle.
22Photo 4 shows the new “No Trespassing” sign that had been posted the day after (June 9, 2025) Officer Blauzdziunas had removed the first sign.
23Officer Blauzdziunas testified that all the photos were taken by himself and that each photo included his signature and badge number.
24Photo 5 is a close up of the second sign which was taken by Officer Blauzdziunas on the day after he removed the first sign. As previously stated, photos 1 to 5 were marked as Exhibit 4.
25Officer Blauzdziunas then testified that on June 9, 2025, he returned to 3 Mossom Place for a follow-up inspection because he had received information from the complainant that a new sign had been placed in the same vicinity as the previous “No Trespassing” sign that had been removed the previous day.
26He was accompanied by two of his colleagues -- Officer Dhanoa and Officer Dhaliwal. Officer Blauzdziunas observed that a new “No Trespassing” sign had been placed in the same area but higher up on the tree.
27The Officer confirmed via City of Toronto interactive mapping that this new sign was in the same location as the previous sign that he had removed on the previous day. The Officer could not remove this sign as it was posted too high on the tree for him to reach.
28The Officer knocked at the door of 3 Mossom Place again, but no one came to the door.
29The Officer then testified that he issued a Part 3 summons because the second sign had been posted shortly after the first sign had been removed, the owners of the property had no permit to post a sign and the sign had been confirmed to be on City of Toronto property by the City of Toronto interactive mapping application.
30Officer Blauzdziunas then referred to the Municipal Licencing and Standards Division letter that was prepared on June 8, 2025, signed by Nicole Richardson and mailed by registered mail to the defendant on June 11, 2025. The letter stated that the Estate of Evelyn Alice Graydon, the property owner, did not hold a valid permit for a temporary sign. Attached to the letter is a chart of documentary evidence that indicates on which evidence the City of Toronto would rely.
31The Officer testified that there was no valid permit issued from the City of Toronto data base for a “No Trespassing” sign to be placed on the City of Toronto property and that the Court Liaison Unit confirmed that there was no valid permit issued to the property on the day in question.
32The Prosecutor then asked the Officer if anyone had contacted the Officer after June 9, 2025, about the sign. The Officer testified that William Graydon had called to ask about the bylaw violation that had taken place on the day in question.
Cross-Examination of Officer Blauzdziunas:
33William Graydon cross-examined Officer Blauzdziunas who testified when questioned by the Prosecutor that he (the Officer) and the City of Toronto Transportation Services had removed two “No Trespassing” signs at 3 Mossom Place. William Graydon asked about the number of times and at which time the officer had knocked on the door at 3 Mossom Place and the placement of the Officer’s business card.
34The Officer provided the specific times he had knocked on the door of 3 Mossom Place.
35The Officer stated that on June 8, 2025, he had knocked at the door of 3 Mossom Place “several times” between 10:15 AM and 10:30 AM. On June 9, 2025, the Officer testified that he knocked on the door “several times” between 11:06 AM and 11:08 AM.
36The Officer pointed out that he was not required to leave his business card but did so because he wanted to provide the homeowners with an opportunity to speak to him and thought that he could educate the homeowners about the bylaw. The Officer also stated that he placed his business card above the door handle and that his card was wedged between the door and the frame.
Re-examination of Officer Blauzdziunas:
37The Prosecutor asked the Officer if his knocks were loud enough to be heard. The Officer confirmed that his knocks were loud enough to be heard. The Prosecutor also asked the Officer if he is required to leave his business card.
38The Officer stated that he was not required to leave his business card but had done so as a courtesy.
Testimony of Heather Graydon:
39William Graydon called his mother, Heather Graydon, the daughter-in-law of Evelyn Alice Graydon, to testify. She testified that she currently lives at 3 Mossom Place, that she had lived at 3 Mossom Place for 30 years and that she was aware of the “No Trespassing” signs issue.
40She explained that the signs had been erected because there had been disputes with the previous neighbours that had owned 5 Mossom Place, the property beside 3 Mossom Place, since 2013.
41She then said that these neighbours had dug trenches on the property line that “tore out their trees and piled dirt on their trees”.
42She stated that she and her late husband had asked the neighbours to remove the piles of dirt and told them that their activities were killing their trees. She also stated that the neighbours piled skids of bricks on their property at 3 Mossom Place.
43She testified that in 2016, her husband sent these neighbours a letter asking them to remove the bricks from their property and to respect the property line.
44Ms. Graydon testified that in December 2016 she received a letter from the neighbours threatening adverse possession of their property.
45She stated that the “No Trespassing” signs were posted in December 2016 on their (the defendant’s) property and have been posted ever since that time until they were removed on June 8 and 9, 2025.
46William Graydon then indicated that he wanted to enter this letter (from the neighbours) into evidence.
47In response to William Graydon’s request to enter this letter from the former neighbours as evidence, the Prosecutor objected and stated that this letter from the neighbours had not been provided to the Prosecutor in advance of the trial.
48She also claimed that the neighbour’s activities were not relevant to the defendant’s offence of disobeying a City of Toronto bylaw by posting a sign without a permit on a tree.
49The court allowed this letter to be admitted as evidence given that the defendant is self-represented and it goes to the heart of their defence.
50Ms. Graydon testified that in response to this letter from the neighbours, they put up “No Trespassing” signs and called the neighbours about the piles of dirt and skids that had been destroying their (the Graydon’s) trees for three years. The neighbours responded by asking the Graydons to take down their “No Trespassing” signs. The Graydons then told their neighbours that they would not remove the signs as long as the neighbours continued to trespass on their property. Ms. Graydon stated that they (the Graydons) removed the “No Trespassing” signs at midnight on July 31, 2025, because the neighbours were giving up possession of their property to the new neighbours on that date. Ms. Graydon pointed out that they did not receive the letter from the City of Toronto until August 13, 2025. She said that the postmark on the registered letter was August 8, 2025, and noted that it was two weeks after they removed the sign that they became aware of the City of Toronto’s letter.
51During the hearing on February 3, 2026, William Graydon stated that his defence to this bylaw offence was “officially induced error of law”. Officially induced error of law is a Canadian legal defence -- an exception to the "ignorance of the law is no excuse" rule -- where an accused relies on erroneous legal advice or information provided by a government official and unknowingly commits a regulatory or criminal offence. It requires proof that the error was reasonable and that reliance was placed on an appropriate authority. The purpose of this defence is to prevent unfairness when a government agency encourages or permits specific conduct but later prosecutes the individual for this conduct. To successfully use this as a defence, the defendant must show:
An error of law or mixed law and fact was made;
The advice was obtained from an appropriate official;
The advice was reasonable in the circumstances;
The accused relied on that advice in committing the action; and
The advice was erroneous.
52The officially induced error of law defence can be used for both criminal and regulatory offences. If successful, the court may enter a stay of proceedings, meaning the charge is essentially dismissed. It is not a defence to simply be unaware of the law; the misinformation must be actively provided by an official.
53William Graydon emphasized that the property at 3 Mossom Place had been inspected in the past by municipal officers “on many occasions” when the signs were being displayed and that City officers had told him that he was not in violation City of Toronto bylaws. He, however, could not provide any details during the hearing on February 3, 2025, or on March 24, 2025, as to the identity of the officers or written documents from such officers of the City of Toronto indicating that the “No Trespassing” signs that were erected at 3 Mossom Place were not in violation of city bylaws.
54Heather Graydon testified their (the Graydons’) view was that the “No Trespassing” signs were legal because in the past many bylaw officers, police and city officials had attended their property and none of them had told the Graydons that the “No Trespassing” signs were illegal.
55During the continuation of the hearing on March 24, 2026, William Graydon stated that the testimony of Heather Graydon was sufficient to provide evidence for the defence of officially induced error of law. During the March 24 hearing, Heather Graydon did state that officers and city officials who had been on their property had never told her and her son that the “No Trespassing” signs were illegal but she did not provide any documentation from officers and/or city officials that stated that the “No Trespassing” signs were legal. William Graydon was admonished by the Prosecutor that without testimony and/or documentation from officers and city officials that Heather Graydon’s testimony would merely be hearsay and that hearsay is not sufficient evidence for an officially induced error of law defence.
56William Graydon stated that the defence did not have officers or city officials to testify that they had told the Graydons that their “No Trespassing” signs did not violate any city by-laws or have any documents from officers and City officials indicating that their “No Trespassing” signs did not violate City by-laws. It should be noted that Heather Graydon testified that she had a letter dated January 2024 stating that the property at 3 Mossom Place “was in compliance” but this letter was never submitted as evidence to the court. Ms. Graydon, however, admitted that this letter did not “mention…trespassing signs”. The Prosecutor then pointed out that this letter addressed other issues not the ”No Trespassing” signs.
57After being told by the court that without the testimony of officers and City officials or documentation signed by such officers and City officials that the defence of officially induced error was weak, William Graydon stated that his second legal basis for the dismissal of the charge is that the Estate of Evelyn Alice Graydon was charged under the “wrong chapter of the municipal code” i.e. the Estate of Evelyn Alice Grayson was charged under Chapter 693 but should have been charged under Chapter 694 which addresses the issue of permanent signs rather than temporary signs. He claimed that Chapter 693 did not apply as the “No Trespassing” sign posted at 3 Mossom Place was a permanent sign not a temporary sign. He maintained that since the “No Trespassing” sign was a permanent sign, the Estate of Evelyn Graydon should have been charged under Chapter 694, Signs Permanent not Chapter 693, Signs Election and Temporary. Mr. Graydon then stated that since the Estate of Alice Evelyn Graydon had been charged under Chapter 693, the charges should be dismissed.
Cross-Examination of Heather Graydon:
58The Prosecutor asked Heather Graydon whether she heard a knock at the door on June 8, 2025, as the Officer testified that after he removed the “No Trespassing” sign on that day he had knocked on the door of the residence. Ms. Graydon testified that she did not hear a knock at the door on June 8, 2025, but that she saw a City of Toronto truck drive away from their property on that day with 311 signage on the truck. She called 311 to ask the City of Toronto why a City of Toronto truck had been at their address. She stated that she suspected her neighbours that lived at 5 Mossom Place had called the City to complain about the no trespassing signs.
59The Prosecutor asked Heather Graydon about the property standard order which she mentioned during her examination in chief. Heather Graydon stated that on January 22, 2024, a City of Toronto Property Standards Committee hearing was held and that the bylaw officer stated that they (the Graydons) were in compliance. The Prosecutor pointed out that this ruling was about the fence issues, not the “No Trespassing signs. Heather Graydon admitted that the “No Trespassing” signs were not mentioned in this ruling but that “they were there”. The Prosecutor then emphasized that the Property Standards ruling was about other issues, not the “No Trespassing” signs. The defendant did not provide the court with a copy of this ruling, however.
SUBMISSIONS:
Defendant’s Submission:
60William Graydon submitted that the Estate of Alice Evelyn Graydon had been charged under the wrong bylaw. He argued that Bylaw 693 only applies to “temporary” signs and not “permanent” signs and that the “No Trespassing” sign posted on the tree by the Graydons was a permanent sign as the Graydons had posted “No Trespassing” signs for eight years. He also emphasized that Bylaw 693 applies only to temporary signs such as election signs, portable signs, A-frame signs promoting businesses, mobile signs, contractor services signs and real estate signs. Mr. Graydon emphasized that the “No Trespassing” signs that he and his mother posted outside their residence at 3 Mossom Place do not fall into any of these categories. He, therefore, concluded that Chapter 694-2(1) applies to the “No Trespassing” signs that the Graydons had posted not Chapter 693, the bylaw under which the Estate of Alice Evelyn Graydon was charged.
61He also argued that it does not matter that the “No Trespassing” signs posted by the Graydons were on City of Toronto property as he claimed that this is not an issue.
62Mr. Graydon stated that “dozens” of police officers, City Inspectors and the Property Standards Commission” had reviewed the property order over the past eight years” and “at no point had “the “No Trespassing” signs been made an issue”. The property order to which Mr. Graydon was referring, however, addressed the issue of the boundaries of the Graydon’s property vs. their neighbours’ property rather than whether their “No Trespassing” signs conformed with the City bylaws.
63Mr. Graydon also stated that when his mother saw the 311 truck, she believed that it could be someone with access to a 311 truck i.e. not a legitimate City official who was responsible for enforcing bylaws but someone who the neighbours may have encouraged to assist them to remove the “No Trespassing” signs.
64Mr. Graydon noted that the “No Trespassing” signs were no longer posted. Heather Graydon took down the sign on July 31, 2025, as that was the date that their neighbours sold their property and the new owners took possession of the property at 5 Mossom Place.
65He then requested that if the court finds that Chapter 693 does govern their “No Trespassing” signs that were posted on City of Toronto property, the court should not penalize the defendant as there was “no guilty mind” with respect to posting the signs but rather their objective was to protect their property.
66It should be noted that Mr. Graydon did not raise his previously mentioned defence of officially induced error of law during his submission.
Prosecutor’s Submission:
67The Prosecutor submitted that Chapter 693-1.4(9) is the appropriate legislation under which the defendant should be charged.
68She noted Mr. Graydon’s arguments that the “No Trespassing” signs posted on the tree were permanent, but she maintained that the “No Trespassing” signs were temporary because the “No Trespassing” sign was removed by the bylaw officer on June 8, 2025, and then the second “No Trespassing” sign was removed by the City on June 9, 2025. She pointed out that the Graydons then posted another “No Trespassing” sign which was removed on July 31, 2025, by the Graydons. She concluded that this many removals of the “No Trespassing” sign constitute the “very definition of a temporary sign”.
69The Prosecutor summarized the evidence that was presented by Officer Blauzdziunas. She said that the Officer testified that he had attended the 3 Mosson Place address on June 8, 2025, because of a neighbour’s complaint about a “No Trespassing” sign. The Officer removed the sign, knocked on the door to inform the residents and then, because there was no response, left his business card. On June 9, 2025, the officer returned because he wanted to follow up on his first visit and have a conversation with the Graydons, but he saw a new sign had replaced the sign that he removed the previous day. Since the Officer could not reach the second sign because it had been placed higher up in the tree, the Officer had called the City of Toronto Transportation Services to remove the sign.
70The Prosecutor acknowledged that Ms. Graydon had called the City on June 8, 2025, when she saw the City of Toronto truck driving away with the sign. She also acknowledged that the Graydons were having disputes with their neighbours based on Heather Graydon’s testimony and emphasized that they were allowed to put “No Trespassing” signs on trees that belong to the defendant. She, however, said that the Graydons were not allowed to post a sign on a tree that was on City of Toronto property.
Defence Reply
71Mr. Graydon emphasized that Chapter 693 does not apply because the “No Trespassing” sign was a permanent sign, not a temporary sign and that Chapter 694, not Chapter 693, applies. He again emphasized that the scope of Chapter 693 was all signs except signs governed by Chapter 694. He pointed out that the Prosecutor stated that the “No Trespassing” sign was temporary because it was “removed illegally” by the Officer. He then emphasized that Chapter 694 governs all signs except Articles 3, 4, 5 and 6 i.e. the “No Trespassing” signs were not election, portable, A-frame, mobile, real estate, contractor services, open house, charity, religious or community signs. He then stated that the “No Trespassing” sign is governed by the Trespass to Property Act and is a permanent notice. Again, Mr. Graydon emphasized their “No Trespassing” sign was permanent and had been posted for eight years.
72The Prosecutor indicated that she had reviewed the legislative requirements in detail and indicated that she had established the actus reus of these offences and that the defendant had failed to establish a credible defence. The Prosecutor maintained that the evidence provided by Mr. Graydon and his mother, Heather Graydon, regarding the receipt of the advice from other unnamed officers in the past was hearsay, since no officer that had given this advice was called to testify and no documents from City of Toronto provincial offence officers stating that the “No Trespassing” signs were not in violation of the municipal bylaws were provided by the defendant.
73The Prosecutor pointed out that the Graydons were aware of the issue a year prior to being charged.
74The Prosecutor sought a conviction on the count as charged.
ISSUES:
75The following are the relevant issues in this matter:
(a) Has the Prosecutor established that Chapter 693 Signs Election and Temporary 2024-10-29 Section 693-1.4 (9) General Restrictions Page 693-10 applies?
(b) If the answer is yes, have the actus reus of these offences as charged been proven beyond a reasonable doubt?
(c) If the answer is yes, has the defence established a due diligence defence to the charges as laid?
(d) If the answer is no, has the defence established a defence that the defendant has been charged under the wrong bylaw?
ANALYSIS:
The Bylaw Issue:
76The only certified evidence before the court has been provided by the Prosecutor, who provided the court with a certified copy of the Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 693, Signs, Election and Temporary. Although the title of the bylaw “Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 693, Signs, Election and Temporary” suggests that the bylaw only applies to temporary signs and the bylaw only includes a definition of temporary, not permanent, signs, Section 693-1.2 of the bylaw which is entitled “Scope” states that the bylaw is intended to” regulate all signs in the City of Toronto” except the following:
Signs governed by Chapter 694, Signs, General;
Signs displayed wholly within the public right of way on structures, elements, or fixtures provided by or on behalf of the City and governed by an agreement with the City;
Banner signs and pendants displayed in accordance with an approval granted by the City’s Transportation Services Division;
Signs displayed by the Toronto Transit Commission to identify transit stops;
Signs associated with special events and functions in accordance with an approval granted by the City’s Economic Development and Cultural Division;
Signs expressly permitted under a film permit issued in accordance with Chapter 459;
A sign within a building;
Signs regulating traffic; and
Official signs.
77The “No Trespassing” signs do not fall into any of the above categories that are exceptions. The court is of the view that Chapter 693 does apply as the “No Trespassing” signs are temporary signs since these signs are not permanent signs by their very nature – paper signs that can be posted by hand at various locations on one’s property. Moreover, these signs were removed by bylaw officers and by the defendants several times. Furthermore, the “No Trespassing” signs do not adhere to the definition of “permanent” signs and, therefore, are not governed by Chapter 694.
78William Graydon argued that the defendant had been charged under the wrong bylaw as his sign was a permanent sign not a temporary sign. Under 693-1.1 Definitions “Sign” is defined as “Any device, fixture or medium that displays sign copy to attract attention or convey information of any kind including its supporting structure, sign face, lighting fixtures, and all other component parts”. It should be noted that Section 694-1.1 Definitions includes a definition of “Sign” that is exactly the same as the definition of “Sign” under 693-1.1. It should also be noted that Chapter 693 includes two definitions of “Sign”. The other Chapter 693 definition of “Sign” is included in Section 693-2.1 Third Pary Signs Definitions, which defines “Sign” as “any device, fixture or medium that uses any colour, form, graphic, illumination, symbol or writing to convey information of any kind to the public”. The “No Trespassing” signs fit all of these descriptions.
79The court, however, is of the view that the “No Trespassing” sign erected by the Graydons falls under Chapter 693 not Chapter 694 given that the “No Trespassing” signs were easily removable and, therefore, temporary. Heather Graydon testified that the day after the Officer had removed the “No Trespassing” sign (June 9, 2025), they (the Graydons) had posted another sign on the same tree. She also testified that the day the new neighbour took possession of the property at 5 Mosson Place, they (the Graydons) removed the sign. The Court is, therefore, of the view that the sign was temporary and that the defendant has been charged under the correct City bylaw.
80Given Heather Graydon’s testimony that they (the Graydons) posted a new sign after the previous sign had been removed by the Officer on June 9, 2025 and that the Graydons removed the “No Trespassing” sign on the tree the day the new neighbours took possession of the property at 5 Mossom Place (July 31, 2025), the court is satisfied that the defendant was charged under the correct City of Toronto bylaw i.e. Chapter 693, which remains in effect.
81According to the 693-1.1 Definitions section, a sign owner includes a person who is described on the sign, whose name and number appears on the sign, who is the sign provider, who installed the sign, who is in lawful control of the sign or who benefits from the sign. Heather Graydon testified that they (the Graydons) provided the sign, installed the sign and that the signs were to discourage their neighbours from engaging in activities that adversely impacted their property. If the “No Trespassing” signs had discouraged their neighbours from trespassing on their property, the Graydons would would have benefited from posting the signs.
82Given the wording of the definition of “Sign” under City bylaws Chapters 693 and 694 and the Heather Graydon’s testimony that they (the Graydons) removed the “No Trespassing” sign on the tree the day the new neighbours took possession of the property at 5 Mossom Place (July 31, 2025), the court is satisfied that the defendant was charged under the correct City of Toronto bylaw i.e. Chapter 693, which remains in effect.
83William Graydon stated that the “No Trespassing" sign was “placed up on the authority of the Ontario Trespass to Property Act R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21” (TPA). This legislation provides the framework for landowners and occupiers to prohibit entry and enforce their rights through signs, verbal warnings or physical markers. Mr. Graydon said that if there were any bylaw concerns “it would then be considered and, litigated the way previous concerns had been”. He pointed out that Heather Graydon “saw it as important to have the property posted with no trespassing”. This Act provides several requirements for “No Trespassing” signs including that signs be clearly visible, use words or symbols to convey the message of “No Trespassing” and provide wording that indicates whether the restrictions are a total ban on entry or a limitation of use such as “No Hunting” signs. It should be noted, however, that this Act does not provide any provisions about how and where “No Trespassing” signs can be posted and, therefore, cannot be used as a defence for posting a sign in a tree on City property. This legislation also does not provide information as to whether “No Trespassing signs are permanent or temporary although “No Trespassing’ signs are usually considered temporary.
Have the Actus Reus of the Offences Been Proven Beyond a Reasonable Doubt?
84There is no dispute about the ownership of the property at 3 Mossom Place. The Land Title indicates that the property belongs to the estate of Evelyn Alice Graydon.
85I have considered the evidence of Officer A. Blauzdziunas very carefully. He inspected the property at 3 Mossom Place on June 8 and June 9, 2025. In his testimony, he stated that he took 5 photos of the “No Trespassing” signs that were posted in a tree on City of Toronto property that was adjacent to 3 Mossom Place.
86I am relying on R. v. Gagnon, 2006 SCC 17 at paragraph 20 when assessing his credibility:
Assessing credibility is not a science. It is very difficult for a trial judge to articulate with precision the complex intermingling of impressions that emerge after watching and listening to witnesses and attempting to reconcile the various versions of events…
87I find Officer A. Blauzdziunas’ testimony to be highly credible. His testimony was clear, and unshaken during cross-examination. I accept that the photos taken by him provided in Exhibit 4 are accurate depictions of what he observed when he inspected the property at 3 Mossom Place on June 8 and 9, 2025.
88As such, I am satisfied that the actus reus of the charges before me, namely that there was a “No Trespassing” sign posted on a tree on City of Toronto property next to 3 Mossom Place on June 8, 2025, and that it was removed by the Officer and that another “No Trespassing” sign was posted again on the same tree on the next day. I also accept that there was no permit for these signs and that they were posted on a tree given the testimony of the Officer and the photos taken by the Officer.
Have the Defendants Established A Due Diligence Defence?
89In order to establish a due diligence defence, the defendants must establish an honest and reasonable belief in a certain state of facts. In principle, the due diligence defence is that “all reasonable care was taken”, see: R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), , [1978] 2 SCR 1299 and R. v. Sutherland (1990) , 96 NSR (2d) 271 (CA), as noted by Justice Libman in his work, Libman on Regulatory Offences in Canada, Earlscourt, Update 34- July 2023 at page 7-2.
90In other words, can the defendant establish that they took all reasonable steps to prevent it?
91As noted in Libman on Regulatory Offences, at page 7-4, in R. v. Burko, 2011 ONSC 479 at paragraph 30, the court explained the operation of the burden of proof for regulatory offences as opposed to criminal offences, in these terms:
…once the actus reus of the offence has been proven, and the onus shifts to the accused to establish a due diligence defence, I cannot see that a W.(D.) analysis is required. In doing so, a trial judge must consider whether defence evidence raises a reasonable doubt, even if it is not believed. However, in the case of a regulatory offence, once the actus reus has been established, and the onus is on the accused to establish a due diligence defence, it is no longer relevant to consider whether the evidence of the accused, even if not believed, raises a reasonable doubt.
92In assessing Heather Graydon’s credibility, I am relying on the judgement of Cory, J. in R. v. W.(D.), , 1991, CanLll 93(SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742, where he held:
First, if you believe the evidence of the accused, obviously, you must acquit.
Second, if you do not believe the evidence of the accused but you are left in reasonable doubt by it, you must acquit.
Third, even if you are not left in doubt by the evidence of the accused, you must ask your self whether, on the basis of the evidence which you do accept, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence of the guilt of the accused.
93I have considered Heather Graydons’ evidence. Her explanation includes clear admissions that she and her late husband posted signs on the tree, because of their frustration with the neighbours. Ms. Graydon’s evidence was badly shaken during cross-examination regarding the defence of officially induced error and lacks credibility. Since I am not prepared to rely on it, I do not need to analyze it under the exceptions for hearsay. She also admitted to the essential elements of the offence. While she is generally a credible witness, she has admitted to the essential elements of the offence. While the court has sympathy for the plight of the defendant, this does not constitute a valid defence, and in fact, corroborates the evidence of Officer Blauzdziunas.
94Moreover, the submissions made by William Graydon that the City inspectors attended the property over the years and never raised the issue of the posting of the “No Trespassing” signs does not meet the test of officially induced error. William Graydon was unable to provide any documents or have any bylaw officers testify that the officials had given this advice to the defendant on which they relied. Although Heather Graydon testified that the City of Toronto Property Standards Committee held a meeting and issued a decision dated January 20, 2024, which stated the Graydons were in compliance, this decision was about the fence not the “No Trespassing” signs. It should be noted that this decision was never submitted to the court.
95Thus, the defendant is unable to establish a due diligence defence because Heather Graham admitted to deliberately posting and removing and reposting the “No Trespassing” signs in response to her neighbours’ alleged behaviour, and the defence of officially induced error also fails.
96I find that the signs were posted on a tree on City of Toronto property, thus triggering the bylaw breach.
ORDER
97For the reasons noted, the defendant is guilty as charged.
Released: April 27, 2026
Signed: Justice of the Peace Beverly Brooks