Ontario Court of Justice (Central West Region)

Court File No.: 1260-999-24-7196 / 1260-999-24-7197

Date: March 30, 2026

BETWEEN:

Town of Milton (Prosecution)

— and —

Rajinder Sidhu and Mandeep Sidhu (Defendants)

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

Before Justice of the Peace T.J. Howard

Sentence imposed March 3, 2026, in Burlington, Ontario Written reasons delivered electronically March 30, 2026.

Mr. Ali, J. ..................................................................................................... for the Prosecution Mr. Sandhu, R. ....................................................................... Counsel for the Defendants

Howard J.P.:

A. Introduction

[1] The co-defendants, Mr. Rajinder Sidhu and Mrs. Mandeep Sidhu, were charged under s. 2.3 of the Town of Milton site alteration by-law 094-2022 (the by-law) with undertaking a site alteration without a permit. Following a trial held on September 18, 2025, I convicted both defendants, who are spouses.

[2] The matter was adjourned twice to allow for fulsome submissions on penalty. On March 3, 2026, I sentenced each defendant to a fine of $7500.00 and ordered remediation. What follows are my reasons for sentence.

B. Background Facts

[3] The defendants purchased the property at 8480 Esquesing Line, Milton, on August 20, 2019, for approximately $1.4 million. Both defendants owned the property, which consisted of a residence, a field, and a gravel driveway. Mr. Sidhu owns a trucking company, which is a substantial operation with approximately 130 employees and a gross revenue of $27 million in 2024. In 2023, the Town of Milton received a public complaint that the property had been altered to be used for the parking of tractor-trailer trucks.

[4] In November 2023, a municipal law enforcement officer attended the property to investigate the complaint and observed that a large quantity of gravel had been imported to the property. He also observed that the gravel was actively being graded to make a leveled parking area for trucks. No permit had been applied for by the property owners.

[5] The officer issued a stop work order, but nonetheless the activities continued. In May 2024, charges were laid against the defendants. As of the date of sentencing, there was no permit issued to the defendants and the property had not been remediated.

[6] Two issues must be resolved in this hearing: i) is a remediation order necessary, and if so, what is the proper scope? and ii) what is a fit monetary penalty, and what impact will the costs associated with remediation have?

C. Positions of the Parties

[7] The prosecution seeks a fine of $10,000 per defendant and an order for remediation pursuant to s. 431 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25.

[8] The prosecution argues that the proposed fine of $10,000 against each defendant fits appropriately within the range of available fines, which is $500 to $25,000 for an individual (pursuant to s. 13.4 of the by-law, and in accordance with s. 429 of the Municipal Act). The prosecution argues that this sentence will achieve the paramount sentencing objective of general deterrence.

[9] The prosecution argues the following factors are aggravating: i) that the defendants ignored the permit requirements with a view to profit; Mr. Sidhu's business benefits from parking trucks on this residential property, and ii) that the defendants ignored a stop work order and never obtained a permit.

[10] The prosecution asks that the remediation order compel the defendants to remove all fill that was illegally imported, to re-grade the property, and to do so within appropriate timelines and with appropriate authorizations. The prosecution submits that this is the only way to correct the contravention.

[11] The defendants seek a minimum fine of $500 and no order for remediation. Instead, the defendants propose to commission a topographical survey, which could be compared to the town's records to determine any outstanding grading problems. Absent any outstanding grading problems, the defendants argue, "there is nothing to restore".

[12] The defendants also argue that the exemption contained at s. 3.4(3) of the by-law ought to be viewed as a serious mitigating factor, as it reduces the defendants' moral blameworthiness. The defendants argue that this exemption, although not established at trial, was available to them and should be considered at sentencing. The defendants argue that because this exemption allows for "maintenance" of existing driveways, and because the property contained a gravel driveway at the time of purchase (see exhibit 5), they were allowed to expand it without any permit.

[13] In addition, the defendants argue the following factors are mitigating: i) that Mr. Sidhu does not park trucks on the property, as he maintains a separate truck parking lot, ii) that no drainage harm was established, iii) that no environmental damage was established, iv) that no harm to neighbors was established, and v) that there is no prior record for either defendant.

[14] To this, the prosecution responds that the by-law's exemption for maintenance does not apply, as it allows for 20 cubic meters or 2 triaxle truckloads of gravel annually, which is far below what the defendants imported. Further, the prosecution highlights that the exemption also requires that existing grading be reinstated and the size of the driveway or parking lot remains unchanged, neither of which is the case here.

D. Analysis

a. fitness and scope of a remediation order

[15] In my view, a remediation order is necessary and must include the terms sought by the prosecution. To do otherwise would ignore the purposes of the by-law and the paramount sentencing goal of general deterrence.

[16] The purpose of the by-law is found in its opening paragraph:

WHEREAS Council determines it necessary to enact a by-law for prohibiting or regulating the placing, depositing, cutting or removal of fill or the altering of grades or drainage on any lands within the Corporation of the Town of Milton to limit erosion, the use of improper fill, the degradation of agricultural lands, interference and damage to watercourses, drainage systems and water supplies, and to limit impacts on neighbouring and surrounding properties, the environment and municipal infrastructure. [emphasis added]

[17] Section 2.3 of the by-law under which the defendants were convicted reads as follows:

No person shall undertake, a site alteration in the Town, including any lands which are submerged under any watercourse or other body of water, without a permit issued by the Director, unless this by-law states that such a permit is not required.

[18] It is obvious that the purpose of the by-law is to regulate site alterations to prevent the negative impacts to the environment and public well-being emphasized above. This is done via the town's permitting regime, which works to ensure the appropriate oversite of projects. The defendants bypassed this regime and concealed their project from the town's oversight. By doing so, the defendants created risks to the environment and public well-being. Moreover, they did this to benefit a private business; the evidence at trial revealed beyond a reasonable doubt an intention to create a parking lot for trucks to support Mr. Sidhu's trucking business, which makes this an aggravating factor.

[19] Allowing the defendants to retain the fill they imported in the circumstances would be tantamount to an endorsement of the contravention; it would transform the $20,000 in fines sought by the prosecution (which may be fit in conjunction with an order for remediation) into a "licence fee" for the illegal project. This would undercut the primary sentencing goal of deterrence: see R. v. Cotton Felts Limited, 1982 CanLII 3695 (ON CA), 2 C.C.C. (3d) 287.

[20] Section 431(b) of the Municipal Act provides a court with a wide breath for discretion in crafting an order for remediation, but makes clear that "correcting the contravention" is the purpose:

If any by-law of a municipality or by-law of a local board of a municipality under this or any other Act is contravened and a conviction entered, in addition to any other remedy and to any penalty imposed by the by-law, the court in which the conviction has been entered and any court of competent jurisdiction thereafter may make an order,

(a) prohibiting the continuation or repetition of the offence by the person convicted; and

(b) in the case of a by-law described in section 135 or 142, requiring the person convicted to correct the contravention in the manner and within the period that the court considers appropriate. [emphasis added]

[21] In my view, the terms sought by the prosecution appropriately seek to ensure the contravention is properly corrected. They include that: i) within 60 days of the order the defendants shall apply for a permit to remove the fill and restore the property, ii) within 20 days of the town identifying any deficiencies with the application, correct these deficiencies, iii) within 120 days of receiving the permit, lawfully remove the fill and restore the property, iv) allow town officials, agents and consultants access to the property, and v) provide any prospective purchasers of the property with a copy of the order within 10 days.

[22] Conversely, the defendants' proposal to commission a topographical survey is not appropriate in the circumstances because it does not seek to ensure that the contravention is properly corrected.

b. fitness of the total monetary penalty, and impact of remediation costs

[23] In my view, some reduction in fine is warranted to account for the costs associated with remediation. However, there is a strong need for general deterrence in this case, which justifies a fine of $7500.00 against each defendant. Further, the land use-based exemption argued for by the defendants does not apply and is not mitigating.

[24] A fit penalty for a regulatory offence must achieve general deterrence, while considering other relevant sentencing objectives, principles and factors: see Cotton Felts, supra. In this case, there is also a need for specific deterrence. This is not a case of inadvertent error or unintentional acts by the defendants. Rather, the defendants were incentivised to ignore the town's permitting regime by the benefits a parking lot would provide to Mr. Sidhu's trucking business and chose to bypass it. It is unlikely, in my view, that a permit would have been granted for such a site alteration. The scale of the project is clear from the photographs in evidence at trial; this was the creation of a commercial-purpose parking area, not a private driveway.

[25] The land use-based exemptions found at s. 3.4 of the by-law read as follows:

A permit is not required on any lot within the Rural Area of the Town, for the following site alterations, provided the requirements below are met:

(1) the depositing, cutting or removal of topsoil on lands for the purpose of lawn maintenance, landscaping or adding to flower beds or vegetable gardens, provided that the approved grade (or existing grade, where there is no approved grade) of the lands is not increased by more than 0.15m; there is no significant change in the direction or rate of drainage to or from neighbouring properties; the site alteration does not take place within 0.6m of any lot line, and the cumulative total of the topsoil placed or dumped pursuant to all applicable permit exemptions does not exceed in any consecutive four (4) month period the lesser of 20 m³ or 2 triaxle truck loads;

(2) the construction of walkways along sideyards, adjacent to a dwelling or garage, provided that there is no altering of grades, drainage patterns or drainage within 0.6m of the lot line; or

(3) maintenance of driveways, roads or parking areas with imported asphalt or granular material (including native granular, recycled aggregate, recycled asphalt or recycled concrete), provided the previously existing grades are being reinstated, the size of driveway, road or parking area is not increased; the dimensions remain unaltered, and the cumulative total of the fill placed or dumped pursuant to all applicable permit exemptions does not exceed in any consecutive 12 month period the lesser of 20 m³ or 2 triaxle truck loads. [emphasis added]

The statutory language is clear; section 3.4(3) deals with "maintenance" of driveways, roads or parking areas, not site alterations.

[26] The defendants' project should not be viewed as maintenance for two reasons. First, as noted, the evidence at trial reveals that the size of the defendants' driveway/parking area was substantially increased and the dimensions altered, which is not permitted.

[27] Second, classifying such changes as "maintenance" is disjunctive with the by-law's purpose, with the general prohibition in s. 2.3 against unauthorized site alterations, and with the definition of "site alteration" in s. 1.46. This would be improper statutory interpretation: see King (Township) v. 2424155 Ontario Inc., [2018] O.J. No. 1305 at para. 40.

[28] At the end of the trial on September 18, 2025, I asked the defendants to obtain cost estimates for the anticipated remediation work to assist me in arriving at a fit monetary penalty. The defendants had the period between September 18, 2025, and March 3, 2026, to do so. However, at the sentencing hearing no such information was provided.

[29] Nevertheless, I accept that removing a large quantity of gravel and re-grading the property will be costly. Therefore, it is appropriate, in my view, to reduce the fines against the defendants by 25% to account for those costs. This is in keeping with the view that costs associated with remediation orders ought to be considered a component of the total monetary penalty: see R. v. Brown, [2010] B.C.J. No. 1085.

[30] Fines of $7500.00 against each defendant fit within the bottom third of the penalty range, as outlined above. This considers the mitigating factor that neither defendant has a prior record. It also considers the culpability of the defendants; a lack of acceptance of responsibility, as evidenced by the ignoring of a stop work order; and the potential for environmental harm, which is generally aggravating: see R. v. Torroco Industries Ltd., 2005 ABCA 141, [2005] A.J. No. 361 at para. 47 to 48.

[31] I do not find it mitigating that the prosecution failed to establish that actual harm to the environmental or public resulted from the defendants' project; the absence of ascertainable harm is not mitigating, but merely a neutral factor: see Torroco Industries, supra, at para. 47.

E. Conclusion

[32] For the reasons contained, I find that a fit penalty against the defendants in the circumstances is a fine of $7500.00 each and an order that they remediate their property in accordance with the provisions of the order.

T.J. Howard, Justice of the Peace, Ontario