The defendants were charged with zoning bylaw offences under a provision that contained a drafting error, using the word 'personal' instead of 'person'.
The court considered whether it had the jurisdiction to correct the legislative drafting mistake by reading in the correct word.
Applying the principles of statutory interpretation, the court found that while the provision was a manifest absurdity and had an obvious correction, there was no traceable error.
The court declined to usurp the municipal council's legislative role to fix the bylaw.
Consequently, the information was quashed because the defective provision did not relate to an offence known in law.
