The Bilingual Defence

A detailed explanation of the bilingual argument can be found in Step 5. Remember, this argument only applies to the 25 bilingual regions of Ontario. As there is no legal precedent for the stop sign version of the argument, it remains cutting edge and therefore you are cautioned to reserve it as an argument of last resort since many justices are not lawyers and may not appreciate the nuances of the legal argument you are making.

All-Way stops

When all approaches to the intersection have a stop sign, then it is an "all-way" stop and it should have a bilingual "All-Way" tab sign that also reads "TOUTES DIRECTIONS". If it does not, the sign has not been erected in compliance with Regulation 615 and is not valid.

Just a Stop Sign

Here's how the bilingual argument works for simple stop signs. The word "stop" is considered standard in many countries and is accepted as valid in both English and French. Throughout France, the signs read "STOP". In Quebec, "STOP" or "ARRÊT" can be used and either word is acceptable to the Office quebecois de la langue francaise, the province's language watchdog. (See Quebec activists want English stop signs to 'arret', the Canadian Press, March 16, 2008.)

If "ARRÊT" is used, then it is a French only sign, If "STOP" or "STOP/ARRÊT" is used, then the sign is considered bilingual as can be seen in many parts of Quebec and Ontario, notably in the Ottawa region.

The Province of Ontario is attempting to make the word "stop" standard and eliminate the bilingual "STOP/ARRÊT" signs. Under Regulation 615 of the Highway Traffic Act, the province required all stop signs erected after 1993 to read "STOP" only. It further required all bilingual "STOP/ARRÊT" signs erected prior to 1993 to be removed by August 1, 2008. When it became apparent that this was not happening, they extended the deadline to August 1, 2015. After this date, no STOP sign shall be valid unless it bears the word "STOP" only.

But the way the regulation is written, all stop signs after 1993 must read "STOP" and all signs prior to 1993 must read "STOP" or "STOP/ARRÊT". The key word here is "or". If "STOP" is bilingual, why would they need a "STOP/ARRÊT" sign?

In 1977, the Parti Québécois introduced the Charter of the French Language (better known as "Bill 101") which required all signs in Quebec to be French only. In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Ford v. Quebec (A.G.) that the commercial sign law provisions of Bill 101 were unconstitutional. In response, Quebec invoked the "Notwithstanding Clause" of the the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to delay enforcement of the court ruling for five years. Another case, McIntyre v. Canada went to the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations and resulted in a condemnation of Quebec's sign law regardless of the legality of the notwithstanding clause under Canadian law. In response Quebec enacted amendments to the sign law in 1993, availing itself of the suggestions proposed in the losing 1988 Supreme Court ruling by allowing other languages on commercial signs, subject to French being markedly predominant.

Basically prior to 1993, "STOP/ARRÊT" was considered the appropriate bilingual sign while "STOP" was not.

The "STOP/ARRÊT" signs are in force until they are taken down and replaced or until their expiry date of August 1, 2015, after which they are no longer valid and you no longer have to stop at that intersection for that sign!

When was the stop sign erected? Was it before 1993? Unless it is a new subdivision, chances are the sign has been around for a long time. If it was erected prior to 1993 it may never have been valid because it did not comply with the existing regulation. A stop sign erected prior to 1993 in Ontario's bilingual regions must say "STOP/ARRÊT". If it says "STOP" it is not valid and will only become valid on August 1, 2015, not before then.

For example, There are no "STOP/ARRÊT" signs in Toronto, a designated bilingual region. If those signs were erected prior to 1993, they are not valid and will not become valid until August 1, 2015.

The first questions of doubt should be going through your mind: Can this be true? They wouldn't have made such a colossal mistake? They must have wanted existing stop signs to be valid?

(Un)fortunately courts rely on the precision of the language used in the regulation, not what was in the mind of the legislators and what their intentions were. In R. v. Kanda, 2008 the Ontario Court of Appeal examined whether the language to clearly demonstrate its intention was available to the legislature and whether it had been employed elsewhere.

In its Municipal Advisory, dated October 9, 2008 the Ministry of Transportation advised municipalities about changes to Regulation 615. It specifically acknowledged that there were separate stop sign and yield sign setback requirements for urban and rural placement but that through restructuring many larger municipalities incorporated urban type intersections. The regulatory change accommodated both so that previous sign placement remained in compliance with the amended regulation.

In other words, they have the ability to ensure previous signs remain in compliance and bring non-compliant signs into compliance. For stop signs, they have chosen not to. More likely no one ever thought about this.

Regarding Regulation 615, appellate courts have refused to acknowledge the validity of section 52, yet that section persists despite four years of revisions to the regulation.

No one should assume legislators know what they are doing or can think of everything prior to doing it. And that means you have a very potent argument to fight the validity of the stop sign in a bilingual region of Ontario.

The only unknown you will face is when the sign was erected. You could request this information in disclosure. The year the by-law was first enacted for that stop sign is a good indicator of when the sign was erected. Or you could have independent recollection of that sign's existence prior to 1993 if you or someone you know from the area were born a few years before then.