Talk:Bylaw enforcement officer

I'm not going to edit this page, as I'm not 100 percent certain of the absolute factuallity of my proposed amendments, but I have some reservation about the following, especially considering it lacks a source:

"It is questionable, however, to what degree provincial or municipal regulations have an effect on the Peace Officer designation. As far as bylaw officers are concerned, federal court rulings have determined that the Criminal Code definition of peace officer is sufficient to include bylaw officers. Some of those same rulings, however, specifically reiterated that the power to determine who is (or is not) a Peace Officer rests solely with the Canadian Parliament, and therefore in Federal (and not provincial and local) law. Designating classes of officers as 'Peace Officers' under provincial or municipal law is therefore most likely legally irrelevant."

• bold font added for emphasis.

The above set of claims seem to fly in the face of the division of powers set out in the Constitution Act, 1867 between federal competency over "91(27) Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure" and provincial competency over "92(14) The Admistration of Justice".

I'll cite specifically from the SCC case of R v. Nolan, where Dickson CJ writing for the majority states:

"On the level of principle, it is important to remember that the definition of "peace officer" in s. 2 of the Criminal Code is not designed to create a police force. It simply provides that certain persons who derive their authority from other sources will be treated as "peace officers" as well, enabling them to enforce the Criminal Code within the scope of their pre‑existing authority, and to benefit from certain protections granted only to "peace officers". Any broader reading of s. 2 could lead to considerable constitutional difficulties. Section 92(14) of the Constitution Act, 1867 provides that the administration of justice falls within provincial legislative competence. See Di Iorio v. Warden of the Montreal Jail, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 152, and Attorney General of Quebec and Keable v. Attorney General of Canada, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 218. Although the ability of the federal Parliament to create a national police force has never been challenged and any such exercise of authority is presumptively valid, to treat s. 2 of the Criminal Code as a broad grant of authority to thousands of persons to act as "peace officers" in any circumstances could well prompt a constitutional challenge."

My opinion is that the current Wikipedia entry on this subject is contradictory to the SCC case cited above. For the Federal parliament to "determine who is (or is not) a Peace Officer" and for it to "rest solely with the Canadian Parliament" is to de facto grant Parliament, indirectly, the authority to "create a police force" which is ultra vires of their legislative jurisdiction.

I would propose that section 2 of the Criminal Code is merely a reinforcement of powers granted via provincial statues or the common law and confers certain additional powers or protections that may be lacking from the other sources.

Furthermore, In Di Iorio v. Warden of Montreal Jail, Dickson, writing for the majority again states:

"Under head 92(14) of our Constitution, as I understand it, law enforcement is primarily the responsibility of the Province and in all provinces the Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer of the Crown. He has broad responsibilities for most aspects of the Administration of Justice. Among these within the field of criminal justice, are the court system, the police, criminal investiga­tion and prosecutions, and corrections. The provin­cial police are answerable only to the Attorney General as are the provincial Crown Attorneys who conduct the great majority of criminal pros­ecutions in Canada."

In this instance, the SCC found 92(14) grants the provinces a wide range of powers with regards to criminal investigations and prosecutions, with "the police" being specifically enumerated. Since it is against constitutional convention for one level of government to delegate its powers to another, and since this power is already confered to the Provinces by the Constitution Act, 1867, I would propse that the "peace officer" designation does not come solely from, and at the discretion of, Parliament.

Aug 21, 2008 - response - the point you are making about what you quote is actually sourced in a different part of the page. It was taken directly from the Judgment by the Yukon Magistrate Court (if you look elsewhere on the page) that the author quotes in footnote 3. Here it is again: "It was submitted [to me] by the defendants that [they should have been charged under a section of the bylaw for hindering the bylaw officer, and not under the Criminal Code]. Having concluded that Mr. Malloy [the bylaw officer] was a peace officer for Criminal Code purposes, and having concluded that the charge under s. 118 of the Criminal Code applies [now sec. 129], I doubt whether s. 13 of the dog bylaw is intra vires of the council of the City of Whitehorse [in other words, who is or is not a peace officer is not up to municipal governments]. Obstruction of an animal control officer is a matter of criminal law over which the federal government has legislative jurisdiction. ... In any event it is not for the council of the City of Whitehorse to determine who is a peace officer for the purposes of the Criminal Code. That can only be done by Parliament."[3]

That is the judge talking, in response to the City of Whitehorse stating in its bylaw that the Animal Control Officer was a Peace Officer for the purpose of sec. 2 of the Criminal Code. The judge is essentially saying that determining who is or who is not a peace officer under sec 2 is a matter of federal law, and not up to the City of Whitehorse or even the province. I am not a lawyer but I'm just reading it there.

It appears there is somewhat of a contradiction between the judgments you're quoting and the judgment the author is quoting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.219.62.5 (talk) 03:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I added a whole bunch of case law on the Peace Officer section and removed the contentious issue over whether Parliament of Provincial Govt has the exclusive right over Peace Officer appointments. You may want to discuss this more but it is not relevant for this article. I added more references including caselaw of Woodward v. CRD (2005). - Bylaw Officer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.167.214 (talk) 07:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

March 15, 2009 - 19:15 - reverted vandalism from IP address 64.114.26.43 that removed "Peace Officer" section from the article. Please monitor article for further vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonixelectronix (talk • contribs) 02:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no "R. v. Turko" case from 2000 anywhere on either CanLII or Westlaw. There should either be a citation to the case, if it exists, or if not, this should be removed. Riyehn (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

24 March IP revert

Hello. Please try to remain civil - writing in block capitals can be interpreted as shouting and doesn't help the encyclopedia. I was merely being bold in my edit. Now:

• the links were removed because Wikipedia is not a directory and the failed WP:EL. The number of links that could be added is potentially huge, and the function of listing the various websites is best performed by a dedicated site.
• the headings were changed to comply with general consensus - "US" To "United States", "Links" to "External links" etc.. The vast majority of the content is about Canada, but not the whole article as the lead paragraph refers to many other countries. Therefore, the content about Canada was moved under a new top-level heading entitled "Canada", with the aim being the eventual inclusion of Australia and the United States. ninety:one 22:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that it might have looked confusing if directly compared with the previous versions, but much of the content from the heading "Development of the field" onwards related to countries other than Canada. Those sections need splitting into new country-specific sections ninety:one 22:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply to 24 March IP revert

I had no objections to you making changes that brought the page more in-line to the Wikipedia standards re: type of links, country references, etc. However, changes were made to the body of the article itself which had large blocks of text removed, specific to the content of the article. Whether you did that inadvertently or not, I'm not sure, but whole paragraphs were removed. Thanks for your help in keeping the page organized, but please discuss major edits on this page. Thanks.--70.68.172.231 (talk) 06:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Should it be noted that in some municipalities (within ontario canada) allow M.L.E's to pull over vehicles such as taxis, limousines, tractor trailers (with red lights, meaning that they have EMV equipment, and training) as well as officers armed with ASP, OC, vest as well as handcuffs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.186.35 (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

There are some pretty strong statements made in the last 2 sections without any citations anywhere. I would go through and mark them accordingly, but I don't know if that's good etiquette, or how I put up the citations needed sign for the whole section.

There's nothing wrong with you adding references. The last two sections appear to be a summary; they are not sourced but I think provide good reading and background. If you think you can source some sections, go ahead and do so - just add sources.

Seems to presuppose that bylaw enforcement belong with the police

This section (and the surrounding context) seems objectionable: "Many cities are finding themselves in situations where the police have stopped performing certain duties which they performed in the past. Failure to regulate certain activities in their municipality then creates problems and generates complaints and public frustration. This commonly results in the relegation of this task to Bylaw Enforcement Officers."

The assumption that responding to animal control or bylaw violations or unhoused people or mental health challenges is a 'natural' duty of the police is quite slanted. You could rephrase this section as "Many cities are realizing that certain duties they had previously relegated to the Police Department did not require the level of force associated with armed officers; this commonly results in the reassignment of this task to Bylaw Enforcement Officers."

That phrasing is arguably slanted too far in the opposite direction. Perhaps another editor can help suggest some language which is more neutral between these points of view. C. Scott Ananian (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Article title

I think renaming the article to be "Municipal law enforcement," "Municipal law enforcement officer," or similar would be more accurate and internationally accessible. The title of bylaw enforcement officer is, as far as I can understand, largely exclusive to Canada. Thoughts? ReactionEquipment (talk) 08:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)