WHITEWATER TOWNSHIP’S ILLEGAL BYLAW – RECREATIONAL TRAILERS

In a recent article published January 22^nd in the Eganville Leader, it spoke of Whitewater Council bringing in new regulations for recreational trailers.  Whitewater Twp has a bylaw where anyone that owns a recreational trailer and parks it on their private property, will be subject to paying a permit fee of $300 per year.  They’ve had this bylaw in place since 2019 and neither the previous council, nor the current one have done anything to remove it ….. even though it is ILLEGAL.  As stated in the paper, initially the licensing fee was $100 annually but have since increased it to $300.  Since the licensing program began, the average number of 21 trailers has brought in an annual revenue of $6300.  The number of licenses granted rose from 13 the first year to 24 in 2024.  They used to allow a 10- day exemption but have decided to remove that exemption where they expect to capture more trailers which will see an increase in the number of permits issued.  In my opinion, this bylaw is unlawful, because no where in the Municipal Act is it written that ANY municipality have the authority to charge a fee for a permit (which is basically a license) to anyone who owns a recreational trailer and keeps it on their private property.  So why does this municipality or any other municipality approve such a bylaw?  It would appear because it is well known that the general public don’t read the Legislation, and therefore, would not realize if the bylaw was legal or not.  On that assumption, it then becomes an easy cash-cow source of revenue for the municipality.  So, what does that say about our elected municipal councillors – the ones we elect, whose job is to protect the interests of the residents, the property owners? Have they turned their backs on the residents to support basically taking money from them just to prop up  poor financial management in the operation of the municipal corporation ?  Sec. 5 in the Municipal Act states: “The power of a municipality is exercised by its council”.  That means the municipal council is responsible for the actions of the municipality.

In their bylaw, they write:   WHEREAS Sec 164 of the Municipal Act authorizes municipalities to prohibit or license trailers located in the municipality “.  This,  naturally implies they have the authority, BUT that is not the case.  It is very misleading.  Sec. 164 is only Part of the section for LICENSES in the Municipal Act. The entire section is from  Sec 150 to 165.  When you read the entire section, it clearly states that the municipality ONLY has authority to issue “business licenses. Sec. 150  provides the Definition for this entire section of Licenses which states:  “business” means any business wholly or partly carried on within a municipality even if the business is being carried on from a location outside the municipality and includes,

                (a) trades and occupations,

                (b) exhibitions, concerts, festivals and other organized public amusements held For profit or otherwise,

                (c) the sale or hire of goods or services on an intermittent or one-time basis and the activities of a transient trader,

                (d) the display of samples, patterns or specimens of goods for the purpose of sale or hire

Section 164 that the Municipality refers to in their Bylaw for Trailers,  applies to “business licensing”. This section would pertain to such trailers that would be involved (b) exhibitions, concerts, festivals and other organized public amusements held for profit or otherwise on municipal property, (c) the sale or hire of goods or services on an intermittent or one-time basis and the activities of a transient trader on municipal property, (d) the display of samples, patterns or specimens of goods for the purpose of sale or hire on municipal property.

A permit is similar to a license in that both are legal documents issued by a government agency allowing you to do something specific, but a permit usually has a more limited scope and is often temporary, while a license typically grants broader permission for a longer period of time.  Charging a private property owner an annual fee of $300 for a permit to allow him the right to park his recreational trailer on his private property is a violation of the Municipal Act in these THREE specific instances:

1. A municipality enacting a municipal bylaw demanding that a private property owner apply and obtain a license to camp, have a trailer or tent, or have visitors, etc., is making a demand to impose a "tax" which is not allowed under section 17.1 (a) of the Municipal Act

                SECTION 17 -- Restrictions, financial matters

                17 (1) Sections 9, 10 and 11 do not authorize a municipality to,

                (a) impose taxes;

                (b) borrow or invest money or sell debt;

                (c) incur debt without borrowing money for the purpose of obtaining long-term financing of any capital undertaking;

                (d) enter into agreements for the purpose of minimizing costs or financial risk associated with the incurring of debt;

                (e) make a grant or a loan;

                (f) take any other prescribed financial action;

                (g) become a bankrupt under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada); or

                (h) as an insolvent person, make an assignment for the general benefit of creditors under section 49 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) or make a proposal under section 50 of that Act.

(Section 9 above explains that a “municipality only has the capacities, rights, power and privileges of a natural person for the purpose of exercising its authority under this Act or any other Act”… meaning their powers are limited to certain restrictions.  Sections 10 and 11 are the sections that authorize municipalities to make bylaws based on certain rules.)

2. PART III – SPECIFIC MUNICPAL POWERS

      SECTION 50 – Restrictions, motor vehicles: 

               A municipality does not have power to pass a by-law establishing a system of permits for motor vehicles or trailers, as those terms are defined in the Highway Traffic Act, similar to the system under Part II of that Act. 

Under the Highway Traffic Act a trailer and motor vehicle are defined as:

“trailer” means a vehicle that is at any time drawn upon a highway by a motor vehicle, except an implement of husbandry, a mobile home, another motor vehicle or any device or apparatus not designed to transport persons or property, temporarily drawn, propelled or moved upon such highway, and except a side car attached to a motorcycle, and shall be considered a separate vehicle and not part of the motor vehicle by which it is drawn; (“remorque”)

“vehicle” includes a motor vehicle, trailer, traction engine, farm tractor, road-  building machine, bicycle and any vehicle drawn, propelled or driven by any kind of power,

Under Part II of the Highway Traffic Act if there is a requirement for insurance then a by-law demanding another license to use one's trailer would infringe on the insurance that is required in the Highway Traffic Act. There is also the property owner's insurance that would be exempted by these licenses and permits. This in turn would become the responsibility of the Municipal corporation to supply an insurance bond as it would be the municipality that was granting permission to the private property owner, under the municipal camping/trailer/tent by-law. An insurance company is not responsible for a policy if a municipality is engaged in allowing an unlawful act to be licensed and made lawful.

3. And lastly, as stated in Sec 14 of the Municipal Act …. this Bylaw is without effect when it conflicts with a provincial or federal Act. The Highway Traffic Act is a provincial Act.

Hopefully, other municipal council members will read this and then review their own bylaws.  Whitewater council members have already been made aware of this information.  Will they review this bylaw and then repeal it?  Who knows.  But, it would seem, there are at least 24 property owners who have been wrongly forced to pay a license fee of $300 for how many years because they happen to own a recreational trailer.  They will learn of this information as well.  Will this municipal council do right by them and reimburse them; or will they just ignore this and continue on as they have been?  Perhaps these 24 trailer owners will seek legal action against the municipality.   I guess this all depends on the municipal council members, themselves.  Afterall, the power of this municipality is exercised by this council.