¶ 1      NAPIER J.P. (orally):— Mr. Brown, on behalf of Ms. Myers, the allegation here is clear. The issue is not whether or not she did commit the left hand turn at southbound Bay Street to eastbound Edward Street. There is no other issue than the fact of the signage itself and the validity of the signs. I think we are not discussing about whether or not she did turn; whether or not the signs are visible.

¶ 2      It is clear from Exhibit A, B and C, and from also the officer's testimony here, that there are three signs: to the northwest corner, southwest corner, southeast corner. Those three signs that prohibit the left hand turn are from Monday to Friday from 7 A.M. to 7 P.M. They are visible to the traffic that is travelling southbound; they all face northbound. Those three signs, as I say, are erected. And, it seems that the size is not an issue and the international arrow, no left turn, is not an issue.

¶ 3      What is an issue here, though, is whether or not those are valid signs in the City of Toronto. Now, quite rightfully the agent here on behalf of Ms. Myers presented the Court with three different things. I will go on two only. First, the French Language Services Act, which I am quite familiar with since I have already ruled on quite a few matters on that. It seems, in the French Language Services Act, that the City of Toronto et al is designated as a bilingual area, so there is no discussion about that.

¶ 4      It seems also that under the Highway Traffic Act s. 21(5.1) reads, as you said, that:

Despite subsection (5), a sign that restricts a left hand turn in an area designated by the French Language Services Act shall ....
 

¶ 5      And then, as I said, the size is not an issue and the mark is not an issue, except for the fact that there is no additional "LUNDI to VENDREDI", L-U-N to V-E-N, meaning Monday to Friday. This is not, as suggested by the City Prosecutor, something that would address or be there only for the French speaking person.

¶ 6      The issue here is not whether or not Ms. Myers even understands or speaks French. It could be anyone from any language who could put this issue forward. It is not the point. The point is very clear and it is very straightforward here. Here, there is a legislation, the French Language Services Act, and here there is the Highway Traffic Act that directed the sign to read like that in a designated area. And this is the designated area, Toronto is.

¶ 7      So now, the City suggested that there is an exception to that, and that, because of s. 14 here, this does not apply. I do not agree with that. The by-law -- there is no issue of by-law here because this is under the Highway Traffic Act. It is not a by-law under parking for instance. This would be very different if it was a parking sign. Those are Highway Traffic Act, and there is an obligation to follow that. The only reason why it is not done is, and you could only imagine, because of the negligence of the City here, and it costs money to change that. But here the issue of money is not something. It has to be done after, I believe, 1998, and the French Language Services Act came quite a long time ago because I could remember myself being at this special evening where it was enacted. This was about 12 to 15 years ago, the first time.

¶ 8      So given the documentation that is before the Court, as well as this Court of Appeal of Ontario, that, of course, does not relate directly to the issue here, but it is quite an indication of what the Appeal Court will look at, I am quite satisfied that those signs are not valid.

¶ 9      Given that, the case, I believe, is to be dismissed.

¶ 10    MR. BROWN: Thank you, very much, Your Worship.