On December 21, 2016 the court on appeal ruled in the case, Her Majesty the Queen vs 1058078 Ontario Ltd. o/a Parking Control Unit (“PCU”), was authorized to carry on the business of parking control services as it did not violate the city by-law, and found that PCU’s model of consent to park fell within the model ruled by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in regards to the issuance of an invoice for parking: dismissing all charges.

---

The court finds in favour of Parking Control Unit in a civil action against James Deeder, on December 18th, 2017, finding for trespass and awarding a judgement to Parking Control Unit, a first in Ontario, Canada, involving Notice of Trespass for parking.

The court dismissed Mr. Deeder’s argument by his legal representative who tried to demonstrate: tort fraud by the notice of trespass looking like a municipal ticket, a colour of right under the Trespass to Property Act, as the sign did not clearly define no parking after hours and that police had advised him that it was not a ticket, and a belief that Parking Control Unit contributed to his negligence by not taking an aggressive step of towing Mr. Deeder’s vehicle after having issued more than 60 notices.

This court decision sets forth that a property owner can assign their rights under trespass to a third party, and the third party can claim for such trespasses assigned, in particular was the right to issue a notice of trespass for parking, in regards to a violation of the signed conditions and parking rules and regulations of the property owner. Further the court set out a guideline in two areas: the Notice of Trespass should remove any mention of the Trespass to Property Act, on the Notice of Trespass issued upon the vehicle, a sign giving notice to the public entering on the property what the court defined as the total penalty/fine being imposed for trespass and whom would be imposing such penalty/fine to collect upon the full fee of the notice.

---