Montreal’s municipal court recently established that it is illegal to park less than three metres from a fire hydrant — vertically as well as horizontally.
Judge Denis Gallant was hearing the case of Jean-Aurie Hubert-Chartier, who received a ticket Oct. 7, 2024 for parking too close to a fire hydrant.
The prosecution provided photographs showing that the defendant’s Chevrolet was parked right in front of the hydrant. “They clearly show that the minimum distance of three metres required by law was not respected,” the judge said.
But the defendant countered with his own photographic evidence, showing that from a vertical perspective, his car was more than three metres from the hydrant because the car and hydrant were separated by a bike path and a “solid line separating the bike path from the roadway.”
The defendant argued that “the distance must be measured from the passenger side of his vehicle to the fire hydrant, taking into account the width of the sidewalk and the bike path.
“In his view, this configuration clearly makes the distance greater than three metres. He added that if parking had been prohibited at that spot, it would have been indicated by hatched markings on the ground, which was not the case.”
The court disagreed with the defendant’s interpretation of the law.
“He is mistaken about how this distance must be assessed under the law… The three-metre distance from the fire hydrant means three metres on each side of an imaginary perpendicular line drawn between the fire hydrant and the roadway, and not three metres between the fire hydrant and the parked vehicle. The purpose of the [law] is to ensure sufficient clearance on each side of the fire hydrant so that fire trucks can position themselves effectively in the event of a fire.”
The judge added that allowing vehicles to park directly in front of a fire hydrant, even if it is set back three metres from a roadway, “would go against the legislator’s objective.
“The prosecution having proven the material elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, the Court must now determine whether the defendant has shown, on a balance of probabilities, either a mistake of fact or due diligence. The Court answers both questions in the negative. The defendant has not met the burden of proof that rests on him.”
On the issue of due diligence, the judge ruled that the defendant “simply relied on his personal belief, which was based on an incorrect understanding of the law.
“He took no active steps to ensure his conduct was legal. A reasonable person in the same situation would have taken greater care to verify the rules.”
The defendant was thus found guilty.