A quote from the case reads:

“In charging the appellant with obstructing a peace officer, the officer in question was attempting to enforce s. 11 of Metro By‑law 211‑74. Since that provision has been held to be ultra vires (beyond the powers)the municipality, the appellant’s conviction for obstructing a peace officer cannot stand. Further, even if s. 11 of Metro By‑law 211‑74 were valid, the power to arrest in order to enforce the by‑law cannot be inferred in the face of clear language in the Municipal Act and the Provincial Offences Act setting out more moderate means of dealing with repeated infractions. The officer had no authority, either at common law or under statute, to arrest the appellant for failing to comply with an order to desist from conduct prohibited by the by‑law and could not circumvent the lack of an arrest power by charging him with obstruction.”

If we replace s. 11 of the Metro By‑law 211‑74. with EMCPA O.Reg 82/20 Section 2(4)(g) it is our interpretation that case law, R vs. Sharma would apply in regards to mask exemptions.

We are aware that in Toronto, officers are being given direction to arrest on the obstruct justice charge simply as a means of obtaining ID. They are then releasing on a provincial offences ticket and not pursuing an obstruct charge. This could be considered abuse of process.