County First Investigation | October 2026 | One Town. One Lesson. Follow County First on Facebook.
Word on the Street: Snippets | Bruce | Dufferin | Elgin | Frontenac | Grey | Haliburton | Hastings | Huron | Kawartha Lakes | Lanark | Leeds & Grenville | Lennox & Addington | Middlesex | Norfolk | Northumberland | Oxford | Perth | Peterborough | Prince Edward | Renfrew | Simcoe | Wellington
Prince Edward County lists penalties of up to $20,000 for operating an unlicensed short-term accommodation. Tiny Township found that a handful of properties accounted for a remarkable share of complaints. And in Centre Wellington, a proposed $825,000 enforcement budget tells a very different story once revenues and reserve transfers are considered. County First examines what municipalities spend enforcing their rules — and what taxpayers can actually measure.
Executive Summary — What Residents Should Know
Do counties have too many by-laws?
Lets look at one county as an example. There is no verified evidence that Prince Edward County has more active regulatory by-laws than comparable Ontario municipalities. Its 2025 archive reaches By-law 155-2025, but the numbering includes Council proceedings, agreements, appointments, zoning amendments and other measures that are not equivalent to 155 new restrictions on residents.[1]
How significant can by-law penalties become?
Prince Edward County’s published administrative penalty schedule for secondary-residence short-term accommodations lists $10,000 for a first offence of operating without a licence, $15,000 for a second and $20,000 for subsequent offences.[2]
These are published penalty amounts, not evidence that particular penalties have been imposed or upheld.
What do other municipalities spend?
Loyalist Township proposed $224,780 in gross 2026 expenditures for by-law enforcement and animal control. Centre Wellington’s 2026 draft budget identified $825,192 in gross expenses for by-law enforcement and licensing, including a $184,000 transfer to reserves. The two budgets cover different services and cannot be compared without adjustments.[3][4]
What does the complaint evidence reveal?
Tiny Township reported that three unlicensed short-term-rental properties generated 46 complaints, representing 29% of its STR complaints between October 2024 and September 2025. The Township also reported that 88% of properties in its licensing analysis had no complaints.[5]
This suggests that enforcement demand can be heavily concentrated rather than evenly spread across an entire regulated sector.
Is by-law enforcement a wider Ontario concern?
Yes. Ontario’s Ombudsman received 533 complaints and inquiries concerning municipal by-law enforcement in 2024–25, up from 449 the previous year, an increase of approximately 18.7%. By-law enforcement was the most common general municipal issue brought to the office.[6]
These figures concern complaints to the Ombudsman across Ontario, not verified municipal by-law violations.
What is County First’s central finding?
Municipalities publish extensive information about their rules and penalties, but the public records examined here reveal substantial differences in how they report costs, staffing, complaints and resolutions. The most meaningful question is not simply how many by-laws a municipality has. It is whether residents can determine what enforcement costs, how often it is justified and what results it produces.
Your Lawn, Your Dog, Your Rental, Your Parking: How Much of Daily Life Does Your Municipality Regulate?
Imagine receiving a complaint because your grass is too tall, your dog is barking, your trailer is parked in the wrong place or a guest has made too much noise. Each matter may trigger a municipal process involving staff time, inspections, correspondence and potentially a penalty.
Municipal by-laws govern an enormous range of everyday activities. In Prince Edward County, the enforcement department identifies responsibilities involving property standards, grass cutting, noise, parking, taxis, zoning, backyard hens, mobile food vendors, signs and public parks.[7]
The County says its officers rely on education, encourage neighbours to resolve disputes and seek voluntary compliance before formal enforcement. This is a reasonable administrative objective, but it raises a measurable question: how frequently is voluntary compliance achieved, and how much does the system cost to operate?
The issue extends far beyond Prince Edward County. Across Ontario, councils must balance public safety and neighbourhood enjoyment against property rights, administrative costs and the risk of unnecessary intervention.
The case for some rules is straightforward. Unsafe structures, dangerous parking and serious fire hazards can impose costs on others. Other issues, such as minor property appearance disputes or occasional noise complaints, may involve more subjective judgments about what neighbours should tolerate.
The challenge is not merely deciding which activities should be regulated. It is determining how much enforcement is warranted, whether cases are handled consistently and whether the results justify the resources used.
The Province-Wide Warning: By-law Enforcement Leads Municipal Complaints to the Ombudsman
Ontario’s Ombudsman reported 3,809 cases involving general municipal issues in 2024–25, up from 3,595 the previous year. By-law enforcement was the most common category, with 533 complaints and inquiries, compared with 449 in 2023–24.[6]
That increase does not establish that municipalities have become more aggressive or that more by-laws are being broken. Complaints to the Ombudsman can concern both excessive enforcement and failures to enforce.
The examples in the annual report are revealing. One resident complained that an appeal tribunal had upheld a short-term-rental penalty without explaining its reasons. Another sought help when the municipality had not addressed weeds on a neighbouring property. A separate case involved a parking ticket issued to someone who had not visited the city for decades.[6]
These examples point to a broader accountability problem. Residents need protection against genuine nuisance and safety problems, but they also need fair procedures when the government takes action against them.
Table 1. Municipal by-law concerns reported to Ontario’s Ombudsman
| Reporting year | By-law enforcement cases | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2022–23 | 397 | — |
| 2023–24 | 449 | +13.1% |
| 2024–25 | 533 | +18.7% |
Source: Ontario Ombudsman annual reports. Percentages calculated by County First.[6][8]
The number of complaints to an independent oversight office remains small relative to the millions of residents served by Ontario municipalities. Nevertheless, the upward trend warrants attention, particularly because enforcement decisions can affect people’s homes, businesses and finances.
Prince Edward County: A $10,000 Penalty — but How Many Cases Are Resolved Without One?
Prince Edward County provides a useful case study because it combines rural and agricultural properties with villages, waterfront communities and a substantial tourism sector.
Its regulatory responsibilities range from routine neighbourhood concerns to short-term-accommodation licensing. The County’s published penalty schedule illustrates just how different the consequences can be depending on the alleged violation.[2]
Table 2. Prince Edward County — Published short-term-accommodation administrative penalties
| Violation | First | Second | Subsequent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Operating an STA without a licence | $10,000 | $15,000 | $20,000 |
| Advertising an STA without a licence | $2,000 | $4,000 | $8,000 |
| Failing to display the STA licence number in advertising | $1,000 | $2,000 | $4,000 |
| Operating an STA other than as approved | $1,000 | $2,000 | $4,000 |
| Hosting a non-permitted event | $500 | $1,000 | $2,000 |
| Failing to provide required documents | $100 | $200 | $400 |
Source: Prince Edward County’s published secondary-residence STA enforcement information.[2]
The difference between $100 for a documentation violation and $10,000 for operating without a licence reflects the County’s published classification of different offences and their financial consequences.
The figures are not directly comparable with the penalties in another municipality for unrelated violations. A short-term-rental licensing offence and an ordinary property-standards violation may involve different legal requirements and policy objectives.
What matters is whether residents can understand the rules, receive appropriate notice, access applicable review procedures and determine how frequently penalties are actually imposed.
For County First’s investigation, the unanswered statistical question is straightforward: of all the County’s short-term-accommodation complaints or inspections, how many result in no violation, education, voluntary compliance, formal orders or monetary penalties?
Without a consolidated outcome report, the published penalty schedule describes what officers may pursue, but not what they actually do in the average case.
The First Misleading Number: 155 By-laws Does Not Mean 155 New Restrictions
Prince Edward County’s 2025 by-law archive reaches number 155. The last numbered instrument concerns confirmation of Council proceedings, while other entries include agreements, appointments, financing measures and site-specific zoning changes.[1]
Some enactments regulate activities. Others authorize the municipality to undertake administrative or legal business.
Counting all 155 as new restrictions would therefore be misleading.
Even a verified count of active regulatory by-laws would not fully measure their burden. One comprehensive zoning by-law can govern thousands of properties and contain extensive restrictions. Several narrower by-laws might collectively regulate fewer activities.
An accurate regulatory inventory would distinguish active by-laws from repealed instruments, amendments and routine Council enactments. It would also identify the subject, affected population, penalties and review mechanisms.
A count of rules is useful only when readers know what is being counted.
The Financial Evidence: A $225,000 Budget and an $825,000 Budget Can Tell Very Different Stories
The detailed financial records from Loyalist Township and Centre Wellington show why comparing departmental budget totals can be deceptive.
Loyalist’s 2026 draft budget combines by-law enforcement and animal control. Centre Wellington’s draft includes enforcement and licensing, parking-related operations and a substantial transfer to reserves.[3][4]
Table 3. Published municipal enforcement budget figures
| Municipality | Budget year and status | Gross expenses | Revenues | Net levy requirement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loyalist Township | 2024 approved | $207,600 | $51,000 | $156,600 |
| Loyalist Township | 2025 approved | $207,060 | $68,200 | $138,860 |
| Loyalist Township | 2026 draft | $224,780 | $72,800 | $151,980 |
| Centre Wellington | 2025 budget | $502,047 | $255,700 | $246,347 |
| Centre Wellington | 2026 draft | $825,192 | $573,000 | $252,192 |
Sources: Loyalist Township and Centre Wellington detailed budget schedules.[3][4]
These are not standardized costs for identical services, and the draft amounts should not be presented as final audited expenditures.
Still, the trends reveal useful facts.
Loyalist’s proposed 2026 gross spending was 8.6% above its 2025 approved budget, while its net levy requirement was proposed to rise 9.4%. Centre Wellington’s proposed gross expenses increased 64.4%, yet its proposed net levy requirement increased only 2.4%.
Why such a large difference?
The answer lies in the financing arrangements, particularly anticipated parking revenues and reserve transfers.
Loyalist Township: Less Than One-Third of Its Proposed Budget Is Wages and Benefits
Loyalist Township’s 2026 draft identifies $64,730 for salaries, wages and benefits within a proposed gross by-law and animal-control budget of $224,780.[3]
That means compensation represents approximately 28.8% of the total proposed expenditures.
Table 4. Loyalist Township — Anatomy of the 2026 proposed enforcement budget
| Expense | Amount | Share of gross |
|---|---|---|
| Salaries, wages and benefits | $64,730 | 28.8% |
| Contracted services | $47,000 | 20.9% |
| Supplies, materials and other | $113,050 | 50.3% |
| Total | $224,780 | 100% |
| Less budgeted revenue | ($72,800) | — |
| Net levy requirement | $151,980 | — |
Source: Loyalist Township, 2026 Draft Operating and Capital Budgets, Table 24.[3]
A taxpayer who examined only the salaries line would miss most of the reported budget.
The Township also describes by-law enforcement as a service delivered through contracted arrangements. Its budget therefore illustrates why counting directly employed officers is an incomplete measure of municipal enforcement capacity.
The more useful comparison is the total cost of the service, including contracted work, together with what that service delivers.
Centre Wellington: A 64% Spending Increase, but Only a 2.4% Increase in the Net Levy
Centre Wellington provides perhaps the most revealing budget example.
Its 2026 draft proposed $825,192 in gross expenses and $573,000 in revenues, leaving a net levy requirement of $252,192. Compared with the 2025 budget, gross spending increased by approximately 64%, while the proposed net requirement increased by only 2.4%.[4]
The spending figure also includes a proposed $184,000 transfer to reserves. Such a transfer is a budget allocation, not necessarily an expenditure on current-year enforcement activity.
The draft anticipated an additional $262,300 in new paid-parking revenue and $55,000 in additional parking-enforcement revenue.
Table 5. Centre Wellington — What the draft budget actually proposed
| Measure | 2025 budget | 2026 draft | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gross expenses | $502,047 | $825,192 | +64.4% |
| Revenues | $255,700 | $573,000 | +124.1% |
| Net levy requirement | $246,347 | $252,192 | +2.4% |
| Transfers to reserves | $0 | $184,000 | New allocation |
| Operations and maintenance | $184,700 | $297,000 | +60.8% |
Source: Centre Wellington, 2026 Draft Budget, Corporate Services — By-law Enforcement and Licensing.[4]
But an important development occurred after the draft budget was prepared.
On October 9, 2026, Centre Wellington announced that it was preparing to resume consistent parking enforcement through Township staff and new technology. It also stated that paid parking, including the resident exemption program, remained paused while the Township considered next steps.[9]
That creates a material distinction between the financial plan and actual implementation.
The draft budget contemplated significant paid-parking revenues, but the October announcement does not establish that those revenues have been realized. Nor does it establish the final effect on expenses, because associated program costs and transfers may also change.
This is precisely why public accountability requires councils to report both budgets and actual financial performance.
A budget may tell residents what the municipality expected. Subsequent operating decisions determine whether those expectations remain realistic.
Tiny Township: Three Properties Generated 29% of Short-Term-Rental Complaints
The strongest evidence of how misleading complaint totals can be comes from Tiny Township in Simcoe County.
Its December 2025 enforcement activity report examined the period from October 1, 2024 to September 30, 2025. Officers received complaints relating to 80 short-term-rental properties.[5]
According to the Township’s analysis, three unlicensed properties generated 46 complaints, or 29% of the total STR complaints received.
The report also stated that 88% of properties in its licensing analysis had no complaints, and that some complaints concerned conduct that officers ultimately found did not violate the by-law.
Table 6. Tiny Township — What its STR complaint investigation revealed
| Measure | Reported finding |
|---|---|
| Properties associated with STR complaints | 80 |
| Properties responsible for 29% of STR complaints | 3 unlicensed properties |
| Complaints associated with those three properties | 46 |
| Properties with no complaints in the Township’s licensing analysis | 88% |
| Complaints where officers found no violation | 34 |
| Properties with charges issued or pending | 19 |
| Court-imposed STR fines during the reporting period | $3,775 |
Source: Township of Tiny, Report MLE-005-25.[5]
The significance is not that short-term rentals generate no problems. The report identifies properties facing enforcement proceedings, including cases involving multiple charges.
The more interesting insight is that the distribution of complaints is highly uneven.
A small number of properties can account for a disproportionate share of complaints, while most properties generate none.
That has direct implications for policy. A council considering broader restrictions on an entire sector should distinguish between widespread non-compliance and problems concentrated among a relatively small group of operators.
A targeted compliance strategy may be appropriate in some circumstances. In others, systemic weaknesses in the rules may justify broader changes. The complaint distribution helps councils investigate which explanation better fits the evidence.
The Other Surprise: Many Investigations Find No Violation
Tiny’s report separately examines dog control and open-burning incidents.
Among 68 dog-control occurrences in the reporting period, officers recorded 15 cases with no violation. For 110 fire occurrences, they found no violation in 54 cases.[5]
Table 7. Tiny Township — Selected enforcement outcomes
| Category | Occurrences | No violation found | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dog control | 68 | 15 | 22% |
| Fire/open burning | 110 | 54 | 49% |
| STR complaints | Total complaint count not used as a shared denominator here | 34 | Not calculated |
Source: Township of Tiny, December 2025 activity report. Percentages for dog and fire occurrences are reported by the Township.[5]
These results demonstrate why the number of complaints cannot be treated as the number of violations.
Investigating a complaint can be entirely appropriate even when no offence is ultimately found. Officers must assess the evidence before deciding whether intervention is justified.
But residents need to understand the distinction. A council that reports only complaint volumes may unintentionally create the impression that violations are far more common than the completed investigations establish.
Tiny’s Broader Workload: Fewer Occurrences, but Seasonal Enforcement Still Matters
Tiny reported 1,518 general by-law occurrences during its October 2024–September 2025 reporting period, compared with 1,707 in the preceding period.[5]
Based on those published figures, the reduction was approximately 11.1%.
The municipality also reported that 17 seasonal municipal law-enforcement officers completed their summer contracts in September 2025.
This seasonal staffing model is relevant when comparing rural tourism destinations. Enforcement demand may be concentrated around beaches, holiday weekends, short-term accommodations and seasonal parking.
One weekend can also produce very different numbers of complaints and penalties. During the August 1–4, 2025 Civic Holiday period, Tiny reported 76 complaints but issued 140 parking charges, among other charges.[10]
The point is not that enforcement was excessive. Parking tickets can arise from proactive patrols rather than complaints, and complaint calls can concern other matters.
The point is that complaint counts and penalty counts measure different activities.
For a municipality seeking meaningful performance reporting, they should never be used interchangeably.
Norfolk County: What Does Another Enforcement Officer Cost?
Norfolk County offers a useful staffing comparison because, like Prince Edward County, it is a single-tier municipality with agricultural, rural and waterfront communities.
Its draft 2026 budget included a business case for an additional by-law enforcement officer, showing total proposed expenditures of $164,400 and a net levy impact of $164,000.[11]
This is the estimated cost of the proposed initiative, not simply the employee’s salary.
The business case explained that the number of by-law officers had fallen by one to five while population growth, smaller residential lots, narrower streets and popular beach areas increased parking-related demands.
Staff argued that another position would improve response capacity and allow more proactive enforcement beyond the summer peak.
That is a different explanation for enforcement spending than simply adding rules. A municipality may increase enforcement resources because existing regulations are not being adequately administered.
Norfolk subsequently adopted its overall 2026 levy-supported operating budget, but the draft business-case figures alone do not establish the final approved line-item cost or implementation of the proposed additional position.[12]
The example highlights a useful question for every municipality: when staffing increases, does Council establish measurable service improvements such as faster responses, more completed investigations or fewer repeat problems?
Kawartha Lakes: Twenty-One Full-Time Positions — but Not Necessarily Twenty-One Officers
Kawartha Lakes provides another single-tier comparison.
Its approved 2026 budget identifies 21 full-time staff positions in the Municipal Law Enforcement and Licensing Division, compared with 20 in 2025. It also identifies 1,820 student hours for 2026.[13]
Those 21 positions are division-wide staffing, not a verified count of 21 front-line enforcement officers.
The division’s responsibilities include property standards, zoning, licensing, animals, parking, noise and grade alteration, along with other municipal regulatory functions.
Its 2026 priorities include reviewing the city-wide sign by-law, examining the Administrative Monetary Penalty System and continuing modernization of customer-service processes.
Interestingly, its performance measures include developing service targets and increasing the use of customer payment portals.[13]
These are administrative and service objectives, but they do not, by themselves, reveal how many complaints were substantiated or how many problems were resolved.
Kawartha Lakes demonstrates how staffing figures can be made available while leaving further work to connect resources with outcomes.
Greater Napanee: The $70,000 Vehicle That Does Not Appear in an Officer Headcount
Greater Napanee’s February 2026 budget announcement identified a $70,000 additional by-law vehicle, funded through development charges. The Town linked the purchase to an increase in enforcement staffing in 2025.[14]
The vehicle is a capital allocation, not an annual salary or recurring operating cost.
It shows that enforcement resources extend beyond officers and administrative staff. Vehicles, technology, insurance, equipment and training may be funded in different parts of a municipal budget.
Greater Napanee also has a published enforcement standards policy requiring monthly reports on complaints received and closed, together with warnings, tickets and orders.[15]
That combination of financial information and reporting requirements is useful, although the policy does not establish that every monthly performance report has been published or that specific service targets have been met.
Northumberland: A Historical Patrol Pilot Shows the Value of Measuring Activity
An older Northumberland County budget report offers a particularly practical example of counting what enforcement actually delivers.
In 2021, the County conducted a pilot using a contracted enforcement firm in the Northumberland County Forest. The subsequent budget documentation reported 61 patrols and approximately 2,000 public interactions at a cost of about $14,000, based on figures available by June.[16]
That represents roughly $230 per reported patrol or $7 per reported interaction, although those simple calculations do not measure the quality or effectiveness of the work.
The pilot addressed matters such as unauthorized camping, dumping, motorized vehicle use, fire risks and public safety concerns.
This historical example is not a current cost benchmark for municipal enforcement generally. Forest patrols are a narrower service.
Its value lies in the reporting approach: the County connected a defined expenditure to a documented volume of field activity, giving Council something concrete to evaluate.
Two More Examples: Local Technology and County-Level Responsibilities
In Peterborough County, the Municipality of Trent Lakes launched an online by-law complaint portal in July 2025. The platform allows residents to identify a property through a map, select a complaint category and submit supporting information.[17]
That may make reporting easier and improve recordkeeping. But improved access could also increase recorded complaint volumes without any corresponding increase in actual violations.
In Perth County, an October 2026 public notice sought proposals for enforcement of the County’s tree-injury by-law and related weed and tree inspection services.[18]
This illustrates a second jurisdictional complication. Most everyday neighbourhood enforcement in two-tier regions is administered by lower-tier municipalities, but upper-tier counties can also have regulatory duties of their own.
A complete accounting must identify which level of government is responsible before comparing costs.
The 22-County Comparison: Why Geography and Government Structure Matter
County First’s broader investigation covers 22 Ontario county regions. They represent a mix of single-tier municipalities, upper-tier county governments and local municipalities with separate councils, budgets and enforcement operations.
Table 8. County First’s 22-region comparison framework
| County First region | Local jurisdictions relevant to the investigation | Comparison opportunity |
|---|---|---|
| Bruce | Saugeen Shores, Kincardine, South Bruce Peninsula | Seasonal tourism and local enforcement |
| Dufferin | Orangeville, Mono, Shelburne | Urban-rural service differences |
| Elgin | Central Elgin, Aylmer, Bayham | Rural regulation and service delivery |
| Frontenac | South Frontenac, Central Frontenac, North Frontenac | Rural and waterfront enforcement |
| Grey | Grey Highlands, Meaford, Owen Sound | Property standards and tourism |
| Haliburton | Dysart et al, Minden Hills, Highlands East | Cottage and seasonal-property issues |
| Hastings | Bancroft, Centre Hastings, Madoc | Small-community enforcement models |
| Huron | Central Huron, South Huron, Bluewater | Agricultural and waterfront communities |
| Kawartha Lakes | City of Kawartha Lakes | Single-tier municipal staffing and services |
| Lanark | Perth, Carleton Place, Mississippi Mills | Urban-rural cost comparisons |
| Leeds & Grenville | Rideau Lakes, North Grenville, Leeds and the Thousand Islands | Tourism, waterfront and rural enforcement |
| Lennox & Addington | Loyalist, Greater Napanee, Stone Mills | Detailed budgets and reporting policies |
| Middlesex | Middlesex Centre, Strathroy-Caradoc, Thames Centre | Rural and suburban growth pressures |
| Norfolk | Norfolk County | Single-tier staffing and parking demands |
| Northumberland | Brighton, Cobourg, Port Hope, Trent Hills | Local services and county forest enforcement |
| Oxford | Woodstock, Tillsonburg, Ingersoll | Urban and small-city regulation |
| Perth | North Perth, Perth East, Perth South, West Perth | Local by-laws and county-level tree enforcement |
| Peterborough | Trent Lakes, Selwyn, Havelock-Belmont-Methuen | Seasonal enforcement and digital complaints |
| Prince Edward | Prince Edward County | Single-tier regulation and short-term accommodations |
| Renfrew | Arnprior, Renfrew, Petawawa, Laurentian Valley | Mixed urban-rural service delivery |
| Simcoe | Tiny, Collingwood, Wasaga Beach, Oro-Medonte | Tourism, seasonal staffing and complaint outcomes |
| Wellington | Centre Wellington, Wellington North, Guelph/Eramosa | Parking revenue and enforcement financing |
This table defines County First’s comparative coverage. It does not mean that verified expenditure, staffing and enforcement-outcome statistics have been obtained for every listed municipality.
The distinction between upper-tier and lower-tier services is especially important. Simcoe County directs residents to its constituent municipalities for matters such as local noise, animals, property standards and zoning.[19] Northumberland County likewise identifies everyday by-law enforcement as a responsibility of its seven local municipalities.[20]
Quinte West, which can provide an additional regional comparison for Hastings-area readers, operates as a separate city rather than a lower-tier municipality within Hastings County. Its 2024 budget book reported investigation of 570 new by-law and enforcement complaints through the third quarter of 2023 — an older, partial-year measure that should not be compared directly with Tiny’s later 12-month total.[21]
A county-to-county comparison based on upper-tier budget totals alone would therefore be misleading.
Five Measures Every Municipality Should Publish
The evidence suggests a practical reporting framework applicable across Ontario.
Table 9. A standardized annual by-law enforcement scorecard
| Metric | Definition | What residents learn |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Active regulatory by-laws | Current, generally applicable rules, excluding routine administrative enactments | Breadth of municipal regulation |
| 2. Enforcement cost | Gross and net annual actual spending, with capital and reserve transfers identified separately | Full financial resources committed |
| 3. Staffing capacity | Funded FTEs, seasonal hours and contracted enforcement capacity | Resources available to investigate and respond |
| 4. Complaints and investigations | Unique cases received, closed, substantiated and found without violation | Actual workload and nature of demand |
| 5. Enforcement outcomes | Voluntary resolutions, warnings, orders, penalties, prosecutions and appeals | How cases are resolved and escalated |
To improve comparability, municipalities should use the same reporting period and document precisely which services are included.
For example, animal control should not be included in one municipality’s total and excluded from another without disclosure. Parking enforcement and short-term-rental licensing should also be separately identified where their financial importance is substantial.
Permanent population can be used to calculate costs and complaints per 1,000 residents, but municipalities with large visitor populations should provide additional seasonal measures.
The objective is to help readers understand differences, not to assign simplistic performance rankings.
The Five Insights That Emerge From the Evidence
1. A handful of properties can drive a large share of complaints.
Tiny’s experience demonstrates the risk of mistaking complaint volume for widespread non-compliance. Three unlicensed STR properties accounted for 29% of complaints in the reporting period. Understanding concentration is important before deciding whether an entire category of property owners should face broader restrictions.[5]
2. Reported complaints are not equivalent to actual violations.
In Tiny’s fire-related occurrences, officers found no violation in nearly half the cases examined. Complaint-driven systems must investigate concerns, but councils should report substantiated and unsubstantiated cases separately.[5]
3. Budget totals can increase dramatically while the net tax requirement barely changes.
Centre Wellington’s draft 2026 enforcement expenses were 64% above the prior budget, yet the proposed net levy requirement was only 2.4% higher. Planned revenues and transfers explain much of the difference. Subsequent changes to the parking program make actual year-end results especially important.[4][9]
4. Municipal enforcement resources can be hidden across multiple budgets.
Loyalist uses contracted services. Greater Napanee budgeted a capital vehicle. Kawartha Lakes reports division-wide staffing rather than only front-line officers. These accounting differences make simple headcount and salary comparisons unreliable.[3][13][14]
5. Financial penalties can be substantial, but enforcement results are often harder to find.
PEC’s published $10,000 first penalty for operating an unlicensed STA is easy to identify. Far more difficult, from the materials assembled in this investigation, is producing a common comparison of actual penalties, voluntary resolutions, appeals and final outcomes across municipalities.[2]
That gap matters because a schedule of potential penalties does not reveal how fairly or effectively the system operates.
Should Municipalities Reconsider the Way They Enforce Their Rules?
Municipal regulations are not inherently excessive because they are numerous, nor are they necessarily effective because enforcement officers issue many tickets.
A well-administered system may resolve most ordinary complaints through education and reserve formal penalties for persistent or serious violations. It may also pursue significant penalties when warranted under the applicable rules and evidence.
The critical issue is proportionality.
Residents should be able to understand why a rule exists, what conduct it prohibits, what steps precede formal enforcement and what opportunities exist to challenge a decision.
Councils should also periodically examine whether individual rules continue to address identifiable problems and whether enforcement resources are concentrated on the highest-priority issues.
This is not an argument for eliminating safety rules or tolerating persistent nuisance behaviour. It is an argument for measuring whether regulation is delivering the benefits intended.
The Questions Every Council Should Answer
If a municipality already publishes detailed budgets and by-law lists, it may possess much of the information needed to prepare an annual enforcement report.
A credible report would identify its active regulatory framework, explain funding and staffing, distinguish complaint categories, record investigation outcomes, publish enforcement activity and describe the handling of appeals.
For Prince Edward County, a particularly useful starting point would be a consolidated account of 2025 actual and 2026 budgeted by-law enforcement expenditures, along with the number of complaints, investigations, compliance notices, administrative penalties and appeals.
For other municipalities, the specific questions may differ. Tourist communities might examine summer staffing and parking enforcement, while growing suburbs might focus on property standards, construction-related complaints and changing neighbourhood demands.
But the accountability principle is the same: the public should be able to see both the cost of the rules and the results of enforcing them.
One Town. One Lesson.
Prince Edward County is the starting point for this investigation, but the evidence from Tiny, Loyalist, Centre Wellington, Norfolk, Kawartha Lakes, Greater Napanee and other Ontario communities demonstrates that the issues are province-wide.
The most surprising finding is not the number of rules. It is the difference between how much information municipalities publish about their power to regulate and how much comparable information residents can readily assemble about enforcement outcomes.
Tiny’s data show that a few properties can account for a large proportion of complaints. Centre Wellington’s budget demonstrates how revenues and reserve transfers complicate expenditure comparisons. Loyalist’s budget shows the importance of contracted services. Norfolk’s staffing business case illustrates the demands created by growth and tourism.
Each example provides a different part of the picture.
Ontario’s Ombudsman figures add another reason to take the subject seriously: residents are increasingly bringing concerns about municipal by-law enforcement to an independent oversight office.
Does your municipality have too many rules, or does it need better ways to explain and evaluate them?
Which by-law would you keep, change or eliminate?
And should every municipality publish an annual report showing how much enforcement costs, how many complaints are substantiated and how those cases are resolved?
Footnotes and Primary Sources
[1] Prince Edward County, 2025 By-law Archive, CivicWeb Document Centre. Numbered enactments through By-law 155-2025, including confirmation of Council proceedings and other administrative instruments.
https://princeedwardcounty.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/319732/
[2] Prince Edward County, Secondary Residence Short-Term Accommodations — Administrative Monetary Penalties. Published administrative penalty schedule for STA violations.
https://www.thecounty.ca/residents/services/short-term-accommodations/secondary-residence-short-term-accommodations/
[3] Loyalist Township, 2026 Draft Operating and Capital Budgets, Table 24, p. 48. Approved 2024 and 2025 budgets and proposed 2026 spending for by-law enforcement and animal control.
https://www.loyalist.ca/media/22hkavq0/2026-draft-operating-and-capital-budgets.pdf
[4] Township of Centre Wellington, 2026 Draft Budget, p. 63, Corporate Services — By-law Enforcement and Licensing. Proposed expenditures, revenues, parking assumptions and reserve transfers.
https://www.centrewellington.ca/media/4y0fe1mw/2026-draft-budget-document.pdf
[5] Township of Tiny, MLE-005-25: By-law Third Quarter Activity Report for 2025 and Comparative Departmental Activities, December 10, 2025. Twelve-month analysis of STR complaints, dog control, fire occurrences, charges, staffing and parking activity.
https://www.tiny.ca/sites/default/files/2025-12/MLE-005-25%20-%20By-law%203rd%20Quarter%20Activity%20Report%20for%202025%20and%20Comparative%20Departmental%20Activities%20%28October%201%2C%202024%20-%20September%2030%2C%202025%29.pdf
[6] Ombudsman Ontario, 2024–2025 Annual Report, municipal issues section. Records 533 by-law enforcement complaints and inquiries and provides examples concerning fairness, appeals and administrative responses.
https://www.ombudsman.on.ca/en/our-work/annual-reports/2024-2025-annual-report
[7] Prince Edward County, By-law Enforcement. Municipal description of regulatory responsibilities and compliance-first approach.
https://www.thecounty.ca/residents/services/by-law-enforcement/
[8] Ombudsman Ontario, 2023–2024 Annual Report. Reports 449 by-law enforcement complaints and inquiries, compared with 397 in the preceding year.
https://www.ombudsman.on.ca/en/our-work/annual-reports/2023-2024-annual-report
[9] Township of Centre Wellington, Centre Wellington Preparing to Resume Consistent Parking Enforcement, October 9, 2026. Announces Township-led parking enforcement and confirms paid parking remains paused.
https://www.centrewellington.ca/news/posts/centre-wellington-preparing-to-resume-consistent-parking-enforcement/
[10] Township of Tiny, Municipal Law Enforcement Update August 1 to 4, 2025, August 6, 2025. Civic Holiday enforcement activity, including 76 complaints and 140 parking charges.
https://www.tiny.ca/news-updates/municipal-law-enforcement-update-august-1-4-2025
[11] Norfolk County, Draft 2026 Levy Operating Budget, new budget initiative business case — By-law Enforcement Officer. Proposed one-FTE initiative, $164,400 expenditures, staffing context and parking demand.
https://www.norfolkcounty.ca/media/p1dhposy/draft-2026-operating-budget-digital-version.pdf
[12] Norfolk County, Norfolk County Council Adopts 2026 Levy Operating Budget, January 23, 2026. Confirms adoption of the municipal operating budget, without independently verifying every draft initiative’s final status.
https://www.norfolkcounty.ca/news-and-notices/posts/norfolk-county-council-adopts-2026-levy-operating-budget/
[13] City of Kawartha Lakes, 2026 Mayor’s Approved Budget, Municipal Law Enforcement and Licensing Division, p. 97. Division responsibilities, personnel figures, priorities and performance objectives.
https://www.kawarthalakes.ca/media/rzbbe5ih/kl_2026_mayors_approved_budget_accessible_edit-jan29.pdf
[14] Town of Greater Napanee, 2026 Budget Invests in New Vehicles and Equipment to Support Core Services, February 13, 2026. $70,000 by-law vehicle and its stated funding source.
https://www.greaternapanee.com/news/posts/greater-napanee-budget-update-2026-budget-invests-in-new-vehicles-and-equipment-to-support-core-services/
[15] Town of Greater Napanee, By-law Enforcement Standards Policy. Reporting requirements concerning complaints, warnings, tickets and orders.
https://www.greaternapanee.com/media/axeheawy/by-law-enforcement-standards-policy-ls.pdf
[16] Northumberland County, 2022 Draft Budget — Corporate Services Business Plans and Issue Papers, County Forest enforcement discussion. Historical 2021 contracted patrol pilot and reported activity.
https://www.northumberland.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/2022-Draft-Budget-Corporate-Services-Business-Plans-and-Issue-Papers-accessible.pdf
[17] Municipality of Trent Lakes, New By-law Complaint Portal, July 7, 2025. Online property-based complaint submission system.
https://www.trentlakes.ca/news/posts/new-by-law-complaint-portal/
[18] County of Perth, Public Notices, October 6, 2026. Request for proposals for tree-injury by-law enforcement and weed and tree inspection services.
https://www.perthcounty.ca/news-public-notices/public-notices/
[19] County of Simcoe, Commonly Requested By-laws. Identifies local municipal responsibility for many everyday enforcement subjects.
https://simcoe.ca/commonly-requested-bylaws/
[20] Northumberland County, Who Does What in Government Services. Explains upper-tier and local municipal responsibilities, including by-law enforcement.
https://northumberland.ca/county-government/who-does-what-in-government-services/
[21] City of Quinte West, 2024 Budget Book, p. 80. Reports 570 new by-law and enforcement complaints investigated through the third quarter of 2023.
https://quintewest.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/2024-City-Budget-Book-FINAL-version-Quinte-West.pdf
[22] Prince Edward County, 2026 County Budgets Adopted, January 14, 2026. Confirms the County’s overall $87.7 million tax-supported operating budget, which should not be confused with its enforcement-specific budget.
https://www.thecounty.ca/county_news_notices/2026-county-budgets-adopted/
[23] Loyalist Township, 2026 Budget Finalized, December 4, 2025. Confirms final adoption of the Township’s overall 2026 budget after amendments to the draft.
https://www.loyalist.ca/news/posts/2026-budget-finalized/
Editorial and Legal Notice
This article examines municipal regulation, publicly documented spending, enforcement activity and administrative accountability. Financial figures are identified as draft, approved, historical or capital allocations as applicable. They have not all been standardized to identical municipal service definitions or reporting periods.
Complaint counts are not treated as proven violations. Charges, administrative penalties, court-imposed fines and completed prosecutions are distinct outcomes. Published maximum or scheduled penalties are not evidence that a penalty was actually imposed, collected or upheld.
The article does not conclude that any named municipality has an excessive number of by-laws, administers its rules unlawfully or spends more than is justified. It identifies evidence that can support further public examination and questions that should be answered before such conclusions are drawn.
References to administrative decisions, complaints or enforcement policies do not imply wrongdoing by any official, complainant, resident or regulated business.
County First welcomes factual corrections, updated approved budgets, annual enforcement statistics and relevant municipal records. Material changes will be assessed for inclusion in future updates.