Governments are fueled by their own words so I've started asking for copies of every by-law enacted after each council meeting. You can get them at ottwatch.ca/bylaws.
For the most part they are routine business, bringing into force decisions council has already made. A re-zoning here. A new parking enforcement officer there. Sometimes a unique bird like the by-law that made Uber legal.
Also lots of Part Lot Control exemptions.
In glazing through them I've noticed a peculiar difference in the language used to restrict the scope of those Part Lot Control exemptions. Almost all of them contain this boilerplate phrase:
(a) the creation of blocks and parcels for construction purposes and to permit such lots to be charged and/or discharged;
However, one of those bylaws (2016-282) was subsequently repealed by 2016-302, which then re-did the exemption with a few modifications to the non-boilerplate portions. In the new bylaw the phrase was changed to:
(a) the creation of lots and parcels for construction purposes and to permit such lots and parcels to be charged and/or discharged;
I'm not a lawyer. You're probably not a lawyer. But doesn't this second phrasing look better? Now that you've seen it, doesn't it make you wonder if the original phrasing wrong (in the lawyerly way)?
My guess is the original #282 by-law had some issues that needed fixing after it was enacted. No big deal. Someone went over the original with a fine-tooth comb and fixed it all up. All good!
But while they were under the hood they gazed at "blocks and parcels ... such lots" and went, um, nope, and fixed it up at the same time.
Since then more Part Lot by-laws have come in and they are still using the original "blocks and parcels" wording.
Does that matter? Probably not. But the difference is there and I found it peculiar.