Extracts from the Supreme Court of Canada judgments

 
Supreme Court of Canada
Ptycia c. Swetlishnoff, [1971] R.C.S. 670
Date: 1970-12-21
«...such horn or device shall be sounded only when it is reasonably necessary to notify pedestrians or others of the approach of the vehicle.»

Supreme Court of Canada
Beaudin v. Choquette, [1949] S.C.R. 348
Date: 1949-04-12
«... a sound device "may be used only as a danger signal" (article 29, of the Vehicules Law... » 
Translation of : « Un appareil sonore "ne peut être mis en usage que comme signal de danger" (article 29, Loi des véhicules… »

Supreme Court of Canada
Reference :Co-operators Life Insurance company vs. Gibbens, 2009 CSC 59, [2009] 3 R.C.S. 605
Date : December 18, 2009
« e.g. the heart patient who goes out for a walk and, on being startled by the sound of a car horn, experiences an incapacitating cardiac arrest.»

Supreme Court of Canada
Reference : Montréal (City) v. 2952-1366 Québec Inc., 2005 SCC 62, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 141 Date: November 3, 200
Date : 3 novembre 2005
«Article 9(1), when construed in accordance with the modern “contextual” rules of statutory interpretation, still means what it says.  It imposes a general ban on “noise produced by sound equipment”.  Anti-noise by‑law measures are of three types.  The first prohibits noise that exceeds objective measurable limits (e.g., a set level of decibels).  The second prohibits noise by subjective criteria (e.g., noise that interferes with the quality of life).  The third prohibits noise by source (e.g., sounding car horns in a hospital zone). »