Does a breach of the relevant by-law constitute negligence or technical in the extreme?

My conclusion, based on all the evidence therefore, is that any breach of the relevant by-law was technical in the extreme, and, it is clear on the authority of Canada v. Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 205 that the mere breach of a statute does not give rise to a cause of action. The headnote in that case adequately summarises the point so far as here relevant: The civil consequences of breach of statute should be subsumed in the law of negligence and the notion of a nominate tort of statutory breach, giving right to recovery merely on proof of breach and damages, should be rejected, as should the view that unexcused breach constitutes negligence per se giving rise to absolute liability. Proof of statutory breach, causative of damages, may be evidence of negligence and the statutory formulation of the duty may afford specific, and useful, standard of reasonable conduct. …