Can a municipality without a by-law prevent a town from making improvements to its roads?

In the Croft v. Peterborough case, Macaulay, C.J.U.C., said at p. 45: I think the question must be, not whether it might have been authorized or legalized by a by-law, but whether it is illegal, or can be justified without one; and in considering such a question I do not think the power to sanction and direct improvements of the kind, when they infringe upon private rights through by-laws legally made, confers by implication the power to make them without by-laws. ... The plaintiff might remonstrate against a by-law while in the course of being passed, or he might appeal against it if illegal in its provisions: at all events, acting without it is not executing the powers imparted by the legislature in conformity with the forms and observances required. At p. 46 he said: I am not prepared to lay down any general rule touching the line of separation in matters of this kind, between cases in which a by-law may or may not be necessary. In my present impressions, cases of either kind may arise, according to the circumstances. Whatever is cast upon the defendants as executive duties, under the statutes, in relation to the maintenance or repair of the roads, or whatever is fairly included in those terms, they may do without a by-law: when not so, and it is only within their discretion in the exercise of their legislative powers, it would be otherwise.