forums
new posts
donate
UER Store
events
location db
db map
search
members
faq
terms of service
privacy policy
register
login




 1 2 3 4  
UER Forum > Canada: Ontario > A Guide to Ontario's Trespassing Law (Viewed 135895 times)
Intrinsic 


Location: Collingwood
Gender: Male
Total Likes: 404 likes




 |  | 
Re: A Guide to Ontario's Trespassing Law
< Reply # 40 on 8/26/2009 2:41 AM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
Posted by abandoned-echoes
what do the laws say about security guards carrying guns while on the job?
How legal/illegal is that?
And what if, say, it's a pellet gun that looks like a revolver, but the security guard tells you "You're lucky I didn't have my .38 on me tonight" and continues to insinuate that he in fact would have no problem shooting you in the back with a pellet gun if you had tried to run from him....

*ahem* hypothetically speaking, of course.



In Ontario (where you and I both live) peace officers are not in a legal position where they may shoot someone (in the back especially) simply because you are running away from them.

eg. "Why did you pull your service revolver and open fire?"
"The suspect had stolen a tomatoe from the grocery store."
"Case dismissed."

If you were armed and were going to attack someone (a bystander or the officer), that would be acceptable use of deadly force. Simply evading arrest, does not. If I ran from security at an abandoned location, they would have absolutely no justification to pull a weapon and fire it (deadly or pellet variety).


Perhaps Exkalibur could elaborate...



[last edit 8/26/2009 2:46 AM by Intrinsic - edited 2 times]

abandoned-echoes 


Location: Creemore, Ontario
Gender: Female
Total Likes: 0 likes


sky might be fallin' but remember you can fly high...

 |  |  | Abandoned Echoes Photography
Re: A Guide to Ontario's Trespassing Law
< Reply # 41 on 8/26/2009 3:07 AM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
Posted by Intrinsic


In Ontario (where you and I both live) peace officers are not in a legal position where they may shoot someone (in the back especially) simply because you are running away from them.

eg. "Why did you pull your service revolver and open fire?"
"The suspect had stolen a tomatoe from the grocery store."
"Case dismissed."

If you were armed and were going to attack someone (a bystander or the officer), that would be acceptable use of deadly force. Simply evading arrest, does not. If I ran from security at an abandoned location, they would have absolutely no justification to pull a weapon and fire it (deadly or pellet variety).


Perhaps Exkalibur could elaborate...


good to know. that's basically what we thought... which is why, when this hypothetical situation possibly happened, and the security guard proceeded to call the OPP, once the officer arrived we explained the gun thing to him and he seemed quite surprised. hopefully this guard will be reprimanded, he seemed a little unstable... especially when talking about setting spike strips around the property to "catch those kids on dirt bikes".

(at one very well known occupational facility)





"Nothing is static, everything is appalling, everything is falling apart."

http://www.abandoned-echoes.com
rz350 

This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information.


Location: toronto
Gender: Male
Total Likes: 0 likes


The looniest, zaniest, spontaneous, sporadic Impulsive thinker, compulsive drinker, addict

 |  | 
Re: A Guide to Ontario's Trespassing Law
< Reply # 42 on 8/26/2009 8:06 PM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
yes, but I dont think anyone implied they could. Just me and excal explained they extremely rare situations and security guard could have it at all.

the use of force continuum is the same for everyone from ETF cops to private citizens in terms what they're force level vs how hard can respond. IIRC you're allowed to respond a bit higher up/further along the wheel they are, with fatal being the exception fatal force is only in return to fatal/potentially fatal force.
except on DND where you can defend matériel or yourself with fatal against non fatal under circumstances regarding orders and officer leve shit I dont I understand, but its very rare and if its one of them situations, the CoC will tell you in simple terms.




ducky 999
gunner 


Total Likes: 0 likes




 |  | 
Re: A Guide to Ontario's Trespassing Law
< Reply # 43 on 9/9/2009 4:18 PM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum:
Be very careful on dnd property guys, they are allowed to shoot if you get to close to materials under secret or above classification as in they dont need to warn you first if they have cause to think you are going to be stealing say crypto




rz350 

This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information.


Location: toronto
Gender: Male
Total Likes: 0 likes


The looniest, zaniest, spontaneous, sporadic Impulsive thinker, compulsive drinker, addict

 |  | 
Re: A Guide to Ontario's Trespassing Law
< Reply # 44 on 9/11/2009 12:46 AM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
^

exactly. There are places where we can shoot without warning.

Oh be mindful of the risk it might not really be abandoned, and it might be artillery range or a CQB shoot house, and that some troops are just getting ready to train on/in the thing your exploring with live fire. I've seen it happen on a few arty ranges...luckily no one was hurt, but you want to make sure that as your setting up for that perfect art shot with your MF camera, some guy doesn't burst in the door with c7 on auto and cut you in half thinking your a cardboard target.



[last edit 9/11/2009 12:49 AM by rz350 - edited 1 times]

ducky 999
fourxstringxaxe 


Location: oshawa, on
Gender: Male
Total Likes: 0 likes


its me

 |  |  | my portfolio
Re: A Guide to Ontario's Trespassing Law
< Reply # 45 on 9/15/2009 2:32 AM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
very helpful thank you




Damien
Tallguy 


Total Likes: 0 likes


Toronto

 |  | 
Re: A Guide to Ontario's Trespassing Law
< Reply # 46 on 11/17/2009 12:48 AM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
Awesome info.




BeaverBanker 


Location: Canunkastan
Gender: Male
Total Likes: 0 likes


A Hobo In A Orange Sweater

 |  | 
Re: A Guide to Ontario's Trespassing Law
< Reply # 47 on 12/14/2009 7:29 AM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
I read through the guide and it didn't cover the Criminal Code of Canada(CCC) outside section 177.

This is the rest of the CCC that applies to UEing. It is a very thin line between Breaking and Entering & Trespassing.

If you need any clarification on the act I prefer if you ask in this thread:
http://www.uer.ca/...urrpage=1&pp#post2

IM NOT A LAWYER! SO IF YOU WANT TRUE LEGAL ADVICE CONTACT A LAWYER


This applies to all of Canada,and I highlighted the key points

Criminal Code
R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46
PART V
SEXUAL OFFENCES, PUBLIC MORALS AND DISORDERLY
CONDUCT
Disorderly Conduct


SECTION 177.
Trespassing at night

177. Every one who, without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies on him, loiters or prowls at night on the property of another person near a dwelling-house situated on that property is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, s. 173.



Criminal Code
R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46
PART IX
OFFENCES AGAINST RIGHTS OF PROPERTY
Interpretation


SECTION 321.
Definitions

321. In this Part,
"break"

"break" means

o (a) to break any part, internal or external, or

o (b) to open any thing that is used or intended to be used to close or to cover an internal or external opening;


Criminal Code
R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46
PART IX
OFFENCES AGAINST RIGHTS OF PROPERTY


Breaking and Entering
SECTION 348.
Breaking and entering with intent, committing offence or breaking out

348. (1) Every one who

o (a) breaks and enters a place with intent to commit an indictable offence therein,


o (b) breaks and enters a place and commits an indictable offence therein, or

o (c) breaks out of a place after

+ (i) committing an indictable offence therein, or

+ (ii) entering the place with intent to commit an indictable offence therein,

is guilty

o (d) if the offence is committed in relation to a dwelling-house, of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life, and

o (e) if the offence is committed in relation to a place other than a dwelling-house, of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or of an offence punishable on summary conviction.


Presumptions

(2) For the purposes of proceedings under this section, evidence that an accused

o (a) broke and entered a place or attempted to break and enter a place is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that he broke and entered the place or attempted to do so, as the case may be, with intent to commit an indictable offence therein; or


My Law book annotation on Presumption of intent
Presumption of intent [subsec. (2)] -- Once a prima facie case is made out using this presumption the accused need only raise a reasonable doubt, which he may do by adducing evidence of an explanation that may reasonably be true. However, an explanation that is disbelieved does not constitute "any evidence to the contrary" as it is no evidence. The evidence upon which the accused relies must at least raise a reasonable doubt as to his guilt, and if it does not meet this test then the prima facie case remains: R. v. Proudlock, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 525, 43 C.C.C. (2d) 321. [Note: Since this decision the Criminal Code has been amended to delete the word "any" from the phrase "in the absence of any evidence to the contrary". However, the majority judgment in R. v. Proudlock indicates that there is no basis for a distinction depending on the presence of the word "any"; the phrases "evidence to the contrary" and "any evidence to the contrary" both being the converse of "no evidence to the contrary".]
When there is any evidence to the contrary, in the sense of evidence tending to negative the existence of the necessary intent, the onus is then upon the Crown to prove the existence of the necessary intent beyond a reasonable doubt. Evidence of the accused's condition due to the consumption of alcohol and drugs which caused him to act in an irrational manner was evidence to the contrary in that it tended to negative an intent to commit an indictable offence: R. v. Campbell (1974), 17 C.C.C. (2d) 320 (Ont. C.A.).
Evidence that the accused is of good character is not of itself "evidence to the contrary": R. v. Khan (1982), 66 C.C.C. (2d) 32, 36 O.R. (2d) 399 (C.A.).
The presumption in this subsection is not available where the indictment specifies the particular indictable offence such as theft or mischief: R. v. Khan, supra.





o (b) broke out of a place is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof that he broke out after

+ (i) committing an indictable offence therein, or

+ (ii) entering with intent to commit an indictable offence therein.



Definition of "place"

(3) For the purposes of this section and section 351, "place" means

o (a) a dwelling-house;

o (b) a building or structure or any part thereof, other than a dwelling-house;

o (c) a railway vehicle, a vessel, an aircraft or a trailer; or

o (d) a pen or an enclosure in which fur-bearing animals are kept in captivity for breeding or commercial purposes.

PART IX
OFFENCES AGAINST RIGHTS OF PROPERTY
Breaking and Entering


SECTION 349.
Being unlawfully in dwelling-house

349. (1) Every person who, without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies on that person, enters or is in a dwelling-house with intent to commit an indictable offence in it is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Presumption

(2) For the purposes of proceedings under this section, evidence that an accused, without lawful excuse, entered or was in a dwelling-house is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof that he entered or was in the dwelling-house with intent to commit an indictable offence therein.

PART IX
OFFENCES AGAINST RIGHTS OF PROPERTY
Breaking and Entering


SECTION 350.
Entrance

350. For the purposes of sections 348 and 349,

o (a) a person enters as soon as any part of his body or any part of an instrument that he uses is within any thing that is being entered; and

o (b) a person shall be deemed to have broken and entered if

+ (i) he obtained entrance by a threat or an artifice or by collusion with a person within, or

+ (ii) he entered without lawful justification or excuse, the proof of which lies on him, by a permanent or temporary opening.



PART IX
OFFENCES AGAINST RIGHTS OF PROPERTY
Breaking and Entering


SECTION 351.
Possession of break-in instrument

351. (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies on them, has in their possession any instrument suitable for the purpose of breaking into any place, motor vehicle, vault or safe under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the instrument has been used or is or was intended to be used for such a purpose,

o (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or


o (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Disguise with intent

(2) Every one who, with intent to commit an indictable offence, has his face masked or coloured or is otherwise disguised is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.







R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46
PART XI
WILFUL AND FORBIDDEN ACTS IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN
PROPERTY
Interpretation


SECTION 428.
Definition of "property"

428. In this Part, "property" means real or personal corporeal property.


PART XI
WILFUL AND FORBIDDEN ACTS IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN
PROPERTY


Mischief
SECTION 430.
Mischief

430. (1) Every one commits mischief who wilfully

o (a) destroys or damages property;

o (b) renders property dangerous, useless, inoperative or ineffective;

o (c) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property; or

o (d) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with any person in the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property
.

Mischief in relation to data

(1.1) Every one commits mischief who wilfully

o (a) destroys or alters data;

o (b) renders data meaningless, useless or ineffective;

o (c) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use of data; or

o (d) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with any person in the lawful use of data or denies access to data to any person who is entitled to access thereto.

Punishment

(2) Every one who commits mischief that causes actual danger to life is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.
Punishment

(3) Every one who commits mischief in relation to property that is a testamentary instrument or the value of which exceeds five thousand dollars

o (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or

o (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Idem

(4) Every one who commits mischief in relation to property, other than property described in subsection (3),

o (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

o (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.


Mischief relating to religious property

(4.1) Every one who commits mischief in relation to property that is a building, structure or part thereof that is primarily used for religious worship, including a church, mosque, synagogue or temple, or an object associated with religious worship located in or on the grounds of such a building or structure, or a cemetery, if the commission of the mischief is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on religion, race, colour or national or ethnic origin,

o (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or

o (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.

Mischief in relation to cultural property

(4.2) Every one who commits mischief in relation to cultural property as defined in Article 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, done at The Hague on May 14, 1954, as set out in the schedule to the Cultural Property Export and Import Act,

o (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or

o (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Idem

(5) Every one who commits mischief in relation to data

o (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or

o (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Offence

(5.1) Every one who wilfully does an act or wilfully omits to do an act that it is his duty to do, if that act or omission is likely to constitute mischief causing actual danger to life, or to constitute mischief in relation to property or data,

o (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or

o (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Saving

(6) No person commits mischief within the meaning of this section by reason only that

o (a) he stops work as a result of the failure of his employer and himself to agree on any matter relating to his employment;

o (b) he stops work as a result of the failure of his employer and a bargaining agent acting on his behalf to agree on any matter relating to his employment; or

o (c) he stops work as a result of his taking part in a combination of workmen or employees for their own reasonable protection as workmen or employees.

Idem

(7) No person commits mischief within the meaning of this section by reason only that he attends at or near or approaches a dwelling-house or place for the purpose only of obtaining or communicating information.
Definition of "data"

(8) In this section, "data" has the same meaning as in section 342.1.




oldtimer 


Location: Toronto
Gender: Male
Total Likes: 0 likes




 |  | 
Re: A Guide to Ontario's Trespassing Law
< Reply # 48 on 1/3/2010 5:04 AM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
Interesting how the label "breaking and entering" can be legally applied when the suspect has not broken any physical thing but has entered "by a permanent or temporary opening". That's abuse of legal power and an exaggeration of the law as intended. But I'm no lawyer.

In another section, "break" means (b) to open any thing that is used or intended to be used to close or to cover an internal or external opening. What? Opening a door, perfectly within its intended function as a door, is breaking? Lifting a piece of plywood covering a hole is breaking?

I really think much of these wording is archaic and heavy handed, and could be challenged by an enterprising lawyer.

As far as eliminating EXIF data, I would say that would make things reek all the more of trying to thwart something.

On the contrary, I see membership and posting pics in this place/forum as serving more of a defense. In case someone gets arrested, their participation here, in good standing, should serve to exonerate them from B&E type charges. After all, this community prides themselves in simple, innocent exploring. No damage, no theft, no graffiti. No loitering, prowling, mischief in any sense of those words.

I am beginning to think the law should differentiate between true trouble makers and most of the good folks here. After all, someone up to no good doesn't carry 1000s of dollars worth of photographic equipment and tripods with them. Or want to share their wonderful photos and stories with others who are equally enthusiastic and curious about all things abandoned and "off limits".

We all know that the letter of the law is a broad brush. What it was really designed to do is keep idiots from hurting themselves and ending up suing, and keeping no-goods out of people's property who are there to just break things. The principles of this urban exploration group condones neither. Just the opposite.

In all clear conscience, and as much as it's sometimes difficult to explain to colleagues, our intentions are purely honorable and respectful of buildings and property. The sooner the law recognizes natural curiosity and urban explorers as a separate class from common scumbags, the better.




rob.i.am 


Gender: Male
Total Likes: 278 likes


Carpe noctum

 |  |  | flickr
Re: A Guide to Ontario's Trespassing Law
< Reply # 49 on 1/3/2010 5:24 AM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
Posted by oldtimer
Interesting how the label "breaking and entering" can be legally applied when the suspect has not broken any physical thing but has entered "by a permanent or temporary opening". That's abuse of legal power and an exaggeration of the law as intended. But I'm no lawyer.

In another section, "break" means (b) to open any thing that is used or intended to be used to close or to cover an internal or external opening. What? Opening a door, perfectly within its intended function as a door, is breaking? Lifting a piece of plywood covering a hole is breaking?



If you apply it to an occupied dwelling it seems pretty reasonable.




http://www.flickr.com/photos/rob666/
Enygma 


Gender: Female
Total Likes: 0 likes




 |  | 
Re: A Guide to Ontario's Trespassing Law
< Reply # 50 on 2/18/2010 2:31 AM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
Learned a few new things on this thread. Thanks!




twinpowered 


Location: BC, Canada
Gender: Male
Total Likes: 18 likes


Every photo tells a story.

 |  |  | twinpowered
Re: A Guide to Ontario's Trespassing Law
< Reply # 51 on 5/20/2010 12:41 AM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
Thanks for all the information guys! I'm just starting UEing and I haven't been seen by anyone yet. Well, that is nobody who's bothered to say anything to me, and what I'm getting from this is it sounds as though if you get caught by someone, chances are they'll let you off pretty easy. Maybe even have a conversation. That's pretty cool, I wouldn't have expected that even though UEing is such a harmless hobby as long as you aren't breaking and entering or tagging things when you get inside.




NoSuchPerson 

Stop, or I'll ask you again!


Total Likes: 2 likes




 |  | 
Re: A Guide to Ontario's Trespassing Law
< Reply # 52 on 11/24/2010 7:07 AM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
Posted by oldtimer
Interesting how the label "breaking and entering" can be legally applied when the suspect has not broken any physical thing but has entered "by a permanent or temporary opening". That's abuse of legal power and an exaggeration of the law as intended. But I'm no lawyer.

No, it isn't an abuse at all.

B&E does NOT mean you physically break anything.

The Trespass to Property Act in Ontario is a Provincial Act, meaning it doesn't give you a Criminal Record. B&E is a federal statute, which means you get a Criminal Record out of a conviction. B&E can be looked at as criminal trespass. There is no such law in Canada as criminal trespass except for Trespass By Night, but that only applies to a dwelling. B&E is the closest thing we have. You could get charged with B&E if all you did is tug on a locked door to a property which you are trespassing on. I've seen it happen before. Sure, the charges get thrown out...but only after you've spent a nice chunk of change on a lawyer and had to explain to your boss/spouse/family why you have bail conditions and have to take time off work for court. We get paid to attend court...you don't...so it's no skin off anyone's back side.

That said - for you to get charged with B&E for simple trespass...you'd either need to 1) piss off the officer, 2) have a prior record, or 3) have done something a little bit more than just trespass.

Also, you are found to have committed a B&E if you break another law while trespassing. So for example, you get caught trespassing in a location. You also have stolen something (even something small). Congrats, you're now free game for a B&E charge AND a theft charge.





Unit calling radio say again?
Sagetranq 


Location: Caledon, Ontario
Gender: Male
Total Likes: 0 likes


Just passing through

 |  | 
Re: A Guide to Ontario's Trespassing Law
< Reply # 53 on 12/11/2010 5:45 PM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
anyone able to shed some light on ontario draining laws?




Gazoo 


Location: Barrie, ON
Gender: Both
Total Likes: 0 likes




 |  |  | Zone 3 Photography
Re: A Guide to Ontario's Trespassing Law
< Reply # 54 on 12/11/2010 6:28 PM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
Thanks for the info, always good to refresh on the legalities!




I want to die while asleep like my grandfather,
not screaming in terror like the passengers in his car.
wizehopt 


Location: Ontario - Mine to discover
Gender: Male
Total Likes: 3 likes




 |  |  | Train Hopping
Re: A Guide to Ontario's Trespassing Law
< Reply # 55 on 1/15/2011 10:33 PM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
One thing I can add relates more to train hopping but in a sense can be just the same with UE. I was talking with a lawyer friend of mine in regards to YouTube vids and such and the chances of me getting busted because of them.
He told me there are two things which make it almost impossible for them to get a conviction. Basically they need to be able to prove TIME and PLACE. So the key in posting anything is too make sure you cant tell where exactly you really are and when you did it.

WH




Freedom lies in pastimes that are a little odd and slightly illegal!

L'Ali 


Location: Clarington
Gender: Female
Total Likes: 95 likes


Behind every damsel is a fire breathing dragon

 |  | 
Re: A Guide to Ontario's Trespassing Law
< Reply # 56 on 2/18/2011 5:39 PM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
All of this is very informative and helpful. Thank you! For that #12 six month timeframe, be careful with Flickr as you can get into peoples metadata if their type of camera is listed on their page and it tells you when the photo was taken and the time stamp. The timeframe is good for me to know since I don't have an alias on Flickr at all.

From a image copyright standpoint in Canada, which is part of my day job, the person who owns the camera/film/negative/plate owns copyright to the image, regardless if someone else used your camera to take the photo. In the US however, the person who took the photo on anyone's camera owns that image.




Everything is sweetened by risk.
-- Alexander Smith
http://www.flickr....hotos/11765127@N08
EVmAN 


Location: Mississauga, ON
Gender: Male
Total Likes: 38 likes


and I-- I took the path less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.

 |  | 
Re: A Guide to Ontario's Trespassing Law
< Reply # 57 on 2/21/2011 5:45 AM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
Posted by Sagetranq
anyone able to shed some light on ontario draining laws?

Every drain in Ontario has this posted at the outfall:
1.
only without the graffiti


of course, nobody really minds if you wanna go draining. Unless you're being really loud by a manhole or something, that tends to freak people out.

Anyways

there's been a slight change to the citizen's arrest laws that likely could be applied to trespassing. It's called the The Citizen's Arrest and Self-Defence Act (anyone remember the Lucky Moose thief-detaining incident in Chinatown?)
It would apply to the night-prowling law only. Basically, if a property owner catches you "prowling" near their house at night, they can now arrest you "within a reasonable amount of time."

The entire bill isn't available online yet so it's hard to say what this actually changes, but I'm pretty sure it could theoretically apply to the criminal trespassing offense.




The sign said "Anybody caught trespassin will be shot on sight"
So I jumped on the fence and I yelled at the house,
"Hey! What gives you the right?" http://www.flickr.com/photos/evman/
Macie 


Gender: Female
Total Likes: 0 likes




 |  | 
Re: A Guide to Ontario's Trespassing Law
< Reply # 58 on 5/2/2011 4:27 AM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: Infiltration Forums
Thanks for the post, I've been in some pretty exposed areas lately and was getting worried about what would happen, thanks for the info. I feel better knowing the law and that I'm not gonna end up with a record!

Keep up the great posts!




NoSuchPerson 

Stop, or I'll ask you again!


Total Likes: 2 likes




 |  | 
Re: A Guide to Ontario's Trespassing Law
< Reply # 59 on 7/12/2011 7:38 AM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
No changes have taken place to the law as yet.

It would change section 494 which is what gives citizens their arrest powers. Currently, it states:

494. (1) Any one may arrest without warrant
(a) a person whom he finds committing an indictable offence; or
(b) a person who, on reasonable grounds, he believes
(i) has committed a criminal offence, and
(ii) is escaping from and freshly pursued by persons who have lawful authority to arrest that person.

Arrest by owner, etc., of property
(2) Any one who is
(a) the owner or a person in lawful possession of property, or
(b) a person authorized by the owner or by a person in lawful possession of property, may arrest without warrant a person whom he finds committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property.

To make it really easy: in order to arrest someone as a citizen, you must find them commiting an offence. That is, you have to actually witness the offence in order to be able to arrest for it. This differs from Peace Officers as they can arrest a person they *believe* (on reasonable grounds) committed an offence without actually seeing it. For example, they find blood all over you, holding a knife with blood...standing over someone who has been stabbed and is bleeding.

What they want to do is change Section 494 state that you now only need reasonable grounds to arrest under 494. An example would be someone who you witness via CCTV one day breaking into and stealing a car. You would then be allowed to arrest them the next day. Currently, you could not.

This hasn't passed however. If it does, look for some HUGE changes in the way Security does their job. In particular, they witness you in a building today...and you manage to get away. They see you a week later, they could arrest you without you actually doing anything. It's very good AND very bad at the same time.






Unit calling radio say again?
UER Forum > Canada: Ontario > A Guide to Ontario's Trespassing Law (Viewed 135895 times)
 1 2 3 4  


Add a poll to this thread



This thread is currently Public. Anyone, including search engines, may see it.



All content and images copyright 2002-2021 UER.CA and respective creators. Graphical Design by Crossfire.
To contact webmaster, or click to email with problems or other questions about this site: UER CONTACT
View Terms of Service | View Privacy Policy | Server colocation provided by Beanfield
This page was generated for you in 140 milliseconds. Since June 23, 2002, a total of 658732909 pages have been generated.