Tresspassers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

Well I think there might be a little more to your story than you are telling us,why would you get tickets on private land?
Why did the OPP make reference to Trespassers after the appeals?
Why did the OPP decide to start giving out tickets in the first place.

If you had read my previous offerings on here I did recommend a CO would be my first phone call not the OPP for the precise reason you mentioned.

Toronto Police do have a vested interest in the Rogers Centre and this is the Act they use.I used the same Trespass to Property Act for 16 years to help keep out of the Public Housing Projects undesirables who did not live there,drug dealers,robbers,....

I am well aware of what works in the countryside as I spend 8 mths of year up there and have for the past 10 years,I have also been in the area over 20 years while working during vacation times.

Your message seems kinds mixed up because first you complain about getting unwanted police attention and you end with telling me they will not attend,which way is up.

---

If my message seems mixed up it's because of the way the OPP handled it. Hence the final not guilty.
I never complained about unwanted attention unless you mean getting unwarranted tickets.
You would need to ask the OPP why they said they would not give out trespassing charges. I would only be speculating to why. But I have a good guess.
I was not challenging what you said in your post, I actually agreed with it but was adding my experience and opinion to it.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A lot more questions than answers for me on that reply to Trimmer.If you have a private road why not gate the road and post it private.
Why would you wait to get a slew of tickets (allegations uk to us) and then decide to fight just one.
Why would it cost $50,000 to fight a Provincial ticket.

I think after the very first ticket issued I would be down at the local detachment, officer in charge,explain the land is private and demand the ticket gets withdrawn/ and or complain about the officers conduct.Something very wrong with this story.

P.S. Just saw your post,maybe if you explain what happened from ticket #1 it could be figured out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

A lot more questions than answers for me on that reply to Trimmer.If you have a private road why not gate the road and post it private.
Why would you wait to get a slew of tickets (allegations uk to us) and then decide to fight just one.
Why would it cost $50,000 to fight a Provincial ticket.

I think after the very first ticket issued I would be down at the local detachment, officer in charge,explain the land is private and demand the ticket gets withdrawn/ and or complain about the officers conduct.Something very wrong with this story.

P.S. Just saw your post,maybe if you explain what happened from ticket #1 it could be figured out.

---

http://www.millerthomson.com/en/blog...-control-over/
Here is the link to the ruling.
Hopefully that clears it up for you.
How much do you think it costs to retain a lawyer to fight a provincial ticket 3 levels of court.
The only thing wrong with this post is you thinking you know more about this than anyone else.
The facts are the facts.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

For court purposes if you have been designated by the owners to act as their agents a simple letter is all the Justice of the Peace needs to see.For instance Toronto Police don,t have to require the owners of the Rogers Center to attend court if they have thrown out a person and gave a trespass ticket to them.I have dealt with this act for over 40 years and have been in court on scores of cases.

Trespass to Property Act

[COLOR=#505050]“occupier” includes,
[COLOR=#505050](a) a person who is in physical possession of premises, or
[COLOR=#505050](b) a person who has responsibility for and control over the condition of premises or the activities there carried on, or control over persons allowed to enter the premises,
[COLOR=#505050]even if there is more than one occupier of the same premises; (“occupant”)

A hunter who has obtained permission fits into sub (b) very easily and a letter giving him agent status would all the court needs.

---

And how many people who have permission to hunt on private property also have a letter from the owners authorizing them as agents under the Trespass to Property Act.
A very low percentage.
No where in this thread has the original poster (Deer Wrastler) stated he has been issued such a letter by the owner his uncle.
If the letter was issued and was not notarized it could easily be challenged in court.
Even if it was notarized it still could be challenged in court.
If challenged the owner would have to appear to confirm it validity.
Without a notarized letter police are not likely to lay charges without the owner being contacted. Good chance even if it was notarized the owner would be contacted during the investigation to confirm he has not issued permission to the alleged offender.
How many owners would be willing to go through these hassles?
Without first discussing this with the owner it may be a good idea not to jump into initiating any LEO enforcement action on your own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stragglelake

http://www.millerthomson.com/en/blog...-control-over/
Here is the link to the ruling.
Hopefully that clears it up for you.
How much do you think it costs to retain a lawyer to fight a provincial ticket 3 levels of court.
The only thing wrong with this post is you thinking you know more about this than anyone else.
The facts are the facts.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

---

Just read the ruling and what I read was found on the Judges last few lines and I quote:


[COLOR=#000000]Accordingly, I conclude that the appellant does not meet the definition of "occupier" in the Off-Road Vehicles Act, when the definition is read in the entire context of the Act and the words of the definition are given their grammatical and ordinary sense, interpreted harmoniously with the scheme and object of that Act, the intention of the legislature and the other two statutes that employ the same language.
[39] For these reasons, I would dismiss the appeal and affirm the decision of the appeal judge convicting the appellant.
Appeal dismissed.


Is there another decision you did not post for us to see.

9 In the belief that some provincial legislation, including the Off-Road Vehicles Act, does not apply within the property, the corporation enacted by-laws mimicking that and other legislation. By-law 48 provides that off-road vehicles must be operated as required by the Off-Road Vehicles Act and specifically requires the driver of such vehicles to wear a helmet. Legislation.

Maybe this is what really complicated your friends situation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woodsman

And how many people who have permission to hunt on private property also have a letter from the owners authorizing them as agents under the Trespass to Property Act.
A very low percentage.
No where in this thread has the original poster (Deer Wrastler) stated he has been issued such a letter by the owner his uncle.
If the letter was issued and was not notarized it could easily be challenged in court.
Even if it was notarized it still could be challenged in court.
If challenged the owner would have to appear to confirm it validity.
Without a notarized letter police are not likely to lay charges without the owner being contacted. Good chance even if it was notarized the owner would be contacted during the investigation to confirm he has not issued permission to the alleged offender.
How many owners would be willing to go through these hassles?
Without first discussing this with the owner it may be a good idea not to jump into initiating any LEO enforcement action on your own.

---

I think your getting owner mixed up with occupier.Your definition from post #24 is as follows:

An "occupier" is someone who lives there or rents the property. Owner may also be the occupier.

The legal definition as previously posted is:

occupier” includes,
(a) a person who is in physical possession of premises, or
(b) a person who has responsibility for and control over the condition of premises or the activities there carried on, or control over persons allowed to enter the premises,
even if there is more than one occupier of the same premises; (“occupant”)

Deer Wrestler has permission to hunt the premises from his Uncle and therefore becomes "an occupier" as per sub (b). He has been given responsibility and control over the condition OR activities there carried on,OR control over persons allowed to enter the premises even if there is more than one occupier of the same premises.

In relation to your first question "how many people who have permission to hunt have a letter from the owners authorizing them as agents,I would say a pretty large number.Any one with a OFAH permission slip signed by the owner of the property would be deemed an agent for the owner.

The activity they control is hunting on the land and Yes there can be more than one occupier.

So here we disagree some what, MOST owners will authorize a hunter in writing will also probably tell them if ANYONE else has permission to hunt the land.If there was a doubt then one would ask.

Which is where we agree,no LEO enforcement action on your before should be carried out before speaking to the owner.

Just remember the "trespasser" is the one in court who has to convince a Justice he/she was legally on the land once a prima facie case has been established.

Deer Wrestler takes the stand,tells the court he has his uncles permission to hunt the land,he is a occupier,the trespasser came on and was told he was trespassing and that Deer Wrestler had permission from the uncle.Thats about all it takes for the case in the first instance,the trespasser then has to give his excuse for being on the land.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

Just read the ruling and what I read was found on the Judges last few lines and I quote:


[COLOR=#000000]Accordingly, I conclude that the appellant does not meet the definition of "occupier" in the Off-Road Vehicles Act, when the definition is read in the entire context of the Act and the words of the definition are given their grammatical and ordinary sense, interpreted harmoniously with the scheme and object of that Act, the intention of the legislature and the other two statutes that employ the same language.
[39] For these reasons, I would dismiss the appeal and affirm the decision of the appeal judge convicting the appellant.
Appeal dismissed.


Is there another decision you did not post for us to see.

9 In the belief that some provincial legislation, including the Off-Road Vehicles Act, does not apply within the property, the corporation enacted by-laws mimicking that and other legislation. By-law 48 provides that off-road vehicles must be operated as required by the Off-Road Vehicles Act and specifically requires the driver of such vehicles to wear a helmet. Legislation.

Maybe this is what really complicated your friends situation?

---

I got the last ruling wrong. I remembered it different because I thought we got what we wanted in the end because the OPP stopped with the tickets on private property.
It does not change the facts of what I posted.
They were still giving tickets on private property.
They still said they wouldn't come for trespassers if called.
It still cost 50k
It still isn't the same as a constable at the Rogers Centre, it might be the way the act reads but good luck having them show up and lay a charge.
I know you said to call a C.O. First.
Again.... I wasn't disagreeing with your post I was just adding my experience and how I looked at it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It does change the facts that you posted, the case was lost and the appellant was deemed not to meet the definition of occupier.


This case was pretty unusual IMHO and much more complicated than you originally posted and I am glad you shared it with us for our reading.

Gilroy you are jumping to many incorrect conclusions.
Having permission to hunt on a place in no way makes you a occupier.
Nor does it give you the powers as a legal Representative of the owner in respect to the Trespass to Property Act.
If it was as you believe not many would even consider giving permission for others to hunt (or hike, fish, ATV ect.) on their property.
When I rented a farm house I was considered the occupier of the house and surrounding lawn & garden area. Actually the sole occupier for this small area.
Even though I had permission to walk through and even hunt the rest of his properties I was never considered an occupier of these places.
As for

Quote:

---

In relation to your first question "how many people who have permission to hunt have a letter from the owners authorizing them as agents,I would say a pretty large number.Any one with a OFAH permission slip signed by the owner of the property would be deemed an agent for the owner.

---

your completely out in left field. To even think just because you have permission to be on a property gives you legal rights as an agent of the owner is totally off base.
To be given these rights it must be specifically for those rights and not assumed because you have a OFAH permission slip.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woodsman

Gilroy you are jumping to many incorrect conclusions.
Having permission to hunt on a place in no way makes you a occupier.
Nor does it give you the powers as a legal Representative of the owner in respect to the Trespass to Property Act.
If it was as you believe not many would even consider giving permission for others to hunt (or hike, fish, ATV ect.) on their property.
When I rented a farm house I was considered the occupier of the house and surrounding lawn & garden area. Actually the sole occupier for this small area.
Even though I had permission to walk through and even hunt the rest of his properties I was never considered an occupier of these places.
As for your completely out in left field. To even think just because you have permission to be on a property gives you legal rights as an agent of the owner is totally off base.
To be given these rights it must be specifically for those rights and not assumed because you have a OFAH permission slip.

---

If I understand you in relation to the house and garden you feel you were the sole occupier.But when you ventured into the surrounding properties to hunt you lost this status, what exactly were you when you hunted?

In relation to the OFAH permission slips a landowner is inviting you onto his/her land to hunt.If they are not occupiers by definition what status are they?

How does a hunter with a written permission enjoy the land if he/she cannot tell a trespasser to get out.

Is it your contention that the hunter with permission has to get the landowner down and warn off the trespasser.

What if the landowner is a Corporation,a large Stadium and Shopping Mall, do you think the police and security companies need a physical owner in court.