Regs test

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

After carefully re-reading the OP,the ONLY charge that could be laid is for not wearing blaze orange. The regs clearly state that during a gun hunt for Moose,Deer,Elk or Black Bear,ALL hunters must wear.....except for waterfowl etc. Because the shotgun is open and the front seat with ammo close by,R&PG exists to believe that hunting is taking place,therefore,blaze would be required. The OP states that the shot is #6 which falls within the legal requirement of shot size,therefore,no offense is committed. If,upon inspection of the truck box,they found that the duck meat had or would spoil,there may be an issue with that depending on how it was stored. It remains to be seen if the meat had actually spoiled. Having their rifles in cases and stored in the truck box is not an offense,therefore,licenses are NOT required and a charge for such can't be laid in that instance,either. Because the hunters aren't actively hunting waterfowl at the time and their gear is stored,no charge can be laid for possession of lead shot while hunting migratory birds because they weren't,quite clearly,hunting waterfowl.

---

There is or was no charge for allowing migratory birds to spoil. They were going to address that in changes to the MBCA...I don't know if that's been done. Surprisingly, waterfowl are not "game" or "game birds" as defined in the FWCA..likely because they are Federally regulated .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

It would depend on the definition of the word "possess" and the context in which it's used. Case law precedent has established it to mean "on one's person" at the time. Please don't ask me for specifics,I can only go from personal knowledge. If someone would like to research it,be my guest.

---

Not really. One only needs to have control over the thing in question. For instance, a charge of possession of weed when it was hidden in your attic is proper. There's no doubt they would have control over the rifle...

Does anyone remember exactly when hunter orange became a legal requirement in Ontario? This case may have been closer to the late 90's. I'm having a hard time finding anything with my google-fu.

Been hunting since 87 and always remember orange being mandatory during big game seasons.

Hunters Orange existed since the 1970's I believe at least in NB and NS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GW11

Does anyone remember exactly when hunter orange became a legal requirement in Ontario? This case may have been closer to the late 90's. I'm having a hard time finding anything with my google-fu.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GW11

Does anyone remember exactly when hunter orange became a legal requirement in Ontario? This case may have been closer to the late 90's. I'm having a hard time finding anything with my google-fu.

---

It wasn't required in 1975. I had the old red and black wool coat and pants then. I looked at the old Game and Fish Act, 1990, and there is no reference to hunter orange. Other than that, the Game And Fish act was repealed in 1999.

So Hey GW11, how did the story end?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

This is the Section they would rely on with respect to the rifle.....note the word "possess"...and they were hunting small game, not just passing through or going home.



77. (1) A person hunting small game, when in an area during an open season in the area for a species of big game, shall not possess or use,
(a) a rifle of greater muzzle energy than 400 foot-pounds; or
(b) shells loaded with ball or shot larger than number two shot. O. Reg. 49/11, s. 18.
(2) Despite clause (1) (b), a holder of a small game licence, when in an area during an open season in the area for a species of big game, may possess and use,
(a) in the case of shot made of steel, shot that is not larger than triple BBB steel shot; or
(b) in the case of shot made of bismuth, shot that is not larger than double BB bismuth shot. O. Reg. 665/98, s. 77 (2).
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a holder of a small game licence hunting in that part of Ontario lying south of the French and Mattawa rivers during an open season for deer that is restricted to the use of bows. O. Reg. 665/98, s. 77 (3).

---

Thanks for citing; I guess there is this little word that could you get in trouble - for no good reason IMHO.
I'll add this one to my list of things that shouldn't be, but are (or at least potentially) a reason to get fined for. Talk about ticketing people who would try to do everything right. Well, with exception of the hunter orange in this case. And speaking of it, they should not even get charged for that as long as they are in the truck with an unloaded gun. Most likely the interview would have been set up to ensure they claimed they were hunting.
Regarding the part that driving around in that scenario could be considered hunting, everyone wearing orange or not should be charged, because you cannot see orange from all sides while you sit in a truck. Ridiculous for sure, just like a handful of the regs themself (too bad, most of it is actually pretty good)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waftrudnir

Thanks for citing; I guess there is this little word that could you get in trouble - for no good reason IMHO.
I'll add this one to my list of things that shouldn't be, but are (or at least potentially) a reason to get fined for. Talk about ticketing people who would try to do everything right. Well, with exception of the hunter orange in this case. And speaking of it, they should not even get charged for that as long as they are in the truck with an unloaded gun. Most likely the interview would have been set up to ensure they claimed they were hunting.
Regarding the part that driving around in that scenario could be considered hunting, everyone wearing orange or not should be charged, because you cannot see orange from all sides while you sit in a truck. Ridiculous for sure, just like a handful of the regs themself (too bad, most of it is actually pretty good)

---

For sure! Regarding the riding in a truck and not being able to see the hunter orange from all sides, it gets worse ! You can be sitting in a camo blind, as long as you are wearing the prescribed orange hat and jacket....with no offence ! Doesn't make much sense to me !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers

True however as a Judge relies on precedent in making a ruling would imagine a CO would consider the interpretation of colleague especially if he may have to face him in court.

---

With respect to this thing re lead shot and waterfowl, reply of Critchlow in OOD: Critchlow is not just any CO. He works in the office that's responsible for providing interpretation to COs in the field. Also, any media response by anyone in the MNRF is passed through and approved by Queens Park. So you can take what was in OOD as MNRF policy.

If you were charged for lead shot in possession contrary to that guidance, you would have a solid defence in that you were following the guidance of a CO. I forget the legal term for that defence off the top of my head, but essentially if you can prove that you had guidance from a cop to do a thing (which you can here, because it is in writing), and that it would be reasonable to think that guidance was official (which it is here), this is a defence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

It would depend on the definition of the word "possess" and the context in which it's used. Case law precedent has established it to mean "on one's person" at the time.

---

Case law re what constitutes possession of a firearm while hunting, I would hope. Possession in general is much more complex and can exist even when the thing possessed is a thousand miles away.

For possession of a firearm for the purpose of hunting, I would think it would not be necessary to have it on your person. Riding an ATV with a gun in a case would surely constitute possession for that purpose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

Not really. One only needs to have control over the thing in question.

---

Or even simply the intent and ability to regain control of it, i.e. constructive possession!

(One for those folks who think you can sell your gun to a buddy for a buck so you won't "possess" it anymore....)

As I said in my earlier post, we don't know the facts from the CO's point of view here. Such as, what did these guys say when stopped? Did they admit they were keeping an eye out for grouse, for example? That's a potential charge on blaze orange, right there.