CO Authority To Enforce ATV Regs

The Off Road Vehicle Act specifies penalties for not wearing a helmet. I know that COs currently issue tickets to ATV riders that are not wearing helmets, but I have been told that if the charge is taken to court, it will be thrown out because the MNRF doesn't have the authority to issue tickets under the ORV act, and they issue them knowing most people will not challenge it or want to be bothered with a court date. Can anyone provide a government link indicating whether they have the authority? I've been searching and can't find anything specific to this.

This should be an interesting thread? The arm chair lawyers will be climbing all over this?
My opinion is that a CO can enforce this. They have "Peace Officer" status here in Ontario. I'm of the opinion they can enforce any law? Whether or not they choose to do this, due to a variety of reasons, doesn't mean they can't?

Good luck with that...like Bushmoose said, they are Peace Officers as well and do have the right to ticket you!

https://www.ontario.ca/page/conserva...nd-authorities

"public safety (e.g. recreational vehicle use, forest fire prevention)"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by delmer

The Off Road Vehicle Act specifies penalties for not wearing a helmet. I know that COs currently issue tickets to ATV riders that are not wearing helmets, but I have been told that if the charge is taken to court, it will be thrown out because the MNRF doesn't have the authority to issue tickets under the ORV act, and they issue them knowing most people will not challenge it or want to be bothered with a court date. Can anyone provide a government link indicating whether they have the authority? I've been searching and can't find anything specific to this.

---

CO's have all-encompassing authority under The Provincial Offenses Act as Peace Officers to enforce offenses under all provincial jurisdiction directly within their realm of operation from FWCA to Off Road vehicles to The Highway Traffic Act (if need be) to environmental protection. Your buddy is mistaken with that statement.

They absolutely can enforce it.

I have to please ask people here and everywhere to just Wear a Freaking Helmet.

I just saw a picture of a guy on my Facebook who was just out checking the tree stands and took a branch just under the eye, just missed permanent damage, just wear a helmet and not risk your health, then you will never have to worry if the CO can lay a charge for this or not.

As I understand it, for example, a CO will not charge you with impaired operation of a motor vehicle. He can detain you while notifying the police though. So, if he has the authority under the ORV act to lay charges, of which impaired driving is included in the act, why is it necessary to involve the police? During the summer around Long Point there are often spot checks jointly manned by both the MNR and OPP. According to what a CO told me in one of these checks, is the inclusion of the OPP is to enforce any HTA violation, specifically impaired driving and seat belts. Again, if a CO can enforce the HTA, why bother involving the police in these spot checks?

I am not disputing the fact that COs are peace officers with the power to enforce the law. I am just trying to determine the extent of their power with regard to violations involving motor vehicles under the ORV act.

I am not advocating breaking any law, I am just curious as to the enforcement powers they possess.

Quote:

---

ORVA
“peace officer” includes a police officer, conservation officer or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace or any officer appointed for enforcing or carrying out the provisions of this Act; (“agent de la paix”)
Application
2 (1) This Act does not apply in respect of off-road vehicles being operated on a highway. R.S.O. 1990, c. O.4, s. 2 (1).

HTA

“peace officer” includes a mayor, warden, reeve, sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff’s officer, justice of the peace, jailer or keeper of a prison, and a police officer, bailiff, or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace, or for the service or execution of civil process, or any officer appointed for enforcing or carrying out the provisions of this Act; (“agent de la paix”)

Power of police officer to stop vehicles
216 (1) A police officer, in the lawful execution of his or her duties and responsibilities, may require the driver of a vehicle, other than a bicycle, to stop and the driver of a vehicle, when signalled or requested to stop by a police officer who is readily identifiable as such, shall immediately come to a safe stop. 2016, c. 5, Sched. 12, s. 9.

---

Above are the sections of the ORVA and HTA that in my opinion apply to this question. C.O.'s are officers under the ORVA and may or may not be under the HTA. Only if they fit into the definition of a Peace Officer under that Act. The ORVA does not apply on a highway so it appears that the C.O. may not be able to enforce the act there. The HTA does apply on a highway and if the C.O. does not fit into the Peace Officer definition under that Act, they would not have authority to charge under it. In any event, a C.O. cannot stop a vehicle under the HTA for a HTA offense. If a person was stopped on a highway for not wearing a helmut and charged for that offense under either Act, in my opinion they could fight it and get off.

How about CO's not being trained on, or having breathalyzers in their car? Possible?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

How about CO's not being trained on, or having breathalyzers in their car? Possible?

---

That's pretty much it IMO. The OPP can lay a more solid charge that isn't likely to be destroyed by a good lawyer in court. It's the same with charging stoned drivers. The average OPP or regional officer isn't trained in identification of drug impairment so they usually call the officer on shift that is trained so that a good defense lawyer doesn't have a field day with the first officer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

How about CO's not being trained on, or having breathalyzers in their car? Possible?

---

That's pretty much it IMO. The OPP can lay a more solid charge that isn't likely to be destroyed by a good lawyer in court. It's the same with charging stoned drivers. The average OPP or regional officer isn't trained in identification of drug impairment so they usually call the officer on shift that is trained so that a good defense lawyer doesn't have a field day with the first officer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redd foxx

Above are the sections of the ORVA and HTA that in my opinion apply to this question. C.O.'s are officers under the ORVA and may or may not be under the HTA. Only if they fit into the definition of a Peace Officer under that Act. The ORVA does not apply on a highway so it appears that the C.O. may not be able to enforce the act there. The HTA does apply on a highway and if the C.O. does not fit into the Peace Officer definition under that Act, they would not have authority to charge under it. In any event, a C.O. cannot stop a vehicle under the HTA for a HTA offense. If a person was stopped on a highway for not wearing a helmut and charged for that offense under either Act, in my opinion they could fight it and get off.

---

Well you can be the Guinea pig and try it out. Always someone trying to circumvent the simple rules

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

How about CO's not being trained on, or having breathalyzers in their car? Possible?

---

CO's aren't trained in enforcement of Criminal Code offenses as it's well outside their mandate. As Peace Officers,though,they may arrest for Impaired driving as "found in the commission of an indictable offense" under The Criminal Code and forcibly detain for the Police.

So on private property then no helmet is needed. I haven't seen a farmer with a helmet yet!
Last helmet I seen was in the chicken coop with eggs in it!

That is correct also don't need seat belt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SK33T3R

So on private property then no helmet is needed. I haven't seen a farmer with a helmet yet!
Last helmet I seen was in the chicken coop with eggs in it!

---

Go spend some time in a Emergency room..... just put a helmet on folks.

Personally when I was younger I enjoyed driving my motorcycle in the US without a helmet and it's a risk I was willing to take. We could all wrap ourselves in bubble wrap and stay indoors,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bandwagon

Go spend some time in a Emergency room..... just put a helmet on folks.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bandwagon

Go spend some time in a Emergency room..... just put a helmet on folks.

---

Oh come on you know you can try to legislate common sense and proper behaviour but its not going to work. I can only shake my head when I read a thread about some one knowingly doing something improper or illegal and putting the onus on society to force them to act in accordance. What ever happened to self accountability. Guess that's what Darwinism is for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

Personally when I was younger I enjoyed driving my motorcycle in the US without a helmet and it's a risk I was willing to take. We could all wrap ourselves in bubble wrap and stay indoors,

---

We could or you could just wear a helmet and save the tax payers here in Ontario the cost of the hospital stay, rehab and financial support after you can't work. Your actions impact more than just you, wonder why are taxes are so high? How many hospital visits are totally unavoidable....

Let him do what he wants........ after he signs a waver or buys private insurance.

So I would counter we ban street hockey for example as there will be more people hurt from that sport. You realize the list could go on. Lets ban alcohol as well and the list goes on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bandwagon

We could or you could just wear a helmet and save the tax payers here in Ontario the cost of the hospital stay, rehab and financial support after you can't work. Your actions impact more than just you, wonder why are taxes are so high? How many hospital visits are totally unavoidable....

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SK33T3R

So on private property then no helmet is needed. I haven't seen a farmer with a helmet yet!
Last helmet I seen was in the chicken coop with eggs in it!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

That is correct also don't need seat belt.

---

This is not completely correct.
To not require a helmet requires that the owner of the off-road vehicle is the occupier of the land.

Nobody said anything about a ban. This is about mitigating risk, in particular in a country that has socialized medical care. If you really want to be the pseudo rebel with the no-muss hair fine, pay the "tax" with a ticket and don't cry about it.

I work with people with head injuries. Some were caused by another's actions, some were not. In some cases the person with the injury is so effected they have no clue that their life is different but no matter their condition their family lives with the consequences every day.

100% true Woodsman . Just last year we had a guy from our hunt camp given a ticket for no helmet on private property, because he was not the owner-resident of said property.

GW, you are also the one who said anyone who goes 5 km. over the speed limit, cannot complain about anyone else breaking the law about anything. So we know you are one to go to extremes...LOL.

I bet more people were injured by playing football this week then all the people driving with no ATV helmet this summer.

Ban Football

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-br...tans-1.4355765

By the way even had a cop pull up to me when I had no helmet on private land. Next you'll tell me I cant a skidoo on private farmland (With permission) without a trail permit

Nobody is banning atv riding.

I'm not sure it can be put any more simply.

Yup rode my Motorcycle from Vermont to NB several times with no helmet and it was some nice have the wind in my hair. Although the bugs sucked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

GW, you are also the one who said anyone who goes 5 km. over the speed limit, cannot complain about anyone else breaking the law about anything. So we know you are one to go to extremes...LOL.

---

If you have permission to be on that land you do not need a helmet. According to my two Ottawa Police friends. My best friend down the road (21 years) his girl friend Ottawa Cop with 25 years doesn't agree with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woodsman

This is not completely correct.
To not require a helmet requires that the owner of the off-road vehicle is the occupier of the land.

---

Now I do make my kids where helmets when they are of legal age they can make their own decisions.

Another ambiguous law....

https://www.ontario.ca/document/offi...es-snowmobiles

"Wear a helmet
You must wear a motorcycle helmet, as required by the Highway Traffic Act, whenever you drive or ride on an off-road vehicle or on any vehicle towed by an off-road vehicle. The only exception is when you operate the vehicle on the property of the vehicle owner. The helmet must meet the standards approved for motorcycle helmets, or motor-assisted vehicle helmets, and must be fastened properly under the chin."

1. If you ride with a property owner on your own ATV you wear a helmet and he does not?
2. If you swap vehicles the property owner now wears a helmet but you don't have to because its his vehicle?

Open for interpretation....

http://www.millerthomson.com/en/blog...-control-over/



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SK33T3R

So on private property then no helmet is needed. I haven't seen a farmer with a helmet yet!
Last helmet I seen was in the chicken coop with eggs in it!

---

You don't need insurance or even a driver's license to operate a vehicle on private property with the owner's permission to be there,either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

If you have permission to be on that land you do not need a helmet. According to my two Ottawa Police friends. My best friend down the road (21 years) his girl friend Ottawa Cop with 25 years doesn't agree with you.

---

While maybe your best friend should consult the ORVA before giving opinions.

From: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o04

19 (1) No person shall drive an off-road vehicle or ride on an off-road vehicle or on a conveyance towed by an off-road vehicle unless he or she is wearing a helmet that complies with the regulations, securely fastened under his or her chin with a chin strap. R.S.O. 1990, c. O.4, s. 19 (1).
Idem

(2) This section does not apply to a person driving or riding on an off-road vehicle or on a conveyance towed by an off-road vehicle where the owner of the off-road vehicle is the occupier of the land. R.S.O. 1990, c. O.4, s. 19 (2).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

You don't need insurance or even a driver's license to operate a vehicle on private property with the owner's permission to be there,either.

---

The ORVA states a differently in respect to insurance.

Idem

(4) Every owner of an off-road vehicle that is driven on land other than land that the owner occupies shall, upon request of a peace officer, surrender, for inspection, within seventy-two hours after the request is made, evidence that the vehicle was insured under a motor vehicle liability policy in accordance with the Insurance Act at the time it was driven. R.S.O. 1990, c. O.4, s. 15 (4).

So Police cannot have an opinion? OK that;s new.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woodsman

The ORVA states a differently in respect to insurance.

Idem

(4) Every owner of an off-road vehicle that is driven on land other than land that the owner occupies shall, upon request of a peace officer, surrender, for inspection, within seventy-two hours after the request is made, evidence that the vehicle was insured under a motor vehicle liability policy in accordance with the Insurance Act at the time it was driven. R.S.O. 1990, c. O.4, s. 15 (4).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

So Police cannot have an opinion? OK that;s new.

---

They are quite within thier rights to have opinion but when a charge goes to court the judge or JP rules on the written laws not the police opinion.
Other police officers may have a different opinion so that is why a judge or JP rules on the charge.

GW, many times you have said, due to past experiences you do not trust cops, why the change of heart on this matter?

I don't trust many cops but I do know some good and some bad. I also know of 1 cop in my area that even the other cops dislike.

Why do you speed on the highway when you know it's wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

GW, many times you have said, due to past experiences you do not trust cops, why the change of heart on this matter?

---

Who says I do? Have you been following me? What do I drive? LOL. I am retired, so I am the old guy doing the speed limit, that is holding everyone up. I am in no hurry.

Fact: police officers have imperfect knowledge of more obscure points of law. How often does the average police officer find himself confronting a rider sans helmet on private land?

Funny that everyone agrees cops are shaky on gun laws, but we cite them as authorities on seldom-invoked sections of the ORVA.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woodsman

The ORVA states a differently in respect to insurance.

Idem

(4) Every owner of an off-road vehicle that is driven on land other than land that the owner occupies shall, upon request of a peace officer, surrender, for inspection, within seventy-two hours after the request is made, evidence that the vehicle was insured under a motor vehicle liability policy in accordance with the Insurance Act at the time it was driven. R.S.O. 1990, c. O.4, s. 15 (4).

---

Key words are "other than land the owner occupies" when someone is on land for which he has the owner's permission to be there as a guest.

Quote:

---

Well you can be the Guinea pig and try it out. Always someone trying to circumvent the simple rules

---

Won't have to. I wear my helmut!

For the record - I have ATV insurance and an ATV helmet.

BUT
when I ride a two wheeled pedal bike I do not where a helmet or spandex!
I guess that makes me a rebel and a danger to society.
You armchair lawyers might be able to answer this.
Why don't mailmen wear helmets? ... or Figure skaters?

http://storage.proboards.com/6420671...oemGpMmHOv.gif http://storage.proboards.com/6420671...7eXqXeKxJp.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

Key words are "other than land the owner occupies" when someone is on land for which he has the owner's permission to be there as a guest.

---

Yes but does the "owner" in your quote refer to the owner of the land or the owner of the ATV? If you use the whole section it can be argued it is the owner of the ATV it refers to.

SK33 our curling club is making all the younger kids that start curling wear helmets, soon you will see all curlers with them.

Argue all you want, but I was present last year at our hunt camp and watched one of our hunters who was on his own ATV, on the farm that the camp is part of given a ticket by the OPP. The cop actually drove off the road ,onto the driveway to write him up.

fishermccann I agree and that is my point.
Just because one officer believes one way doesn't mean all believe the same way.
In the end it will be up to a JP or possibally a Judge to rule what is correct.

Just because an Officer writes you a ticket doesn't mean you actually broke the law that is for the courts to decide. Many believe that flashing your lights to warn of a speed trap is illegal but it is not as ruled by the courts (Alternating Lights are illegal). However some cops still write those tickets but if you take it to court it is always thrown out.

Also wear your blaze orange if hunting or trapping in gun season.

Common sense all around folks,if your on an ATV without a helmet and you have an accident in the backwoods and your by yourself then you got a big problem .
The idiots in Toronto riding their bikes in the bike lanes and elsewhere in heavy traffic and not wearing helmets will probably be saved as they are close trauma hospitals.

To answer the op, the authority to enforce comes from the Act, as in most cases. Under the definition sections, “peace officer” specifically mentions “conservation officers”. They most certainly can and do enforce the ORVA.

COs are Peace Officers and can enforce this and many other laws that aren't just hunting or fishing.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by delmer

As I understand it, for example, a CO will not charge you with impaired operation of a motor vehicle. He can detain you while notifying the police though. So, if he has the authority under the ORV act to lay charges, of which impaired driving is included in the act, why is it necessary to involve the police? During the summer around Long Point there are often spot checks jointly manned by both the MNR and OPP. According to what a CO told me in one of these checks, is the inclusion of the OPP is to enforce any HTA violation, specifically impaired driving and seat belts. Again, if a CO can enforce the HTA, why bother involving the police in these spot checks?

I am not disputing the fact that COs are peace officers with the power to enforce the law. I am just trying to determine the extent of their power with regard to violations involving motor vehicles under the ORV act.

I am not advocating breaking any law, I am just curious as to the enforcement powers they possess.

---

Because almost no CO is a certified breath tech or expert on DUI charges so instead of letting you walk they call in people who are experts and who are certified and who can lay a charge that will stick.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

I do know that up at Bissett Creek the CO's will write you up for no helmet, drinking and driving. Met a few up there who have been asked and one fella who was charged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

Common sense all around folks,if your on an ATV without a helmet and you have an accident in the backwoods and your by yourself then you got a big problem .
The idiots in Toronto riding their bikes in the bike lanes and elsewhere in heavy traffic and not wearing helmets will probably be saved as they are close trauma hospitals.

---

Yep,they'll be saved alright. They'll be tied in a wheel chair with a bed sheet and be fed pablum every day for the rest of their lives,but,by gawd,they'll be saved.