Interesting Story

[Gilroy]

With respect to absolute liability.....refer to R v Chapin. SCC ruling. Very interesting case from Lake St Clair....

Great case to post Rick, thanks.

[rick_iles]

I agree with you in relation to voluntarily coughing up information but would like to ask you opinion on the following excerpt from the same case:


One would be hard pressed to characterize the offence created by s. 14(1) of the Migratory Birds Regulations as a “crime in the true sense”. Violation is punishable upon summary conviction and not indictment. One must note the absence of the usual signals connoting mens rea such as “wilfully” or “with intent”. In contrast, to take an example, s. 10 of the Migratory Birds Convention Act commences “Any person who wilfully refuses to furnish information or wilfully furnishes false information to a game office.


My question to you is where does a hunter cross the line or how much does he have to give in the way of information to an investigating CO.The key question is posed by the last sentence above.

I believe my charter right to remain silent take precedent over providing information to a CO investigating this type of offence.But the wording of the legislation and the FWCA makes my right to remain silent appear to be an offence.I believe that if I give my name,address,hunting card, that should be sufficient for a CO to lay a ticket,but I don,t think I need to provide any other details if I believe I might be charged. What is you opinion on this?

I don't see an offence in Sec 10 MBCA. Possibly the section noted in the Chapin decision has been changed.

[Gilroy]

I don't see an offence in Sec 10 MBCA. Possibly the section noted in the Chapin decision has been changed.

No Rick I,am talking about the general section on obstruct a CO under the FWCA


Obstruction of conservation officer
96 A person shall not,

(a) knowingly make a false or misleading statement to a conservation officer who is acting under this Act; or

(b) otherwise obstruct a conservation officer who is acting under this Act. 1997, c. 41, s. 96.

Could a hunter be charged with obstructing a conservation officer by simply exercising their right to remain silent under the Charter.How much information do you need to give a CO investigating an alleged offence/complaint.But the wording in (b) paints a pretty broad brush "otherwise obstruct a conservation officer"

I have seen lots of convictions noted under the MNR website for obstruct a CO and I take it that most relate to hunters telling them lies during an investigation.

The poster in this thread got himself into problems by co operating with a CO and admitted that he should have made a better check for bait left behind.
My advice would be to ask if you might be charged,get the CO to read you your charter rights and remain quiet.

But if a CO tells a hunter he MUST provide information to satisfy section 96 or fact a charge of obstruct a co, what is a hunter to do.Comply and incriminate yourself or face a possible charge of obstruct?

[rick_iles]

No Rick I,am talking about the general section on obstruct a CO under the FWCA


Obstruction of conservation officer
96 A person shall not,

(a) knowingly make a false or misleading statement to a conservation officer who is acting under this Act; or

(b) otherwise obstruct a conservation officer who is acting under this Act. 1997, c. 41, s. 96.

Could a hunter be charged with obstructing a conservation officer by simply exercising their right to remain silent under the Charter.How much information do you need to give a CO investigating an alleged offence/complaint.But the wording in (b) paints a pretty broad brush "otherwise obstruct a conservation officer"

I have seen lots of convictions noted under the MNR website for obstruct a CO and I take it that most relate to hunters telling them lies during an investigation.

The poster in this thread got himself into problems by co operating with a CO and admitted that he should have made a better check for bait left behind.
My advice would be to ask if you might be charged,get the CO to read you your charter rights and remain quiet.

But if a CO tells a hunter he MUST provide information to satisfy section 96 or fact a charge of obstruct a co, what is a hunter to do.Comply and incriminate yourself or face a possible charge of obstruct?

I would suggest that if a suspect in a murder investigation is protected by the charter against self incrimination, then it stands to reason that the charter rights would also apply to FWCA investigations. Just don't give a false or misleading statement.....

[trimmer21]

No Rick I,am talking about the general section on obstruct a CO under the FWCA


Obstruction of conservation officer
96 A person shall not,

(a) knowingly make a false or misleading statement to a conservation officer who is acting under this Act; or

(b) otherwise obstruct a conservation officer who is acting under this Act. 1997, c. 41, s. 96.

Could a hunter be charged with obstructing a conservation officer by simply exercising their right to remain silent under the Charter.How much information do you need to give a CO investigating an alleged offence/complaint.But the wording in (b) paints a pretty broad brush "otherwise obstruct a conservation officer"

I have seen lots of convictions noted under the MNR website for obstruct a CO and I take it that most relate to hunters telling them lies during an investigation.

The poster in this thread got himself into problems by co operating with a CO and admitted that he should have made a better check for bait left behind.
My advice would be to ask if you might be charged,get the CO to read you your charter rights and remain quiet.

But if a CO tells a hunter he MUST provide information to satisfy section 96 or fact a charge of obstruct a co, what is a hunter to do.Comply and incriminate yourself or face a possible charge of obstruct?

Although,I haven't checked case law on the subject of obstruction,it's my understanding that a charge of "obstruct a CO" involves physically obstructing by hiding or destroying evidence. While a charge of lying to a CO is often laid or threatened to be laid,if one says absolutely nothing to a CO aside from one word answers,one can't be charged for something NOT said. That's why it's very important to limit the conversation.

[Gilroy]

Yeh guys that is my take on it but I,am pretty sure a few hunters have been threatened in the past with this charge and ended up providing the rope to hang themselves with under the FWCA. The comparison to a murder case is that is a criminal offence and this is a Provincial Statute and I am pretty sure not to many rights to counsel or cautions have been actually read out by CO,s, in the past and they simply tell the JP,s that the hunters voluntarily gave statements.

Well it can only be a voluntary statement if you knew your rights.....

[welsh]

Good question, Gilroy. It looks like that language is no longer in the MBCA.

With respect to obstruction and the FWCA, I believe you may be required to answer such basic questions as, "Catch any fish? How many?" because you are obliged to cooperate with inspections and those questions are part of routine inspection. But beyond that, exercising the right not to answer can't be obstruction.

[Gilroy]

Good question, Gilroy. It looks like that language is no longer in the Act.

Sorry which Act?

[welsh]

Sorry which Act?

Migratory Birds Convention Act. Sorry, missed a few posts before replying. Rick already pointed that out.

[Gilroy]

Migratory Birds Convention Act. Sorry, missed a few posts before replying. Rick already pointed that out.

This is what I want your opinion on:FWCA

Obstruction of conservation officer
96 A person shall not,

(a) knowingly make a false or misleading statement to a conservation officer who is acting under this Act; or

(b) otherwise obstruct a conservation officer who is acting under this Act. 1997, c. 41, s. 96.

Could a hunter be charged with obstructing a conservation officer by simply exercising their right to remain silent under the Charter.How much information do you need to give a CO investigating an alleged offence/complaint.But the wording in (b) paints a pretty broad brush "otherwise obstruct a conservation officer"

I have seen lots of convictions noted under the MNR website for obstruct a CO and I take it that most relate to hunters telling them lies during an investigation.

The poster in this thread got himself into problems by co operating with a CO and admitted that he should have made a better check for bait left behind.
My advice would be to ask if you might be charged,get the CO to read you your charter rights and remain quiet.

But if a CO tells a hunter he MUST provide information to satisfy section 96 or fact a charge of obstruct a co, what is a hunter to do.Comply and incriminate yourself or face a possible charge of obstruct?