You must be logged in to post Login Register


Register? | Lost Your Password?

Search Forums:


 






Minimum search word length is 4 characters – Maximum search word length is 84 characters
Wildcard Usage:
*  matches any number of characters    %  matches exactly one character

Where is the common sense with some of the MNR charges?

UserPost

11:53 pm
December 16, 2009


timber

Sault Ste Marie

posts 62

1

A discussion with a fellow OntORA member today left me bewildered as to how some MNR COs haphazardly use their powers as officers of the law. He said his friend drove 6hrs to a camp on Manitoulin to meet up with some friends for a bit of hunting, he arrived about a half hour after sunset and was met by a CO who on discovering he had no case on the crossbow charged him. The fellow had been driving for quite a while and expected to reach camp before dark plus he'd not even thought about his bow amongst his gear, he was shocked when instead of being charged for not having the bow in a case after sunset he was charged with hunting at night  even though he obviously wouldn't have had time. The judge ruled there was no proof he was hunting.

This past March a friend in the Wawa District had some minnows in a livewell near his house in preparation for a local ice fishing derby, a CO who had to have been looking for it precisely charged him for not having his name on a livewell even though a couple lines down the Act states that this does not apply to a livewell containing baitfish, something most of us knew…go figure. He fought it and won.

In three cases  people have been charged with "trespass on a premises for the purpose of hunting or fishing" when they drove their vehicle past a sign that had no bearing on this Act. To top it off this was on Crown land where hunting and fishing was in season and legal on both sides of the road, the charge pertained to only the road which isn't a premises, you can't discharge a firearm from a road so you can't hunt on it anyways let alone fish, the MNR referred to this as a vehicular offense for driving past the sign but charged everyone associated with it. Better yet, these people were charged with this offense because the road was closed "to protect remote tourism values", thats right, not because they'd committed any offense under the Fish & Wildlife Conservation Act. The MNR had instructed their staff to enforce a road closure with this Act even though the Public Lands Acts s.49 says no other Act may be used to close roads. The set fine is $100 if this was a legitimate offense but each of these people were hit with $1000 fines. The only person who fought this charge won.

I'm not trying to bash the MNR because they have a job to do, most of their COs are fair and personally I've been treated with courtesy but recently I've been made aware of too many such instances. What kind of training are they getting and where is the discretion?

10:05 pm
December 19, 2009


klynn

posts 6

2

In part I think the more organizations like this one fight various pieces of legislation, the more stringent MNR will become in enforcing the various sections in order to establish a deeper case reference file; ie, the more prior convictions  for a specific offence the easier for them to get guilty verdicts in the future.  I still think that many of todays older CO's are able to think on their own but so much brain washing from supervisors will eventually get to even the most level headed.

11:14 pm
December 19, 2009


Webster

Sault Ste. Marie, ON

posts 25

3

They can go ahead and rely on "precendents" made by some Justice of the Peace – most of whom wouldn't know the front cover from the back cover of a law book.

In the meantime we're going to get the rules changed to respect our fundamental rights and freedoms – even if we have to take them to the Supreme Court.

I should be fishing.

11:21 pm
December 19, 2009


timber

Sault Ste Marie

posts 62

4

The public is being left little choice but to fight back.  The charges mentioned above are only a fraction of some of what is taking place, like the fellow from St Joes Island driving along on a road with his ATV, stopped by a CO he was asked where his blaze orange was, he said I'm not hunting any longer, was this morning but our gang got a deer and just driving around now, he showed the CO the reverse side of his coat saying here's the orange side I was wearing…he was charged & had to go to court where the Judge threw it out.

OntORA isn't involved with these charges, they've just been mentioned thru sharing of info for interests sake because of the escalation of this sort of thing. OntORA is, amongst other things defending the public's inherent right to  access and enjoy our Crown lands and lakes equally and we're prepared to go as high and as far as it takes. OntORA believes that the tax paying public should be given equal opportunity to, at the very least share our own lakes with remote-based tourist outfitters and their clients.

Shortly after OntORA began on this issue several people came forward with information on several MNR staff who were either directly or indirectly involved with the operations of remote outfitting businesses on Crown land themselves whereby they may gain financially one way or the other, all seemingly contrary to PLA s.39 so there appears to be a lot more to this than initially meets the eye and a lot more possible evidence for motivation on the Ministry's part.

We won't be deterred by suggestions that fighting for our rights as citizens of Canada will cause the Ministry to be more stringent…hell, they've already pushed us into a corner as far as they can. However no one expected such a groundswell or backlash thats resulted in a unification of an angry and disillustioned public to this extent.

8:50 am
December 20, 2009


Webster

Sault Ste. Marie, ON

posts 25

5

timber said: … no one expected such a groundswell or backlash thats resulted in a unification of an angry and disillustioned public to this extent.


They haven't seen anything yet!

I should be fishing.

12:23 am
December 21, 2009


klynn

posts 6

6

JP's rely on evidence presented to them in court.  In past lives these charcters could have been anything from truck drivers to police officers and political appointees.  Of course they can't be expected to be knowledgeable in every piece of legislation they encounter in a month of sitting on the bench.  But in the end, they are the ones who make binding decisions and those decisions can't be taken lightly just because they're JPs. 

Yep, the public is angry but changes won't happen overnight.  Even when changes to various Acts are required  and recommended by MNR themselves it often takes years as the Acts themselves are only opened to change about every 10 years.  Fortunately road closures can be dealt with under Regulation change so thats to our advantage.  Either way, this is going to be a very long haul whether we like it or not. 

10:19 pm
December 21, 2009


timber

Sault Ste Marie

posts 62

7

At the moment the MNR hasn't any legislation allowing them to close these roads, especially for the purpose of "protecting remote tourism values", they'd been getting away with PLA s.28 but it has nothing to do with roads.

PLA Part II, sec 48 to 55(1) governs roads on public lands but it only pertains to Private and public forest roads and these are neither. When an Act or Part of an Act controls roads a preamble begins with definitions of the roads that it governs so that the COs know which Act to apply to which category of road but s.28 (1) only says a sign may be erected on a road and s.28(2) which has the offences makes no mention to roads at all. My first introduction to s.28 was in the local MNR office, I read it and my first impulse was to ask exactly what roads it governed, the answer was a sheepish "I don't know", I came back with "then how can you apply it to a road then, can you just arbitrarily close public forest roads and skip the safety regulations in PLA 52(3) & (4), can you close a private forest road with s.28 without consideration of 54(5) which refers you back to 54(2) for a special agreement under the Highway Traffic Act? They could not defend themselves.

Lately the MNR has been using S.10(1a) from the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act "trespass on a premises for the purpose of hunting or fishing" and blatantly stating that they're closing the road with it "to protect remote-based tourism values" even though s.49 of the PLA very clearly says that unless stated by this Act (Public Lands Act), the public has right of passage on all roads on public lands. Besides, according to the "Trespass to Property Act" a road is not a premises and you can't discharge a firearm from or across a road anyways. There were no signs in either of the three cases I'm aware of erectede under the FWCA to warn the public of trespassing…besides on both sides of the road was Crown land where it was legal to hunt and the charge only pertained to the road but there were no infractions for discharging a firearm and thus hunting on the road. According to PLA 50 the Crown is not liable on roads on Crown land but in a case of an area being a premises the owner or person leasing the property would be liable under the Occupiers Liability Act…its nothing but an abuse of power for the MNR to apply this on the public to give their lands away like this.

No Tags

About the Ontario Fishing – OntORA Forum

Forum Timezone: America/Toronto

Currently Online:
1 Guest

Currently Browsing this Topic:
1 Guest

Forum Stats:

Groups: 2
Forums: 14
Topics: 73
Posts: 177

Recent New Members: monty7474334443, ralphhardiman31, cazare223i7