Trespassing law(s) in Ontario Canada

  • Trespassing law(s) in Ontario Canada In the *print* edition of __ The Globe and Mail __ for 2004-OCT-21 on page A12 there is a postcard-size photo of a person apparently receiving a ticket/summons/offence notice from a uniformed Toronto Police Officer. The caption reads: " Protest against secrecy Frank Barningham is being issued a ticket for trespassing by a Toronto Police officer. He was demonstrating peacefully yesterday against the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS) in front of its offices next to the [building] on [ ] Street. " Three possible jurisdictions of (by)-laws come to mind. 1) Criminal law. All criminal law is in Canadian federal domain. A Toronto Police Service officer can enforce criminal law. 2) Provincial offences. Various non-criminal offences are defined by the Province of Ontario. Speeding is an example. A Toronto Police Service officer can enforce provincial offences. 3) City of Toronto by-laws passed by the municipal government. Numerous by-laws for offences such as not picking up after Rover, unlawful parking, or smoking in a restaurant. A Toronto Police Service officer can enforce Toronto by-laws. Question 1) If the offence specified in the caption is "trespassing" which jurisdiction would it be? I suspect it is Provincial (ie. non-criminal). Question 2) is there a hiper-link to the charge(s)/offence(s)? Question 3) While being charged the officer will want to establish identity. If the subject produces a valid piece of photo ID that includes name, DOB, citizenship (e.g. passport) is that sufficient? What about a citizenship card (no photo, just name, proves Canadian citizenship)? In other words, if the subject was not driving then a driver's license (photo, name, DOB, address) should *not* be required, right? I looked for the story in the Globe online edition but I could not find it. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/


  • grthumongous-ga: In the Province of Ontario, trespassing on private property falls under the Trespass to Property Act (R.S.O. 1990, Chapter T.21): http://www.canlii.org/on/laws/sta/t-21/20040901/whole.html A couple of clarifications, though, before I post an Answer: - when you ask for a hyperlink to the charge(s)/offence(s), do you mean the charges against Frank Barningham specifically, or do you mean the contents of the Act as referenced above? - your question regarding forms of identification, is the intent here to establish what would be considered an acceptable form of ID, or is it something else? Thanks, aht-ga Google Answers Researcher


  • re: hiper-link The requirement is that applicable law(s) be cited, not anything specific to the subject who was being charged. Your response cites a provincial offence of trespassing on private property, so if you think he was charged with that offence then that is fine. re: ID If he is to be charged with your cited offence then what personal information is the subject required to provide? Does he have to prove the information provided is valid by producing document(s)? Depending on what information is legally required different forms of ID might suffice. A birth certificate "proves" identity without a photo, includes DOB, but no address. A passport proves identity with photo, includes DOB, citizenship, but no address. A social insurance card "proves" identity with no photo, no DOB, no citizenship, no address. A driver's license "proves" identity with photo, includes DOB, includes address, but not citizenship. Does the officer have the right to ask for ID, and if so, what constitutes sufficient ID? Alternatively, what information does the officer require from the subject?


  • grthumongous-ga: Thank you for the clarification; I'll tackle the three parts of your question as follows. First, at this time we have to rely on the caption you cited for the offense that the accused was actually charged with. Trespassing is perfectly plausible given the situation described in the caption (peaceful protesting in front of the building), if the accused was on private property. 'Trespassing' is actually a very fundamental concept in most societies, falling into the realm of tort or common law. In Canada, if the trespassing occurs "at night" (between 9pm-6am), it is actually an offense under the Criminal Code. In the province of Ontario, criminal trespassing during the day is codified in the Trespass to Property Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter T.21. You can read the entire text of the Trespass to Property Act through the following link: Ontario Trespass to Property Act - R.S.O. 1990, Chapter T.21 http://www.canlii.org/on/laws/sta/t-21/20040901/whole.html Under this provincial law, trespassing occurs when someone remains on private property after they have been instructed by the occupant of that property to leave the property. This instruction can be in written form (such as a 'No Trespassing' sign), or verbal (as in 'Get the ***** off my property!'). Ontario's law has the highest maximum fine in Canada, at up to $2000 per offense. Of note is the provision in s.3.(2) of the Act, that states: "(2) There is a presumption that access for lawful purposes to the door of a building on premises by a means apparently provided and used for the purpose of access is not prohibited." In this case, if the accused was indeed 'protesting' outside the building, that would not constitute an activity allowed by the occupant and therefore the Act. As soon as the occupant requested that the accused leave the property (either directly or through a police officer), it became a crime for the accused to not leave as instructed. That addresses the first two parts of your question. Now for the third, regarding identification. In Canada, it is the responsibility of the Crown, not of the accused, to prove the identify of the accused. This comes from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/index.html and in particular, the rights described in sections 7 through 14, Legal Rights. Basically, the right to remain silent (so as not to bear witness against oneself), the right to seek legal counsel, etc. An accused has the right not to cooperate with an investigation and not to volunteer information that can be used against him or herself. At the same time, refusing to provide information such as proof of identity can result in a longer holding period as the police would need to detain the accused until their investigation uncovered enough identifying evidence. Since the onus of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) of identify lies with the Crown (and the police acting as their agent), the accused is not legally required to produce any particular form of identification. If the accused does choose to cooperate, then any form of identification that they provide would need to be independently verified by the police anyway since part of their preliminary investigation would have to look at the possibility of a prior criminal record. Please note that for laws such as the Trespass to Property Act, the issue of citizenship does not apply. Canadian laws apply equally to anyone in Canada, with the exception of individuals who have diplomatic immunity. Again, it is up to the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an offense has occurred, it is not up to the accused to prove their innocence (because until they are proven guilty, they are indeed innocent). If an offence is based in whole or in part on whether or not the accused is of a particular age, or lives in a particular location, then the accused can help speed up the Crown's investigation (and therefore reduce the hassle for themselves) by providing identification that shows their age or address. For activities that are regulated, such as driving, hunting, and fishing, this identification would be in the form of a permit or license allowing them to engage in said activity. Further reference: ------------------ Criminal Code of Canada R.S. 1985, c. C-46 http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/ Trespass at night http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec177.html I hope that this helps! aht-ga Google Answers Researcher


  • aht, are you saying that the information the police could demand (or need to uncover themselves through their own sources) would include address and telephone number?


  • If the police officers conducting the investigation feel that they need to provide the Crown with the accused's address and contact information, then yes they would/could request that information (and of course, the accused would be fully within his or her rights to refuse to cooperate... knowing that such a refusal may result in the police needing to hold them longer). For minor infractions that are punishable by fine only, the police would want to have this information for follow-up should the accused choose not admit guilt and voluntarily pay the fine.


    • November 18th 2008 Posted to bombaypany.com edit