Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 02-18-2010, 07:37 PM
Lawrence Oshanek Lawrence Oshanek is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 11
Default

Lets see, $500,00 vs $10,000.00, gee I think I'll pay the fine. This 1972 bylaw has never been challenged because no one was willing to do it without being paid to do it.

One other point, in the last 10 years, I have had 15 - 20 lawyers come up to me and congratulate me on what I am doing ..... I have not had one lawyer offer to help me in any way!

Think about it and be afraid of people like Mr. Grizzly!
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02-19-2010, 01:00 PM
Lawrence Oshanek Lawrence Oshanek is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 11
Default

Tree Guy:

Thank you! I hope I win too. Mr. Griz is quite capable of understanding legal process but a bit thick on the law [see: No cuff for grizzly].

He did not realize that if his vehicle was not stopped and his drivers licence used to personally identify him, he could not be convicted of "Failure to stop for a police officer" (which is 6 points and an automatic surcharge of 25% on his basic auto insurance and it creates police bias against you every time they run your plate) because there is no evidence of whom was driving the vehicle - that is who it was who failed to stop (see his post on no cuffs - he listened to exactly that argument in the case before his and he did not connect the dots). I am not sure if he ever connected the dots.

On one hand, this is a man who values state intervention in the affairs of others, but gets upset and gets procedurally "cute" when he is confronted with his own interactions with authority (see his "cuffs" post).

For the past ten years I have lived a life without electricity, running water and sewers, totally rejecting social property norms - a sort of a urban Waltons Pond experience - and I spent a lot of my time assisting many types of people in their conflicts with authority because that is a service to my community which is not generally available to it.

I defend people, I put my time and my money where my mouth is and I have to defend myself from Mr. Grizzley's buff? When it comes to the law, I doubt he could find his azz with his hands. He has the appropriate name ... grizzlies are bullies. With over 2,100 posts here (an average of over 2 per day) he spends his time imposing his brand upon the concerns of others.

Like so many others of his type, I say: Bugger off friend, you ain't worth my time.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02-19-2010, 01:54 PM
Redfrog's Avatar
Redfrog Redfrog is offline
Gone Hunting
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Between Bodo and a hard place
Posts: 20,168
Default

Sadly Lawrence, while I agree with your quest to show the law makers the error of their ways, you have managed in a few insulting posts to turn my attention to the classifieds or any other thread but this one.

You have taken Grizzly's POV and turned it into a personal rant full of insults.
Whether I agree with him or not, is irrelevant. Your chest thumping and rude behavior have cost you my support or interest.

Have a great day.
__________________
I'm not lying!!! You are just experiencing it differently.


It isn't a question of who will allow me, but who will stop me.. Ayn Rand
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02-19-2010, 02:29 PM
Vindalbakken Vindalbakken is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,790
Default

You can second me on that Redfrog. Lawrence thanks for the work you are doing. It is good work. No thanks for the rant - intelligent discerning folks can easily read the relative merits. Your decorum speaks to your personality in a poor way.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02-23-2010, 10:54 AM
Lawrence Oshanek Lawrence Oshanek is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 11
Default

I posted here to inform those here of a process to correct excessive government control .... the issue in this instance was municipal control of people navigating a river, a right that predates Confederation.

I believed that it, in principle, is an important issue for ordinary people, it is not about an the simple issue of wearing life jackets or not wearing life jackets, but the issue of
multiple levels of imposed government law and regulatory control.

Many of the activities done by people here parallel the issues, except that many outdoor activities have had imposed upon them several more levels of control with extra regulatory boards and profit making special interest groups.

A particular person choose to challenge me in several ways including insulting my ability to do what I did .... I reacted accordingly.

I will post the Judgement of the court when it is given on 23 March 2010.

The Judgement may come in handy if any person here is charged in similar circumstances and needs a judicial authority for their court hearing.

I am not looking for "support" but for persons unjustly prosecuted. I may be of some use to them.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 04-02-2010, 07:56 PM
Lawrence Oshanek Lawrence Oshanek is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 11
Default

Update

The Provincial Court Judge in this case, Judge Judith Shrier, had asked for another month to write her Judgement.

The case is now set for 12 May 2010, 2 O'clock in the afternoon, in Courtroom 307 in the New Calgary Courthouse (between 6 and 7 Avenues on 5th Street, SW.

Anyone wanting to come to listen is welcome ....

Court security is in place so leave your pocket knives at home.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-12-2010, 09:45 AM
walking buffalo's Avatar
walking buffalo walking buffalo is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,207
Default

Quote:
READING OF COURT JUDGEMENT

Wednesday the 12th of May 2010, Provincial Court Judge Judith
Shriar (Criminal Division) will read her Judgement in Courtroom 307 at 2:00
o'clock in the afternoon in the cases of R. v Latouche (Brittany and Cory)


The Constitutional issue is if the City of Calgary "Water Safety Bylaw" is beyond
(or within) the powers of the City of Calgary to enact.


At stake are all bylaws relating to the City of Calgary's regulatory control of it's
waterways, including, but not limited to: power boating on the Glenmore and
power boating on the Elbow and Bow rivers. both of which are now prohibited by
bylaw.


"On consultation with one of the people I am representing, I am instructed, if
she losses, to force an Appeal through the Federal Court of Canada pursuant to
it's concordant jurisdiction over the navigation of Canada's inland waterways,"
Lawrence Oshanek said.


"We will have been presented with a unique opportunity to have the Federal
Court of Canada adjudicate on a City bylaw - which has never, in my experience,
been done in Canada before!" said Oshanek.


"However, in all of the circumstances, we are expecting a win", he said.
Yes, Lawrence can come across as abrassive when discussing legal intrusions into our personal lives. However, he is one of the very few individuals who is actually making an effort and having an effect on the government's desire to continuously layer redundant regulations and laws on it's citizens.

Thank you Lawrence.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-12-2010, 05:31 PM
Xerophobic Xerophobic is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16
Default

Anxious to hear how this went!

Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-12-2010, 05:57 PM
Xerophobic Xerophobic is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16
Default

Obviously didn't go as planned but I'd be very curious to see what she said, sure wouldn't be the first lower court judge to get things wrong

http://www.calgaryherald.com/mobile/...327/story.html
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-12-2010, 07:22 PM
Grizzly Adams's Avatar
Grizzly Adams Grizzly Adams is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 21,399
Default

They say, the Law is an Ass. I guess, the La Touches would have to agree.
Didn't sound like there was going to be an appeal and they plan on still rafting, without life jackets, so we'll have to watch for the next chapter.
Grizz
__________________
"Indeed, no human being has yet lived under conditions which, considering the prevailing climates of the past, can be regarded as normal."
John E. Pfeiffer The Emergence of Man
written in 1969

Last edited by Grizzly Adams; 05-12-2010 at 07:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 05-12-2010, 08:09 PM
Elko Elko is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 397
Default

Your livin a life without electricity, sewers etc, but you have internet?

I for one agree with the city and the judge, when people pay for the cost of rescue's, and body recovery's, then the city can stop dictating they were safety equipment.

If people wnat to put themselves in jeopardy, giver, but no one should be going out of there way to save em then.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 06-11-2018, 02:56 PM
recklessredbeard recklessredbeard is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 2
Default

Although this was 8 years ago, I feel it is still relevant, so I'll resurrect this topic.

In talking with some friends the other day, I insisted Federal law states they only have to have a PFD or life jacket with them, not actually wear it. I was then informed about the Calgary Water Safety bylaw 9084, linked below for reference:
http://www.calgary.ca/_layouts/cocis...edirect=1&sf=1

Quote:
Originally Posted by walking buffalo View Post
"At stake are all bylaws relating to the City of Calgary's regulatory control of it's
waterways, including, but not limited to: power boating on the Glenmore and
power boating on the Elbow and Bow rivers. both of which are now prohibited by
bylaw."
This is incorrect, powerboating on both rivers, as well as the Glenmore, is specifically prohibited by the Canada Shipping Act, Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations (SOR/2008-120). It doesn't specifically mention the Glenmore resevoir, but it is included in the definition of the Elbow River. Whatever bylaws you're referring to may be ultra vires; as according to the Constitution Acts, all matters relating to navigation and shipping fall under the exclusive legislative domain of parliament:
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/C...4.html#docCont

For reference, here is the Canada Shipping Act, along with the 60 other regulations made under it, including both Small Vessel Regulations, and Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations:
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-10.15/

Under the basic principles of bylaws, it also clearly states:
"That a municipality cannot enact a bylaw that controls any matter over which the federal or provincial government have exclusive control"

It seems like such a clear overreach of municipal powers. The city of Calgary, or any other municipality for that matter, should have no legislative powers when it comes to matters of navigation and shipping.


Furthermore,
the objectives of the Canada Shipping Act are to:

(a) protect the health and well-being of individuals, including the crews of vessels, who participate in marine transportation and commerce;

(b) promote safety in marine transportation and recreational boating;

The Calgary bylaw in question (9084), states:
"AND WHEREAS it is expedient to provide for the safety of persons to which the said Regulations (Canadian Shipping Act) do not apply on all natural or man-made rivers, streams, brooks, canals, lakes, reservoirs or other waterways or watercourses which are contained within the boundaries of the City of Calgary;"

Meaning the bylaw is set to apply only to whatever people aren't covered already under the shipping act. Turns out everyone is covered.
And the bylaw should only be applicable within bodies of water the navigation and shipping act doesn't cover. Oh look, it covers uh, all Canadian vessels everywhere.

They also added in that the bylaw applies to any vessel not covered under Federal regulations, including inflatable rubber or canvas devices. Federal regulations cover "all human powered vessels" though, so wouldn't that include an innertube, or floatie? Wait... does this mean that if you are on a floatie in a pool, you're required by federal law to have a PFD or life jacket with you?

This bylaw appears to be in effect over no-one nowhere, yet possibly over people on floaties & innertubes within city limits; unless they are in fact covered as human powered vessels by Federal law.

If innertubes and floaties aren't included as vessels within the Canada Shipping Act, and regarded to be outside navigation and shipping legislation, the $500 fine within city limits would be valid, and that would also mean that outside city limits, you can go full Darwin and leave the PFD at home.

One could optionally show up in court, argue that your floatie is a human powered personal watercraft, and therefore covered under Federal law. Get the fine dismissed, and ask for reimbursement for wasting your valuable time, both on the river, as well as in court. But you would also then be arguing that it is the law to have a PFD or life jacket with you on your floatie within the city of Calgary.

For the record, I always have my PFD with me when floating the Bow River. And every time the river police boat comes by, I point to where it's at. Never got a ticket over the years. There are times I'll wear it, especially if I'm alone, but for the most part, it just stays within reach, while I comfortably and leisurely maximize my vitamin D output. Sure, I could unexpectedly enter the water, get knocked out and potentially drown, but my right to go for the Darwin award, or even put a burden on rescue services, isn't what's in question here.

Thanks for your efforts Lawrence!

Last edited by recklessredbeard; 06-11-2018 at 03:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 06-11-2018, 06:49 PM
srs123 srs123 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 455
Default

This reminds me of a scene I witnessed during the Calgary floods and this guy was rafting in his kayak with the fire department parked on shore trying to get him to come out of the water while explaining to him that the raging river carries alot of debris and he could be killed.

I would have mobilized the fire engine at the moment and moved it to a different place where people really wanted help.

Stupid people won't be missed. And if you and your client are trying to get off on a technicality then u r really missing the point of the law.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 06-11-2018, 07:55 PM
Okotok's Avatar
Okotok Okotok is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,814
Default

Gets me to thinking that Alex Honnold really needs to be heavily fined for not using ropes or protection when he climbed El Capitan last year. The last pockets of resistance are being slowly stamped out.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 06-11-2018, 08:59 PM
parfleche parfleche is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 915
Default

Interesting point there , A person may at any time swim or lie in the waters of the flowing rivers or lakes , without a life vest on or near ones self , BUT IF one is caught in a vessel or boat in the same waters he is required to have a life vest at hand or on his person , otherwise he is liable to a fine ! THAT is an interesting thing for sure ! At what point between swimming and boating in the same waters does it get dangerous to warrant wearing a life preserving vest?
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 06-12-2018, 12:43 AM
coreya3212 coreya3212 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 2,984
Default

I find this interesting because of a similar lower government intrusion on a federal matter. This dealt with the aeronautics act, but a municipal govt tryied governing where they had no authority. I wrote a letter to a councilman and cited a few Supreme Court decisions and they literally did a 180, admitted there governing powers didn’t apply to the situation and wrote a letter to the person affected directly. It wasn’t me, but i had vested interest in not seeing them get any momentum. There is a similar case going on in white court regarding the aerodrome there and land owner where the municipality has dug in to the tune of over 200K in legal fees fighting an individual defending a position i think has clearly been ruled on numerous times...so in fact wasting the tax dollars.

I haven’t read the fine points of this challenge, but my question is, when can a municipal power enforce federal regulations? Even if the reg stated that a life vest must be worn, it doesn’t mean the municipal gov gets to enforce it. ANyway, i like seeing cases like this putting those punching above there weight in place.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 06-13-2018, 03:22 PM
recklessredbeard recklessredbeard is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by srs123 View Post
Stupid people won't be missed. And if you and your client are trying to get off on a technicality then u r really missing the point of the law.
This isn't about a technicality, well maybe it was for those who were fined, but it's more importantly about municipalities overreaching their authority, creating bylaws where they really have no granted authority to do so.

Again, as according to the Constitution Acts, all matters relating to navigation and shipping fall under the exclusive legislative domain of parliament.
A municipality cannot enact a bylaw that controls any matter over which the federal or provincial government have exclusive control.

If the city of Calgary or any other municipality wanted to force people to wear PFD's, that legislation needs to go through Federal courts as amendments to the Shipping Act, they should never be allowed to skip that process and create a bylaw, hoping no one will strike it down just so they can make things easier for themselves. Those who want to create legislation should most definitely be following it when trying to do so.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 06-13-2018, 04:49 PM
EZM's Avatar
EZM EZM is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 11,851
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Okotokian View Post
I grew up in St. Albert. I'd question the classification of the Sturgeon River as "flowing waters". A float trip through town would take you about 6 hours.
And in Late August it might take you 2 days now ..... lol .... that's if you had enough water to float over the mud bars and garbage in some of those areas now.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 06-13-2018, 05:10 PM
HalfBreed's Avatar
HalfBreed HalfBreed is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Parkland
Posts: 1,659
Default

I'm somewhat curious as to what was taking place in the city so many years ago that allowed such a large portion of LEO's to be hanging about a riverside. Tax dollars well spent I suppose.

I always wear my inflatable PFD, even while shore fishing with chest waders on. Lost a friend in Ont that couldn't get the waders off in time.
__________________
I take everything with a grain of pepper, I'm just different that way.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.