Alberta government ends right to sue landowners for injury

[nebcfarmer]

https://www.thestar.com/amp/edmonton...heir-land.html


Finally some common sense.

Might buy some stocks in Case/JD

[mooseknuckle]

Good news!! heard they are also looking into decriminalizing using action against someone intending to commit a crime on your property.

[silver lab]

This just renews my faith in “some” governments.

[sns2]

Great move. Common sense legislation.

[Sledder1]

Before you applaud these decisions too much, be aware that this could mean fish and wildlife officers will have less response to wildlife complaints as rural crime incidents will take priority. As well as turn CVE and highway sherriffs focus from their respective work.

And do game wardens really want to be doing this type of work, something they never signed up for in the first place? I wonder why they left Alberta Conservation Officers out of the program, they have same appointments and carry side arms as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[guywiththemule]

Some good news .

[Masterchief]

does this cover booby traps? asking for a friend

Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk

[tri777]

My not so hidden high blood pressure gives out a
"thanks" to the powers that be that were in charge of this pleasant news !

[vcmm]

Okay. I'll be the Devils advocate. Rural propertie owners ...... Or all
ALBERTANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[fishtank]

going in the right direction...

[omega50]

So would the landowner be guilty of a criminal act if his warning shot came from a firearm that was in his possession under a lapsed PAL

[roper1]

Best piece of legislation in years!! And they made it retro-active!! Eddy Maurice might finally have some peace.

[CNP]

Originally Posted by Sledder1

Before you applaud these decisions too much, be aware that this could mean fish and wildlife officers will have less response to wildlife complaints as rural crime incidents will take priority. As well as turn CVE and highway sherriffs focus from their respective work.

And do game wardens really want to be doing this type of work, something they never signed up for in the first place? I wonder why they left Alberta Conservation Officers out of the program, they have same appointments and carry side arms as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not entirely sure if Conservation Officers work for the Solicitor General as do all of the other mentioned Peace Officers. I do know that Conservation Officers are employed by Parks...that may be the difference. CVE do not carry sidearms and all Peace Officers have more authorities than may be apparent. The RCMP, CVE, F&W routinely work together to enforce various Acts in legislation.

Bottom line to me here is that human conflict supercedes a wildlife complaint. Who wouldn't want all available resources to come to the rescue?

There are no details here as to what the process of releasing a CVE or F&W or Sherriff to assist the RCMP is? This is just a press release. Thin on details and fuel for speculation.

[daveyn]

Corporations that “help or direct” trespassers could face fines up to $200,000, in a move Schweitzer said is a first in Canada.

Interesting sentence, wondering if this would apply to outfitters..

[roper1]

Originally Posted by daveyn

Corporations that “help or direct” trespassers could face fines up to $200,000, in a move Schweitzer said is a first in Canada.

Interesting sentence, wondering if this would apply to outfitters..

Might be used in some bridge-blockers cases. The real power behind that is being able to name said corporations when the charges are laid.

[Trochu]

I like the idea, but how does this work?

"The Alberta government will make it illegal to sue people who use violence to protect their property, as long as the property owner does not commit a criminal act in the process."

Wouldn't anything you do, other than talking, essentially be a criminal act?

[Kale_M]

Originally Posted by CNP

I'm not entirely sure if Conservation Officers work for the Solicitor General as do all of the other mentioned Peace Officers. I do know that Conservation Officers are employed by Parks...that may be the difference. CVE do not carry sidearms and all Peace Officers have more authorities than may be apparent. The RCMP, CVE, F&W routinely work together to enforce various Acts in legislation.

Bottom line to me here is that human conflict supercedes a wildlife complaint. Who wouldn't want all available resources to come to the rescue?

There are no details here as to what the process of releasing a CVE or F&W or Sherriff to assist the RCMP is? This is just a press release. Thin on details and fuel for speculation.

Fish and wildlife officers are federal officers.

Cve officers were just taken in under the sheriffs branch. They will be armed.

[jstubbs]

Originally Posted by Trochu

I like the idea, but how does this work?

"The Alberta government will make it illegal to sue people who use violence to protect their property, as long as the property owner does not commit a criminal act in the process."

Wouldn't anything you do, other than talking, essentially be a criminal act?

Not a lawyer obviously but it would seem to me this means that if you used self defense/violence against a criminal trespasser and were legally cleared of criminal charges, you cannot be sued for anything related to what happened in that incident by the criminal.

Hence why they reference Mr Maurice's story--crown prosecutors withdrew the charges--but the criminal still served him with a lawsuit for damages. This legislation redacts that ability.

[does it ALL outdoors]

Originally Posted by mooseknuckle

Good news!! heard they are also looking into decriminalizing using action against someone intending to commit a crime on your property.

Wha?!

I would love to read a link if anyone has one (did a quick search and came up empty)

Originally Posted by roper1

Best piece of legislation in years!! And they made it retro-active!! Eddy Maurice might finally have some peace.

Could you imagine how PO'd Zoolander and his henchmen (the RC's) would be if that actually happened?

Does anyone know who and what sparked that discussion in the first place?
I could see that conversation being a non starter in Ottawa.

Absolutely FANTASTIC news!

[CNP]

Originally Posted by Kale_M

Fish and wildlife officers are federal officers.

Cve officers were just taken in under the sheriffs branch. They will be armed.

AB F&W Officers are not Federal.

[GMX]

Boom!

[Jeron Kahyar]

Originally Posted by Trochu

I like the idea, but how does this work?



"The Alberta government will make it illegal to sue people who use violence to protect their property, as long as the property owner does not commit a criminal act in the process."



Wouldn't anything you do, other than talking, essentially be a criminal act?

Seems that way indeed. Wouldn't be the first time a property owner was charged with assault or various other charges for defending his property.

Guess they expect you to go ask the criminal nicely to leave and they will comply.

It looks more like a nonsense legislation to make people think they are doing good. Meanwhile in reality it changes little to nothing.

[Buckhead]

I hate to be the devils advocate here but Mr. Maurice actually shot the guy. I don’t see how wounding someone in the arm could be called a warning shot.
If I catch someone rummaging through my vehicle I’m not about to actually shoot them unless the situation escalated way beyond that.
Perhaps there’s something to the story that I am missing.

[Donkey Oatey]

Originally Posted by Jeron Kahyar

Seems that way indeed. Wouldn't be the first time a property owner was charged with assault or various other charges for defending his property.

Guess they expect you to go ask the criminal nicely to leave and they will comply.

It looks more like a nonsense legislation to make people think they are doing good. Meanwhile in reality it changes little to nothing.

Other than it has real world, and immediate benefit to a rural Alberta family tormented by a crook.

Ya just a do nothing feel good piece of legislation.

[/sarcasm]

[Donkey Oatey]

Originally Posted by Buckhead

I hate to be the devils advocate here but Mr. Maurice actually shot the guy. I don’t see how wounding someone in the arm could be called a warning shot.
If I catch someone rummaging through my vehicle I’m not about to actually shoot them unless the situation escalated way beyond that.
Perhaps there’s something to the story that I am missing.

He didn't shoot the guy. A ricochet hit him. Mr. Maurice wasn't charged.

[guysmiley]

Originally Posted by Donkey Oatey

He didn't shoot the guy. A ricochet hit him. Mr. Maurice wasn't charged.

He was charged, the charges were stayed or withdrawn.

I recall reading that he fired a warning shot into the air which the crook ignored and then another one on the ground in front of him which bounced of the ground and hit the crook in the arm.

[Jeron Kahyar]

Originally Posted by Donkey Oatey

Other than it has real world, and immediate benefit to a rural Alberta family tormented by a crook.



Ya just a do nothing feel good piece of legislation.



[/sarcasm]

I don't really see how it has any benefit. I defend my property from a criminal 6 months ago and end up getting charged with a criminal offense and going to court. Now I defend my property and go to court over criminal charges just the same.

I guess after a lengthy and expensive criminal hearing I don't have the worry of a civil suit now. Well assuming my first court battle against the crown went in my favor.

So in my opinion it is political posturing to make people feel good and little to no more.

It may even have a net negative effect due to more people actually thinking they have some more right to defend there property. May land more honest individuals in hot water with the law.

[nimrod]

Originally Posted by Jeron Kahyar

I don't really see how it has any benefit. I defend my property from a criminal 6 months ago and end up getting charged with a criminal offense and going to court. Now I defend my property and go to court over criminal charges just the same.

I guess after a lengthy and expensive criminal hearing I don't have the worry of a civil suit now. Well assuming my first court battle against the crown went in my favor.

So in my opinion it is political posturing to make people feel good and little to no more.

It may even have a net negative effect due to more people actually thinking they have some more right to defend there property. May land more honest individuals in hot water with the law.

I feel for you to defend your property, let us know how the court case goes, my fingers are crossed it will be closed case for you.

[CaberTosser]

Originally Posted by vcmm

Okay. I'll be the Devils advocate. Rural propertie owners ...... Or all
ALBERTANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yup! Everyone should be indemnified from prosecution if they’re taking reasonable measures to get trespassing dirt bags off of their property, be it in the city or in the country. Hopefully this law is written as such.

[CaberTosser]

Originally Posted by daveyn

Corporations that “help or direct” trespassers could face fines up to $200,000, in a move Schweitzer said is a first in Canada.

Interesting sentence, wondering if this would apply to outfitters..

That sounds to me like a shot across the bow at the groups funding environmental protesters who block pipeline construction and such. Fine them into oblivion!!