Impaired boating

Moderators: admin, hwybear, Radar Identified, Reflections, bend, Decatur

User avatar
ditchMD
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 11:39 am

Impaired boating

by: ditchMD on
Fri Mar 27, 2009 2:29 pm

I don't recall seeing this anywhere on the board, so if it's a repeat, I appologize. As most of us know (or at least ought to know), that the Criminal Code allows an impaired boating charge to be treated in the same manner as if one were driving. Interrestingly, the wording was originally "motorized vessel", but is now simply "vessel".

I did some research but could not find any example of people in canoes, kayaks or paddleboats being charged with DUI/Impaired. Maybe someone (I'm looking your way hwybear 8) can shed some light on this to satisfy my curiosity.
Last edited by ditchMD on Sat Mar 28, 2009 7:12 am, edited 1 time in total.


User avatar
FiReSTaRT
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 371
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: GTA

by: FiReSTaRT on
Fri Mar 27, 2009 3:47 pm

I'm pretty sure you could get charged with impaired. What if you're in a kayak with a kid and you're drunk, you capsize it and the kid drowns?
What kind of a man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.


User avatar
Squishy
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 709
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:45 am
Location: Orillia
Contact:

by: Squishy on
Fri Mar 27, 2009 4:52 pm

It's not actually the HTA that allows it. "Impaired" is part of the Criminal Code.

Here's the wording of the section:
253. (1) Every one commits an offence who operates a motor vehicle or vessel or operates or assists in the operation of an aircraft or of railway equipment or has the care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment, whether it is in motion or not,

(a) while the person’s ability to operate the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment is impaired by alcohol or a drug; or

(b) having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the concentration in the person’s blood exceeds eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood.

(2) For greater certainty, the reference to impairment by alcohol or a drug in paragraph (1)(a) includes impairment by a combination of alcohol and a drug.
Here's the definition of 'vessel':
"vessel" includes a machine designed to derive support in the atmosphere primarily from reactions against the earth’s surface of air expelled from the machine.
         Image


User avatar
hwybear
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2933
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:21 am
Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!

Moderator

by: hwybear on
Fri Mar 27, 2009 7:36 pm

Pretty sure it has not been mentioned as boating stuff is not governed by the HTA.

Boating is governed by the Criminal Code and a few boating acts. I am not a marine operator, so I have no clue what the acts are or what they are called.

I will have to ask one of the marine operators.
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


User avatar
Radar Identified
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2881
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:26 pm
Location: Toronto

Moderator

by: Radar Identified on
Fri Mar 27, 2009 10:37 pm

FiReSTaRT wrote:What if you're in a kayak with a kid and you're drunk, you capsize it and the kid drowns?
I think you could get charged with criminal negligence causing death.


User avatar
ditchMD
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 11:39 am

by: ditchMD on
Sat Mar 28, 2009 7:11 am

My mistake about HTA vs. Criminal Code. As much as one shouldn't be near water when drunk, many have that 'one or two beer' while canoeing or fishing from a human powered vessel. Do you guys think that a charge of impaired is appropriate or excessive if someone has a drink (inebriated or not) in a human powered vessel (regardless of any other potential charges)?

Thanks for looking into it hwybear!!


User avatar
Squishy
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 709
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:45 am
Location: Orillia
Contact:

by: Squishy on
Sat Mar 28, 2009 7:25 am

Under the Liquor License Act, you can't even have open alcohol on board a boat unless there are permanent sleeping and cooking facilities on board. I'll dig up the relevant sections and definitions.
Last edited by Squishy on Sat Mar 28, 2009 7:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
         Image


User avatar
Squishy
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 709
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:45 am
Location: Orillia
Contact:

by: Squishy on
Sat Mar 28, 2009 7:36 am

There's quite a bit that applies, so I'll provide a link instead:
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statut ... .htm#s31s1

Sections 31 and 32 are the relevant sections.

'Private place' is defined under s. 3 of REG. 718.
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/e ... 0718_e.htm

Open alcohol is only allowed on boats with eating and sleeping areas if the boat is docked.

As for whether alcohol should be banned on boats in open water, I think so. Lots of people get into trouble on Simcoe here, many while drunk. We recently sank one of our rescue boats trying to save one of them.

EDIT: The case that sank our boat resulted in charges under the Liquor License Act. :(
http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/421525
         Image


User avatar
Bookm
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 632
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:38 pm
Location: Stratford, Ontario

by: Bookm on
Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:17 am

I used to just grab a paddle and go. Now I have a complete boat-kit (safety stuff) on board. Not sure how I ever managed without it ;)

Now if I ever get my 6-pack taken away (and fined), I QUIT! I'll just take up TV as my weekend hobby, LOL.


User avatar
Squishy
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 709
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:45 am
Location: Orillia
Contact:

by: Squishy on
Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:56 am

If everyone could just be responsible we wouldn't need all these nanny laws.

Maybe if first responders were allowed to dunk the drunks back in the water as bait for some monster pike. :twisted:
         Image


User avatar
ticketcombat
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 486
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 5:59 pm
Location: Toronto
Contact:

by: ticketcombat on
Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:53 pm

Bookm wrote:Now if I ever get my 6-pack taken away (and fined), I QUIT! I'll just take up TV as my weekend hobby, LOL.
Watching it or appearing on it? Or did you mean you'll replace the 6-pack with a flat screen on the kayak? Just be careful, the ducks might trip on the extension cord.
Fight Your Ticket!


User avatar
hwybear
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2933
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:21 am
Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!

Moderator

by: hwybear on
Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:15 pm

Squishy wrote:If everyone could just be responsible we wouldn't need all these nanny laws
hey....there would go my job security :wink:
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


User avatar
Bookm
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 632
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:38 pm
Location: Stratford, Ontario

by: Bookm on
Tue Mar 31, 2009 8:16 am

Squishy wrote:If everyone could just be responsible we wouldn't need all these nanny laws.
We used to call those people NERDS! LOL (oh how times have changed, hehe)




User avatar
racer
VIP
VIP
Posts: 959
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:27 pm
Location: Guelph, Ontario
Contact:

by: racer on
Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:41 am

Squishy wrote:NERDS are allergic to the sun. You'll never find one on a boat, much less drinking on one.
I thought UWaterloo engineers were also allergic to the sun given how much time they spend in the basement of Rod Coutts Hall, or in the confines of CPH!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Post Reply

Return to “General Talk”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests