Charge:

Have alcohol on Provincial Campsite when not permitted (a long weekend).

- Received Disclosure to see if dumbass stepson was honest with me.

- Clause in Disclosure states that "out of court" charge of $125 will be increased to "actual" charge of $250 if brought to trial.

What the heck is THAT all about. Is this just more Crown scare tactics? I have no experience with liquor offences.

Book

Perhaps you should ask this guy!

Bookm wrote:- Received Disclosure to see if dumbass stepson was honest with me.

Was he?

*******************

Yesterday, complaint of ATV's in a town. I arrive in unmarked, watch the ATV spinning around, comes down the road stops by the front of my car (unknowningly to me, it's his driveway). Adult comes out of the house, I explain it....guy..."wasn't me"

2nd ATV does the same, parks by 1st ATV, not driven by owner, owner walking arrives about 5minlater , "it wasn't on the road"

Can you site the Act and section of the charge?

hwybear wrote:

Bookm wrote:- Received Disclosure to see if dumbass stepson was honest with me.

Was he?

Yes... except for one major detail. He told me the rangers said they weren't going to lay any charges; that they would just take the beer (plain view in open tent). So he felt there was no harm in accepting ownership. It has since been disclosed that the rangers said that AFTER he accepted ownership. Then they came back 1/2 hour later with tickets anyway (even LE is less than honest on occasion I guess).

I'll check the section on his ticket tonight. I'm quite certain that he's guilty, I'm just confused about being told the fine is DOUBLE if contested? I'm pretty sure HTA fines can't be raised from that printed on the ticket just because it's contested in court.

I was about to tell him to call the Crown and ask for a plea of $50 to avoid court, but I'd like a better grasp on this issue first.

I know I'm jumping the gun but I don't think this is an HTA offence. I think it's under POSSESSION OF LIQUOR IN PROVINCIAL PARKS, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 723 which is a part of the Liquor Licence Act.

Also this sounds like coercion on the part of the parks officers.

Yah, I know it's not HTA (per title) but the process seems to be the same. The thing that bugs me is the boys were told not to leave the park. The rangers came back 35 minutes later with tickets they said they weren't going to write.

I'm not sure if they were legally bound to remain, but I would have been long gone.

I also advised them to avoid Provincial parks (at their age). There's plenty of privately owned parks that would welcome their campsite fees. I know it's easy to picture them as a bunch of drunk rowdies, but that's not at all how it was. They just arrived and were setting up camp. The girls went for a walk and the boys left the tent door open (DUH) while getting setup.

Were there signs posted saying that alcohol was prohibited?

If there is some sign or notice that alcohol is not permitted, that's one thing, but...

LIQUOR LICENCE ACT OF ONTARIO

Unlawful possession or consumption

Definition

31. (1) In this section,

"residence" means a place that is actually occupied and used as a dwelling, whether or not in common with other persons, including all premises used in conjunction with the place to which the general public is not invited or permitted access, and, if the place occupied and used as a dwelling is a tent, includes the land immediately adjacent to and used in conjunction with the tent. R.S.O. 1990, c. L.19, s. 31 (1).

Unlawful possession or consumption

(2) No person shall have or consume liquor in any place other than,

(a) a residence;

(b) premises in respect of which a licence or permit is issued; or

(c) a private place as defined in the regulations. R.S.O. 1990, c. L.19, s. 31 (2).

Exception

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to the possession of liquor that is in a closed container. R.S.O. 1990, c. L.19, s. 31 (3).

A tent is a residence according to the Liquor Licence Act.

Okay, they can ban alcohol in certain places, but if your stepson believed he was acting lawfully and there were no obvious signs posting to the contrary, he might be able to get the fine dramatically lowered.

Dumbass former co-worker of mine had exactly the same thing happen to him a few years ago. He looked up the Liquor Licence Act section referenced above, called the Prosecutor, had a meeting and he paid a $25 fine. Or at least he says he did.

I'd wager there WERE signs posted at the gate. Boy is going to call today to see if a deal can be worked out.

Radar Identified wrote:Were there signs posted saying that alcohol was prohibited?.

The parks that I patrol each have 2 signs at the gate, both at about 3ft x 3ft, and each camper (site renter) is given it on a 8.5x11" piece of paper.

Oh well...

Then again my former co-worker says he was ticketed, literally, 10 feet from a sign and managed to plead down to something less.

Co-Worker: "Where does it say I can't drink in the park?"

Ranger: "Over there." (Pointing to the sign 10 feet from him.)