Off-Topic Canadian Law - Is it as bad as we think?

[Lithos]

Since Yaniv got this wonderful subforum, the conversations have been classic. But one thing I've noticed is a lot of five second browsing for Canadian laws, misinterpretations, and then Canadians having to come in and set the record straight. I for one actually would like to see where English Common Law has diverged between the US and our neighbors to the north. I don't think we have the equivalent of a Canadian Nick Rekieta, but having citizens come in and clear up misconceptions would be quite nice.

Sorry to cite you @ComeGetSome , but you helping to correct the aforementioned misconceptions has been enlightening. Best example:

Which is kinda the point I was trying to make. Don't quote US laws when talking about Canadian crimes. Laws have boundaries. Also, potentially PIPEDA but that's already been called out.

(Edit: I'll start linking to @branwen and @ComeGetSome 's responses in this thread as they are Canadians and are very informed of Canadian laws.)

Here are topics I think we need to clear up:

• Strata property law
• Firearms/weapons regulations
• Health records/subpoenas
• Human Rights Tribunals
• Civil rights laws in Canada
• Castle Doctrine/Stand your ground
• Privacy laws (in:re recording in public, e.g. reporters, WGKitty, Yaniv's Ring, at the BCHRT, etc.)
• Welfare and disability
• Local RCMP vs. Federal RCMP

 

[Junkail]

In the US, the second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms as a means of fight back against any future tyrannical governments. However, this does not mean that the government cannot enforce gun control laws, and many states and counties have their own laws on arms. I've mentioned this before, but California has one of the stricter gun laws. For example, this state does not accept conceal carry permits from other states.

In Canada, guns are classified into three categories:unrestricted, restricted, and prohibited. Unrestricted guns (generally hunting rifles) still require a permit and safety course. Restricted guns (ie:handguns) require more paperwork, and only legal as adults are allowed to own a license for one. Prohibited guns may not be sold, and can only be owned by people who owned one prior to the ban of said weapons.

 

[⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛]

I'm sorry, but defending Canadian gun laws is not acceptable.

Laws there are thoroughly arbitary, even worse than the unconstitutional restrictions in hellholes like California, and enforced capriciously.

The laws on 'prohibited firearms' are especially disgusting. If the owners of historic pieces like M1903 pistols follow the law, they will be destroyed when they die. I hope not one such man complies with that law. Better that they be in the hands of motorcycle gangs than cut up by pigs. Hopefully they will instead be smuggled to collectors in the States.

Anyone who thinks that Yaniv couldn't get a firearms license is dreaming. On the other hand, anyone who states openly that Yaniv should be confined to a mental institution for being a delusional autogynophile could very well have trouble with that.

 

[Koby_Fish]

I'm sorry, but defending Canadian gun laws is not acceptable.

Laws there are thoroughly arbitary, even worse than the unconstitutional restrictions in hellholes like California, and enforced capriciously.

The laws on 'prohibited firearms' are especially disgusting. If the owners of historic pieces like M1903 pistols follow the law, they will be destroyed when they die. I hope not one such man complies with that law. Better that they be in the hands of motorcycle gangs than cut up by pigs. Hopefully they will instead be smuggled to collectors in the States.

Anyone who thinks that Yaniv couldn't get a firearms license is dreaming. On the other hand, anyone who states openly that Yaniv should be confined to a mental institution for being a delusional autogynophile could very well have trouble with that.

It's worse than that. In Canada, the Liberals just turn over definition of prohibited and restricted weapons for purposes of classifying or re-classifying weapons right over to the RCMP, which is one of the reasons why a lot of the definitions, restrictions, and prohibitions are completely insane and make no fucking sense. News flash for all the canary legs out there, being in law enforcement doesn't automatically render a person an "expert" in firearms.

A lot of the times stuff's getting classed or re-classed as either restricted (when it shouldn't be) or outright prohibited is based on cosmetic things, like the gun looks scary to some female diversity hire who's never handled such a thing in her life.

While the Conservatives were in power last time they wrangled that power back to the Parliament, so it would have to be parliament that decided it, but when Justin Trudeau got in, he gave that power right back to the RCMP, where it absolutely does not belong. It's a bloody conflict of interest, is what it is.

 

[Miss Misery]

Right. We all want to know more about Canadian weapons regulations, but can we do it in a way that doesn't involve an angry spergmatch?

@Koby_Fish, can you elaborate on the classification of firearms thing (and maybe leave the lol females out of it)?

As for me, I'll just go read policy about the rest of it. It's easier that way.

Edit: Regarding health records - Canada's version of HIPAA is the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). Electronic health records systems log every time a record is accessed and what login accessed it. If you don't have a reason for looking at that medical record then you'd better be prepared to explain yourself.

 

[Cato]

One thing that's important to mention about restricted firearms (e.g. legal handguns) is that even while they are legal to own, when you apply for a Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL) you get a call from the RCMP asking a variety of questions (largely ones about your mental health and life circumstances to ascertain that you aren't obviously suicidal or homicidal) including why you want to own a handgun. Self-defence (EDIT - against other human beings) is not recognized as a legitimate reason to own a handgun in Canada, and will result in a denied application. Target shooting (and collection) is the standard "acceptable" answer.

Concealed carry is basically not a thing in Canada. Technically a licence for it legally exists but it is the policy of the Chief Firearms Officer not to issue them, and I believe the last time this was investigated using FOIP only two people in the entire country were granted one for personal protection against other people (I addressed this in greater detail on another post on this site, with citations, if anyone really cares enough to search for it). Slightly more people are authorized to carry for protection against wildlife when they life and/or work in remote wilderness areas.

There are also very strict laws respecting the storage and transportation of firearms, which can basically be summarized by saying that you are required to keep them in locked safes, with ammunition unloaded and in separate locked safes, and you can only transport restricted firearms along routes that make sense for "legitimate" use, such as driving to and from a gun range. You can still get charged for being in possession of a handgun even if you have a licence for it, if you don't adhere to this.

 

[Cato]

Pardon me for not being an expert.

Unlike the US, Canada did a decent job at delegating powers. The general idea is that the federal govt passes legislation and the provinces implement that legislation as they please. This is because each province of Canada had to be convinced to join.

Examples:

You must register your guns with the federal government but owning a gun is done through the province. In BC and Alberta it comes down to your municipality if you have the right to hunt or defend yourself.

You can get a concealed carry license in some provinces but they are are rare. Contact a provincial officer and provide a damn good reason as to why you're danger.

Weed is legal but is it going to sold through a province run store or through a free market approach? The provinces decide

The federal govt guarantees universal healthcare and requires a public education system but it is the provinces that decide the spending and details like the curriculum. There is no common core equivalent in Canada for this reason.



Federal laws, provincial laws, municipal laws and HOA stuff? Sounds like a pain to sift through.

I'm sorry, but this is off. Or at the very least, it's a misleading oversimplification. Canada's Constitution assigns the federal and provincial governments separate heads of power. For example, the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over criminal law, and the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over healthcare, so when there was a law passed regarding assisted human reproduction it went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada to determine which of those heads of power that fell under (and even the SCC couldn't agree about that at all).

There are complicated legal debates about what constitutes "supplementing" vs "complimenting" laws falling under a separate jurisdiction's head of power, and what constitutes criminal law vs laws of a "local nature," etc etc and so on and so forth, but again, this is something that even legal scholars and judges don't agree about. As a general rule it's not correct to say that the federal government passes legislation and the provinces enact it though. On the contrary, the federal and provincial governments theoretically have very clearly defined and separate purviews. It's only when individual legislation is looked at and slotted in that it gets pretty complicated, and well beyond the scope of this thread.

 

[Lithos]

Just marking this for later response, but pretty much ignore everything you said above. It's wrong on so many levels.

I propose that non-canucks ask questions rather than trying to sperg about Canadian law and failing miserably.

Part of why I created this thread. Also, rather than going 'lol cucked', Yaniv may actually be in more trouble with the actual laws on the books, and not our shitty uninformed interpretations of such. So, I wanna know about such things.

 

[Cato]

Part of why I created this thread. Also, rather than going 'lol cucked', Yaniv may actually be in more trouble with the actual laws on the books, and not our shitty uninformed interpretations of such. So, I wanna know about such things.

Yeah, I do appreciate this thread, but sadly I think it's just going to be another dump of gibberish and any legit info is going to be buried in the rubble and most people won't be able to distinguish what is what.

Case in point: https://kiwifarms.net/threads/briti...hts-tribunal-bchrt.58821/page-16#post-5145974

This was one of the most ignorant, stupid and nonsensical posts I've come across here (and that's a heavily contested title), and it got a very positive reception despite being contrary to basic common sense (seriously, he's claiming the entire proceedings are completely and obviously illegitimate on their face, and he knows this, but somehow nobody in the entire legal profession in Canada has clued into this in spite of it getting international media attention). The same applies to a lot of posts that same guy wrote across multiple sock accounts.

Maybe it would be useful to list quality contributors where this subject matter is concerned in the OP? @branwen and @ComeGetSome know what they are talking about.

I'd also like to piggyback off what @branwen was saying and emphasize that people are looking for absolute, clear answers to questions that don't have absolute, clear answers. I have discussed the Yaniv case with multiple people in the BC legal community, and there is certainly no clear consensus as to how it is going to play out. The only things that are agreed upon is that Yaniv actually did present a prima facie case for discrimination, that the defendants have presented defences that bring competing (legally speaking) legitimate arguments into conflict that must be weighed against one another, and that Yaniv has engaged in misconduct that could influence the decision. Beyond that, it's anyone's ball game.

Ditto, with respect to the RCMP raid, there are a lot of unknowns about the details of that investigation, police have a lot of discretion, the Crown requires investigations to comport to a certain standard, legit cases get dropped all the time, and flimsy cases are brought forward all the time, all for myriad reasons. Anyone claiming to have any definite answers of what is going to go down doesn't know what they are talking about.

 

[Miss Misery]

Oh lord. This is not a general overview thread. I think at this point we all have a general idea of Canadian law and how it differs from US law. This is a clarification thread for more confusing legalities that have come up the subforum. If you are not versed in Canadian law as it pertains to Yaniv, you do not need to respond. And yes, optimistic.

For example, Yaniv lives in a strata condo in Langley City, BC. He is a pain in the ass to his fellow residents, his mother claims the parking lot/sidewalk is their property, and is supposedly suing the entire building over WGKitty. What rights do other property owners in his strata have and what rights does Yaniv have?

Edit: @Cato, you'll note that account is banned. It was a sock of our friendly legal troll and Personal Army Brigadier General, @Henry Case. Also if you report the gibberish, I'll do my best to remove it. I really want this thread to be focused and informative and once it gets the initial sperging out of its system I'm going to do some cleanup.

Edit 2: @branwen, I wish you'd bring your post back. It was a good answer and described a lot of the lunacy of the HRT and how it really CAN'T be explained.

 

[wabbits]

Oh lord. This is not a general overview thread. I think at this point we all have a general idea of Canadian law and how it differs from US law. This is a clarification thread for more confusing legalities that have come up the subforum. If you are not versed in Canadian law as it pertains to Yaniv, you do not need to respond.

For example, Yaniv lives in a strata condo in Langley City, BC. He is a pain in the ass to his fellow residents, his mother claims the parking lot/sidewalk is their property, and is supposedly suing the entire building over WGKitty. What rights do other property owners in his strata have and what rights does Yaniv have?

Edit: @Cato, you'll note that account is banned. It was a sock of our friendly legal troll and Personal Army Brigadier General, @Henry Case. Also if you report the gibberish, I'll do my best to remove it. I really want this thread to be focused and informative and once it gets the initial sperging out of its system I'm going to do some cleanup.

And here I thought you were just building a sped pen (and so I hurried into it). I salute your idealism. And I expect you to be tormented for it. If only I could digitally convey a beer instead of a rainbow.

 

[Miss Misery]

And here I thought you were just building a sped pen (and so I hurried into it). I salute your idealism. And I expect you to be tormented for it. If only I could digitally convey a beer instead of a rainbow.

Por que no los dos?

 

[Lithos]

Well, from what I remember of @branwen 's post, it makes me wonder more things. If the HRT is its own uncontested force, then how much of it is subject to public opinion? Are presiding members accountable for anything? Are they tenured? Is anything on the line for Member Cousineau over this whole shitshow, or is she able to tell all the haters to fuck off? She's set her twitter to private because she now knows she, too, is being watched.

I wouldn't care if this whole thread gets shit up if it means there's less shitting up of the other, more informative threads in this subforum.

 

[Cato]

Well, from what I remember of @branwen 's post, it makes me wonder more things. If the HRT is its own uncontested force, then how much of it is subject to public opinion? Are presiding members accountable for anything? Are they tenured? Is anything on the line for Member Cousineau over this whole shitshow, or is she able to tell all the haters to fuck off? She's set her twitter to private because she now knows she, too, is being watched.

I wouldn't care if this whole thread gets shit up if it means there's less shitting up of the other, more informative threads in this subforum.

"Members are appointed by Order-in-Council by the Lieutenant Governor, for a two to five year renewable term."

Tribunals are more susceptible to public opinion than real courts, due to there being less oversight/accountability. This applies both to the decisions that members make, and decisions about whether to renew appointments to members.

It's not really accurate to call the HRT "uncontested" though, as there is a judicial review process (even though, as we've established, it's deferential and to a standard of reasonableness rather than correctness).

 

[Lithos]

"Members are appointed by Order-in-Council by the Lieutenant Governor, for a two to five year renewable term."

Tribunals are more susceptible to public opinion than real courts, due to there being less oversight/accountability. This applies both to the decisions that members make, and decisions about whether to renew appointments to members.

It's not really accurate to call the HRT "uncontested" though, as there is a judicial review process (even though, as we've established, it's deferential and to a standard of reasonableness rather than correctness).

Then may Yaniv's quote "I hope I get a big Christmas present!" becomes attached to the BCHRT for a long damn time.

 

[Arctic Fox]

Thank you for making this. Getting clarification about Canucklands various legal happenings is very appreciated. Sifting through the sperging of people on here is difficult, and Google searches are often hit or miss.

 

[Junkail]

@Cato besides hunting, what other purposes can justify a need for a gun, if self defense isn't one of them?

 

[Miss Misery]

I wouldn't care if this whole thread gets shit up if it means there's less shitting up of the other, more informative threads in this subforum.

I mean I'd prefer to see less shit in general all over the sub, but I tend to agree. And at least now we have a place to direct the legal derails (and questions!)

But again, if you haven't a clue as to how one of the subjects listed in the OP relates to Yaniv AND you aren't well-versed in the subject itself? No one is holding a stun gun to your head and forcing you to type. Move along, friend. There's plenty of other threads that would love to have you!

 

[Cato]

@Cato besides hunting, what other purposes can justify a need for a gun, if self defense isn't one of them?

From the Firearms Act:

Again, you'll see that protection of life is technically written into the laws, but in practice this clashes with policy of the Chief Firearms Officer. Generally it is interpreted to allow for protection against wildlife but not people (see the last sentence of this post).

The RCMP Firearms Act fact sheet page contains info for the following audiences:

Indigenous Peoples of Canada Adaptations Regulations (Firearms) (CFP 1208 )
Auctioneers Who Sell Firearms (CFP 1204)
Inherited Firearms (CFP 1225)
Firearm Collectors (CFP 1210)
Firearms Businesses (including museums) (CFP 1209)
Target Shooters (CFP 1213)
Using a Firearm for Wilderness Protection (CFP 1206)

 

[Jaded Optimist]

Fuck you gun sperg are just annoying.

Reasons Yaniv won't be able to buy a firearm:
1) Yaniv has been held in psychiatric hold for suicide (their admission)
2) Yaniv has been found in possession of illegal weapons
3) ongoing police investigation
4) history of suicide attempts
5) you have to take a course, apply, and have w people vouch for you. That's before the psych stuff
6) money, firearms are costly.
7) no one I know would sell them a firearm, i mean those in his area. They know him.

He could buy a musket, but can't buy powder. He could buy an "antique" but you can't buy ammo or powder legally to reload. The dude is a dumbass and if he tried to reload he would blow himself up.

Anyone who thinks he could get a firearm and ammo is an idiot.