Ticketed for Trespassing

[yeltoM]

A 16 year old was riding some local trails on his trail bike. He was stopped by a passerby who informed him he was trespassing. He was asked for and gave his name (I know, mistake number 1) and went on his way.

The following evening a police constable visits his home asking the youth if he knew the reason for the visit. The youth replied that he knew why the police may be visiting (yeah, mistake number 2). The constable presented the 16 year old with a provincial offences ticket for "enter premises when entry prohibited", contrary to Trespass to Property Act section 2(1)(a)(i).

The youth intends to ask for his day in court and although he has no evidence to the contrary will plead "not guilty". He claims there were no signs posted prohibiting entry. He was riding his bike responsibly, on a clearly laid-out trail, and was not destroying crops or property.

My questions to you are:
Can a 16 year old, with no income, be ticketed/charged and fined for a Provicial Offence?

When he has his day in court must he, after pleading "not guilty" produce evidence supporting his position, or can he simply rest his case after the prosecution has presented theirs?

[FiReSTaRT]

I've never dealt with this sort of a ticket, but what I'd try to do is first try to get off on a technicality (cop not showing up, 11b, lack of disclosure) and if that doesn't work, present the kid's point of view in court. If he still gets convicted, he can make his plea with the JP along the lines of:
"Your worship, I didn't see any no-trespassing signs and I was riding responsibly along a clearly marked trail. When stopped, I gave my name to the property owner as required by law. I am 16 years old and cannot afford to pay the ticket. Could you please cut me a break?" Chances are the JP will reduce the amount and give him a few months to pay it.

[Mistero2009]

A 16 year old was riding some local trails on his trail bike. He was stopped by a passerby who informed him he was trespassing. He was asked for and gave his name (I know, mistake number 1) and went on his way.

The following evening a police constable visits his home asking the youth if he knew the reason for the visit. The youth replied that he knew why the police may be visiting (yeah, mistake number 2). The constable presented the 16 year old with a provincial offences ticket for "enter premises when entry prohibited", contrary to Trespass to Property Act section 2(1)(a)(i).

The youth intends to ask for his day in court and although he has no evidence to the contrary will plead "not guilty". He claims there were no signs posted prohibiting entry. He was riding his bike responsibly, on a clearly laid-out trail, and was not destroying crops or property.

My questions to you are:
Can a 16 year old, with no income, be ticketed/charged and fined for a Provicial Offence?

When he has his day in court must he, after pleading "not guilty" produce evidence supporting his position, or can he simply rest his case after the prosecution has presented theirs?

1) Yes! I don't know of a reason why not other than just a discretion of a cop.

2) He can't rest his case, he has to in the very least provide an explanation.
My suggestion is to read the section (2(1)(a)(i)) of the TPA. TPA is very clear and easy to read/understand. See if what the guy did falls under that section. After all, if the guy was on a trail chances are he wouldn't know whether he was trespassing or not and their wouldn't be any indicators.

3) Tell that youth not to ever give his name/address up to a passerby!

4) Don't open the door for a cop!!! You got every right not to speak to the police while in your home!

[Mistero2009]

When stopped, I gave my name to the property owner as required by law.

I recall no such requirement! Is it really in there???

[Cafe Racer]

I think the cop and the passer by will need to be at court, i highly doubt both will be there.

If they are some one has way too much time on their hands.

[matt491]

When stopped, I gave my name to the property owner as required by law.

I recall no such requirement! Is it really in there???

ABSOLUTELY NOT A REQUIREMENT! If stopped by the police, that is one thing, but a random passerby you do NOT have any requirement to talk to.

[yeltoM]

I've never dealt with this sort of a ticket, but what I'd try to do is first try to get off on a technicality (cop not showing up, 11b, lack of disclosure) and if that doesn't work, present the kid's point of view in court. If he still gets convicted, he can make his plea with the JP along the lines of:
"Your worship, I didn't see any no-trespassing signs and I was riding responsibly along a clearly marked trail. When stopped, I gave my name to the property owner as required by law. I am 16 years old and cannot afford to pay the ticket. Could you please cut me a break?" Chances are the JP will reduce the amount and give him a few months to pay it.

This is kind of how he plans to do things. I suppose it's best that he presents his point of view.

[yeltoM]

1) Yes! I don't know of a reason why not other than just a discretion of a cop.

2) He can't rest his case, he has to in the very least provide an explanation.
My suggestion is to read the section (2(1)(a)(i)) of the TPA. TPA is very clear and easy to read/understand. See if what the guy did falls under that section. After all, if the guy was on a trail chances are he wouldn't know whether he was trespassing or not and their wouldn't be any indicators.

3) Tell that youth not to ever give his name/address up to a passerby!

4) Don't open the door for a cop!!! You got every right not to speak to the police while in your home!

Is a 16 year old not subject to the Young Offenders Act? Or does this only apply in Criminal Code matters?

He now realises he should have kept his yap shut on both occassions. Lesson learned, hindsight being what it is.

[Wicked-Vengence]

If memory serves, this should be easy to beat in court.

2. (1) Every person who is not acting under a right or authority conferred by law and who, (a) without the express permission of the occupier, the proof of which rests on the defendant (Your responsible to prove you have a right to be there)

(i) enters on premises when entry is prohibited under this Act, or
(ii) engages in an activity on premises when the activity is prohibited under this Act; or
(b) does not leave the premises immediately after he or she is directed to do so by the occupier of the premises or a person authorized by the occupier


3. (1) Entry on premises may be prohibited by notice to that effect (any signs and entry is prohibited without any notice on premises,
(a) that is a garden, field or other land that is under cultivation, including a lawn, orchard, vineyard and premises on which trees have been planted and have not attained an average height of more than two metres and woodlots on land used primarily for agricultural purposes; or
(b) that is enclosed in a manner that indicates the occupier’s intention to keep persons off the premises or to keep animals on the premises. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 3 (1). (i.e. A fence)



Now, as far as I know, this means that you cannot be charged with Trespassing until (a) You are on private land that is noted as being private (also note that if it is fenced in, then that is considered prohibited land) Or(b) you have to be asked to leave by someone in position to initiate this request (the owner or lawful representative) and do not do so.



If you were able to get on the property without going through some type of gate or fence and there were no Private Property/No Trespassing signs (take pictures of the entrance you used) and can demonstrate that, your in the clear as long as you also left when this person told you that you were on private property.

[koFFey]

I've never dealt with this sort of a ticket, but what I'd try to do is first try to get off on a technicality (cop not showing up, 11b, lack of disclosure) and if that doesn't work, present the kid's point of view in court. If he still gets convicted, he can make his plea with the JP along the lines of:
"Your worship, I didn't see any no-trespassing signs and I was riding responsibly along a clearly marked trail. When stopped, I gave my name to the property owner as required by law. I am 16 years old and cannot afford to pay the ticket. Could you please cut me a break?" Chances are the JP will reduce the amount and give him a few months to pay it.

^Agreed. This is probably the best outcome for the boy. Unfortunately, by legal definition of trespassing, in this senario, is trespassing in action. He doesn't have to show that he intended to trespass, but had only intended to do whatever caused the trespass (riding the bike on the trail). It is no excuse that the trespasser mistakenly believed that he was not doing wrong or understanding the wrong (local trails). A child can be a trespasser under the law. Even without signs. The invisiable barrier of land ownership would stand up in court.

[yeltoM]

If memory serves, this should be easy to beat in court.

2. (1) Every person who is not acting under a right or authority conferred by law and who, (a) without the express permission of the occupier, the proof of which rests on the defendant (Your responsible to prove you have a right to be there)

(i) enters on premises when entry is prohibited under this Act, or
(ii) engages in an activity on premises when the activity is prohibited under this Act; or
(b) does not leave the premises immediately after he or she is directed to do so by the occupier of the premises or a person authorized by the occupier


3. (1) Entry on premises may be prohibited by notice to that effect (any signs and entry is prohibited without any notice on premises,
(a) that is a garden, field or other land that is under cultivation, including a lawn, orchard, vineyard and premises on which trees have been planted and have not attained an average height of more than two metres and woodlots on land used primarily for agricultural purposes; or
(b) that is enclosed in a manner that indicates the occupier’s intention to keep persons off the premises or to keep animals on the premises. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 3 (1). (i.e. A fence)



Now, as far as I know, this means that you cannot be charged with Trespassing until (a) You are on private land that is noted as being private (also note that if it is fenced in, then that is considered prohibited land) Or(b) you have to be asked to leave by someone in position to initiate this request (the owner or lawful representative) and do not do so.



If you were able to get on the property without going through some type of gate or fence and there were no Private Property/No Trespassing signs (take pictures of the entrance you used) and can demonstrate that, your in the clear as long as you also left when this person told you that you were on private property.

I intend to go with him to take some photos tomorrow. I don't believe there were any gates or fences.

[yeltoM]

[QUOTE=koFFey;951891........................ A child can be a trespasser under the law. Even without signs. The invisiable barrier of land ownership would stand up in court.[/QUOTE]

This is the part I was unclear about.

He doesn't mind being found guilty and having to pay the man, but hopefully he can get the fine reduced.

[FiReSTaRT]

I was almost positive that I came across the requirement to identify yourself to the property owner if you are approached while riding on private property.
I came across this page http://www.region.durham.on.ca/depar...atv_safety.htm

If stopped by a police officer or property owner when riding an ATV, you must provide your name and address

Edit: Here's another one for Subury http://www.police.sudbury.on.ca/traffic/atv.php

The owner or occupier of the property you are using may stop any person riding an ATV and you must identify yourself with your name and address. A police officer may also stop any person riding an ATV.

[Rob MacLennan]

If the person in question entered the property without seeing a "no trespassing" sign, then he cannot be considered to be trespassing until informed of such. Signage is considered the same as being informed by a person.

Once informed, did he leave immediately? If not, then he was trespassing from that point, forward and the charge is viable.

Yes, a 16 year old can be held liable for trespass.

[koFFey]

Review::

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/sta...990-c-t21.html

This is Ontario laws.

But I agree with Rob, "Once informed, did he leave immediately? If not, then he was trespassing from that point, forward and the charge is viable."

They say that $2000 is the most the offence can be charged, however, first offence, minor, left immediately, no damages, I would say it should be small, if at all.

[yeltoM]

If the person in question entered the property without seeing a "no trespassing" sign, then he cannot be considered to be trespassing until informed of such. Signage is considered the same as being informed by a person.

Once informed, did he leave immediately? If not, then he was trespassing from that point, forward and the charge is viable.

Yes, a 16 year old can be held liable for trespass.

He had actually left the property when the passerby (may have been the landlord we're not sure) informed him that he HAD BEEN trespassing and asked him for his name.

The passerby couldn't even possibly identify him, if it came to that in court, as the youth was wearing a motocross helmet and goggles at the time. The only evidence against him is his name and the fact that he acknowledged the reason for the constable's visit.

[yeltoM]

Review::

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/sta...990-c-t21.html

This is Ontario laws.

But I agree with Rob, "Once informed, did he leave immediately? If not, then he was trespassing from that point, forward and the charge is viable."

They say that $2000 is the most the offence can be charged, however, first offence, minor, left immediately, no damages, I would say it should be small, if at all.

The fine on the ticket is $50 plus a $15 victim surcharge.

[koFFey]

The fine on the ticket is $50 plus a $15 victim surcharge.

You have to be kidding...
Slap on the wrist from the judge and a private meeting with the officer for filling his court room and wasting his time with petty offences.

[knightswraith]

My parents have a house off a private road north of the city and people come on the road and screw around i know from dealing with York regional police on the matter that in order for them to lay a trespassing charge then you would to ask them to leave the property and if they refuse or do not leave then its trespassing ( Canada’s fuk’d up legal system) since it didn’t sound like the guy that went up to the kid told him to leave then it doesn’t stand ...

also if people have been using his land for trails for an extended amount of time and this guy is either a new owner or suddenly decided he doesn’t want it now the parents could argue a right of way on the land has come into play and so then boy has a legal right to access the path/trail ( real estate law) - just a few things for you consider and Google

not sure how much it comes into play tho since im not a lawyer

[yeltoM]

You have to be kidding...
Slap on the wrist from the judge and a private meeting with the officer for filling his court room and wasting his time with petty offences.

That's what the kid is hoping for, and THAT'S why he wants his day in court.

In my opinion the most he should have received from the constable was a stern lecture. When I was sixteen a swift kick in the arse from the cop would have sufficed.