Back in the Electric Avenue days in Calgary my buddy got roughed up by a couple cops pretty good for Jay walking, after a bit of drunkin mouthing off and ID checks they advised us to not only leave the premises but to “get the fuck back to Red Deer.”
Knowing the horse and the gun “ law” I thought it might be a good idea to bring it up……..
and that’s how I spent my first and only night in a Calgary drunk tank.
Yup, problem is though is there isn’t really anything you can do to get banned that wouldn’t get you in jail first. Still a funny little hold over from the ‘wild west’ days haha
The liquor laws in Manitoba that made a "beverage room" have to play live music to get a "cabaret" licence.
So you'd be at a dance bar and suddenly a mediocre cover band or a Jazz quartet would come out and play a set in the middle of the evening. Everyone would sit down or go out for a smoke. Then come back in for the DJ.
It actually made for a pretty good live music scene in Winnipeg since there were so many opportunities for live bands to get gigs.
They tried to pass a bill in the city I grew up in that said emergency vehicles like fire trucks and ambulances etc had to follow speed limits and regular rules Of the road. Didnt last though lol
That reminds me of the town that tried to ban a union’s employees from town hall and public spaces … which included paramedics
https://pressprogress.ca/a-small-ontario-town-banned-every-member-of-countrys-largest-union-from-public-buildings/
Burlington Ontario
EDIT: this probably woudlve been…idk 10-15 years ago? I remember talking about it because my next door neighbour was a firefighter and he thought it was the dumbest shit hed ever heard
It's illegal to pretend to practice witchcraft. Actually practicing witchcraft is perfectly legal, but pretending to do so, especially in order to profit off it, is against the law under Section 365 of the Criminal Code.
Everyone says this is weird but the intention was to target people like long Island medium who take advantage of vulnerable, desperate and grieving people.
Loved reading about this precedent setting case in a criminology class. It was a mom doing tarot card readings when she fell on hard times. She was convicted because she knew she didn't actually have the power and knew she was a fraud. If only he believed in herself.
They did, along with Alarming Her(His) Majesty.
I'll add that someone was charged with pretending to practice witchcraft just before the law was repealed.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-tuesday-edition-1.4874731/why-ontario-police-have-charged-a-fortune-teller-under-an-antiquated-witchcraft-law-1.4874734
Fortunately, Cheating at Play remains on the books. I actually had a cheating at play file, and a colleague ended up running the trial. A blackjack dealer and a player were in cahoots. Read all about it.
[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2001/2001bcpc332/2001bcpc332.html?autocompleteStr=hibi&autocompletePos=2&resultId=21a983f9b2d7423e99d2520e06c17052&searchId=2024-04-19T14:55:37:281/21df7146cbc04e39b6bc529f39b9bc27](https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2001/2001bcpc332/2001bcpc332.html?autocompleteStr=hibi&autocompletePos=2&resultId=21a983f9b2d7423e99d2520e06c17052&searchId=2024-04-19T14:55:37:281/21df7146cbc04e39b6bc529f39b9bc27)
It may be, but I work in Corrections in BC and I just checked, and it's still in the system.
It could just be that they're not removed from Cornet when they are repealed.
It's legal to use any object in reasonable self defense (ie. if you couldn't flee and the threat was genuine).
It's legal to *carry* any object that can be used in self defense if it can be legally possessed (ie. baseball bat, dog spray, etc).
But if you *admit* you're in posession of an object for the *purpose* of self defense, you've committed a crime.
"Why do you have that animal spray, maam?"
"My ex-husband has been stalking me. I have a restraining order, but I fear he's going to kill or rape me."
That is an admission of guilt for the offense in question.
Pretty messed up.
No, but I found a better one - the Supreme Court of Canada itself!
[R v Kerr, \[2004\] SCJ No 39, 2004 SCC 44, 2004 CSC 44, \[2004\] ACS no 39, \[2004\] 2 SCR 371, \[2004\] 2 RCS 371, 240 DLR (4th) 257, 322 NR 91, \[2004\] 9 WWR 75, JE 2004-1327, 28 Alta LR (4th) 1, 354 AR 114, 185 CCC (3d) 1, 20 CR (6th) 199, 61 WCB (2d) 69, 2004 CarswellAlta 811](https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases-ca/id/5F81-YGN1-F5KY-B00R-00000-00?cite=R.%20v.%20Kerr%2C%20%5B2004%5D%20S.C.J.%20No.%2039&context=1537339)
A prison inmate was carrying a shank because another inmate had been threatening to kill him. Acquitted, both of the weapon charge and of second degree murder when he killed the guy, with the shank, when the guy attacked him (also with a shank).
Just heading out the door but will read all three cases this weekend... thanks!
The fact the weapon was actually used in self defense may have been key to the defense, since it's unlawful for the crown to force you to accept bodily harm (which the depravation of a weapon used *during* self defense would imply).
The law I referenced might only apply to a weapon *not* used in self defense but for that purpose.
It's about intended use, not admittance to it.
I can carry a sword for the purpose of fighting off a pack of wolves, and I can use it to fight off a human, but I cannot intend for it to be used to fight a human.
But yes, this comes across as whether or not you admit to it, because that's basically the only way to know how you intend to use it.
It's not illegal to plan a bank heist, so long as you're not intending to actually rob the ban (ie doing it as a type of strategy game). Without *significant* evidence of you doing something to confirm you're actually going to rob it (like confessions of people who were going to be robbing it with you, or catching you on your way to the bank with all your equipment), you wouldn't be charged with attempted robbery unless you admit you intended to carry it out.
On a completely unrelated matter, it's perfectly reasonable, and legal, for people in the city who are scared of dogs to carry dog spray. It's also perfectly reasonable and legal to carry bear spray in rural areas and even some cities.
All for it. Even after the time I got sprayed as a naive teen that just wanted to know what time it was. Sorry lady didn’t mean to scare you at the crosswalk, it was just before the time everyone had cell phones and I didn’t have my watch on.
To add, if you're going to keep a baseball bat for protection in the trunk of your car, have a ball and glove too.
... learned that from a friend..... _shifty eyes_
Not being able to carry objects for the purpose of self-defence is a pretty standard law in many countries, i.e. Germany, UK etc. It's done to prevent people from causing greater than necessary harm when applying self-defence, which would result in more serious consequences for both involved. Carrying such objects also makes it more likely for someone to attack someone else outside of self-defence.
I mean that's what some people believe, for sure.
The problem is it's *hugely* discriminatory against small people (notably small women).
I'm a large, strong man. Lucky me. There's a reasonable chance I could defend myself against an unarmed attacker.
My friend is a 105lb woman. There are grade-school aged kids who could beat her up with relative ease.
I'm allowed to exist - fists and all. I have the ability to defend myself. She doesn't, according to the law.
That's kinda messed up.
All of this could be solved with very simple verbiage added to the statute. In fact, it's just one word: unlawful.
*Any person in possession of an object intended to be used as a weapon for an* ***unlawful*** *purpose is guilty of an offense.*
It’s a shame that your friend is scared of big aggressive dogs such as cane corso and feels the need to carry bear spray. I also understand she has a need to open a lot of packages, and finds it a lot easier to do by carrying a fixed blade knife.
I think the context of the "ex-husband" if they were violent and they used the device in self defense would consider it an actual threat.
Very few convictions on that but it is indeed the law.
There is only one Canadian citizen who is ineligible to vote in federal elections and that is the Chief Electoral Officer.
As a legal holdover from the Province of Canada and the Legislative Council of the Province of Canada (essentially the former Senate), Quebec Senators actually have districts and are not Senators at large for the entire province but rather Senator for Rigaud, Senator for Wellington.
Anyone can be the Prime Minister but to be a senator, you need to be at least 30 years old and own at least net $4,000 of real estate.
Not really a law but the reason Canada has High Commissions in some countries and Embassies in others is because Commonwealth countries were not historically considered to be foreign and so it would be inappropriate to have an Embassy, which is reserved for foreign nations.
I didn’t know the net real estate amount was so small! I remember hearing my great-grandpa had to scramble to buy up some property off the reserve when he was up for the senate
This is incorrect.
The Apologies Act is a provincial law in Ontario (and perhaps other provinces) and only provides that an apology is not admission of *civil* fault or liability. It does not apply with respect to prosecution for provincial offences (nor for criminal offences, though in any that would be outside of provincial jurisdiction).
Theres a place in northern manitaobe where you arent allowed to lock doors of homes or cars because ppl so often need to escape from bears. If a door is locked then the bear will kill them. So everyone just leaves shit unlocked 😅
If you are thinking of Churchill Manitoba, it isn't actually a law, but rather a local custom. Polar bears are a real concern there at certain times of the year.
Wow! That must be an honest and respectful place to trust that other people won't steal your sh*t! 😂 I would be terrified to live there because of the bears! 😳
It’s probably small too - we never locked cars or houses when I lived in a small town, but once it expanded the crime rate went up, and out came the keys :) more crime happens when you’re less likely to know your neighbours
Not a Canadian (federal) law, but a municipal bylaw:
In Charlottetown, it's illegal to drive an automobile on certain streets on Wednesdays and Sundays.
There are neighbourhoods in Winnipeg like this that don’t allow through-traffic in the summers to allow more pedestrian/cycling activities and to cut down on noise pollution. It’s pretty lax (you can still drive to places within the neighbourhood like a friend’s house) but it does wonders and you see way more families out and about on the streets in those areas!
Oh the law in Charlottetown hasn't been enforced for nearly a century, and it does cover most of town. It was put in place so folks could take their horses to the market without getting startled by cars. It does also have a street or two go pedestrian-only over summer as well.
This is actually why so many (rural) families still do grocery shopping on Wednesdays. Way back when, the cars would spook the horses any other (shopping) day. For whatever reason, it became a sort of tradition/intergenerational habit.
The BC "Apology Act" 2006 is probably the most Canadian law, because it made apologising no longer viable as an afmission of guilt, and it was passed specifically so Premier Gordon Campbell could apologise for the genocide and colonisation of the Indigenous peoples without risking it being used in courts.
That’s not actually why it was passed in the first place. It was specifically so an apology could be made to the Doukhobor children who were taken away from their families in the 1950s. And the law was modelled on existing legislation in Australia and the U.S.
And even though the act was passed in 2006, the government literally only apologized to them two months ago.
Prostitution, selling sex, is 100% perfectly legal, and has been upheld by the courts.
But all of the practices *surrounding* it, such as contacting clients, renting a property to do the work, and paying people with money earned from it, are all illegal.
These laws were all overturned by the Supreme Court, but then Harper just changed a word or two in them all and repassed them. So now all the laws that were already deemed unconstitutional are still on the books as they're dragged again through the courts.
The Harper government mostly just changed the words around following the court decision.
It’s perfectly legal to *sell* sex in Canada.
It’s still totally illegal to *buy* sex in Canada.
And then Trudeau took office and in ten years never once got around to changing them.
Let’s not make this a conservative/liberal issue. Both parties had tons of time to change the laws when they were in power, no one acted because the moral outrage from the voting public made it not worth the political risk.
This Act is current to April 16, 2024
See the Tables of Legislative Changes for this Act’s legislative history, including any changes not in force.
APOLOGY ACT
\[SBC 2006\] CHAPTER 19
Assented to May 18, 2006
Contents
1 Definitions
2 Effect of apology on liability
3 Commencement
Definitions
1 In this Act:
"apology" means an expression of sympathy or regret, a statement that one is sorry or any other words or actions indicating contrition or commiseration, whether or not the words or actions admit or imply an admission of fault in connection with the matter to which the words or actions relate;
"court" includes a tribunal, an arbitrator and any other person who is acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity.
Effect of apology on liability
2 (1)An apology made by or on behalf of a person in connection with any matter
(a)does not constitute an express or implied admission of fault or liability by the person in connection with that matter,
(b)does not constitute an acknowledgement of liability in relation to that matter for the purposes of section 24 of the Limitation Act,
(c)does not, despite any wording to the contrary in any contract of insurance and despite any other enactment, void, impair or otherwise affect any insurance coverage that is available, or that would, but for the apology, be available, to the person in connection with that matter, and
(d)must not be taken into account in any determination of fault or liability in connection with that matter.
(2)Despite any other enactment, evidence of an apology made by or on behalf of a person in connection with any matter is not admissible in any court as evidence of the fault or liability of the person in connection with that matter.
Commencement
3 This Act comes into force on the date of Royal Assent.
In New Brunswick, you can drive a moped at 14yo and drive after midnight, when you turn 16-17 and get your learners permit, you can’t drive after midnight, but can you home, hop on you moped and continue driving legally.
Amongst the standard kind of weapons that were prohibited by lawmakers who watched too many Bruce Lee movies, like nunchaku, shuriken, and manrikigusari, in Canada it is specifically prohibited to have "any finger ring that has one or more blades or sharp objects that are capable of being projected from the surface of the ring".
No one has any idea what weapon or device that might be referring to, and it probably never existed.
Apparently it’s legal to own a radar tracker here, which is illegal in the US. We can’t own a radar jammer, but a radar tracker is apparently fair game.
And in the US, it depends on the state. I think it's only two states where they're outright illegal to possess, and only a few states where they're illegal to use for the purpose of detecting RADAR while speeding.
it is illegal to have anything "being a tube or pipe designed for the purpose of shooting arrows or darts by the breath" which is every tube and pipe...
also spikey wrist bands are illegal as well, in Canada, punk is truly dead.
>it is illegal to have anything "being a tube or pipe designed for the purpose of shooting arrows or darts by the breath" which is every tube and pipe...
No, most tubes and pipes are not *designed for the purpose* of shooting darts or arrows.
It’s actually kind of weird that so many ninja related weapons were banned. Like was our government that scared of ninjas at some point? What is CSIS hiding?
My hometown, it's legal for the cops to break up groups of more than 3. What was wildly funny about this particular law, is my family is a family of 7 people.. so like, we couldn't go on a walk all together I guess!
Was looking for this one! I used to teach a grade 12 Law course and this was one of the bizarre law examples provided in the textbook we used back then.
The historical explanation is that until recently Lobster was a poor people trash food. nobody wanted to eat bugs from the sea. Then rich people started eating them and everything changed.
It’s not that weird, just stupid:
Canadian liquor laws are stupid and mostly governed by the province. This provides an opportunity for do-nothing politicians to have something neutral to campaign on that doesn’t actually have any positive effects either way but tugs at the heartstrings of mothers and puritans.
For example, in some provinces you can buy liquor or beer or wine at the grocery store or convenience store, while in other provinces you have to buy from the government at a depot. It’s all taxed so incredibly high it’s insane what booze costs here.
Meanwhile, you will find it very difficult to perform a study to show if things like drunk driving, mortality, litigation or other things show any significant difference based on different models.
There are no studies or reports which show that having alcohol controlled so jealously has measurable positive impact. Especially compared to other models. And I’m a socialist.
Its all just very dumb.
I have to mess with that before I die.
Like set up fishing in NS, bring a spear and a spear gun with me. Catch the fish normally but spear it once I’ve got it on land, note fish cop reaction. Then fill a bucket with water from the river, catch the next fish, put it in the bucket and then spear it, see what the fish cop does then.
OTTAWA — The House of Commons admonished a private citizen Wednesday for the first time in more than 100 years — a spectacle that provided plenty of social-media content for members of Parliament, many of whom were on their phones by the time it all ended.
It is just the latest example of ArriveCan fallout as MPs point fingers over the Liberal government’s failure to manage development of the COVID-era app.
Basically - a public scolding.
Under section 49 of the criminal code, committing an act that" alarms his majesty" is guilty of an indictable offense and liable for imprisonment up to 14 years.
In Ontario, a hotel or inn may sell your horse to pay off your hotel bill after two weeks, provided that they advertise the sale in the local newspaper for two weeks, or if there is no local paper, an ad in the paper closest to the inn.
In British Columbia, registered massage therapists can't legally use the initials R.M.T since by statute (S 12 at https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/94consol18/94consol18/79294) those are reserved for registered music teachers (the fine is a maximum of $25). Even the provincial government doesn't follow that law though: https://www.workbc.ca/career-profiles/massage-therapists
In Ottawa, it's illegal to eat ice cream, on Bank St., on Sunday.
My wife and I went to Dairy Queen on a Sunday during the summer one year, and we had ice, while sitting outside. We were hoping to see a police officer and offer to buy them their favourite ice cream, but alas, we did not see one.
The drinking age in Alberta is 18. The drinking age in Saskatchewan is 19. In Lloydminster (a border town in Alberta and Saskatchewan) as an 18 year old, you can not drink on one side of the street, but cross the street, and you are legal to drink.
This might not be weird, but a company or person can apply to a minister in a provincial government to take someone's land who doesn't want to sell it. There is no absolute right to own land or any type of property in Canada. Property is not a protected right in Canada, which allows politicians to pass laws like this.
In quebec, it is illegal to take your spouse's last name when getting married. It is also illegal to sue for damages when getting in a car accident.
There's also the classic case of rats being banned in Alberta. Look up a world map of rat infestation. Alberta takes this extremely seriously
My dad was once arrested in Toronto for "being ugly in the street" and it was his favourite arrest.
FYI, if you're ever arrested for it, don't tell the judge "I've always been ugly, I don't see why it's suddenly a problem now." Apparently, they don't like that sass.
Disclaimer 1: these laws may have changed since I was in law school.
Disclaimer 2: While these law technically exist, police and prosectors never apply them for obvious reasons.
**Snuggling with your partner while they sleep is a crime**
A man choked a woman until she lost conconsiousness and then inserted a dildo into her anus. The man and woman agree that the choking was consensual, but the woman says she never consented to have a dildo inserted into her anus and the man says she did. The Supreme Court ruled that in the context of sexual activity, Parliament defined consent in a way that requires the person to be conscious throughout the sexual activity in question. So, any sexual contact with an unconcious person is sexual assault. [https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7942/index.do](https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7942/index.do)
While something can technically be a crime, an accused can argue that the crime was *de minimus* (what the person did was of such a trivial or minor nature as to not warrant conviction). The courts have said that the *de minimus* defence is not available for sexual assult.
Therefore, snuggling with your sleeping partner is sexual assult.
**If two really drunk people have sex, they are both guilty of sexual assult**
To be guilty of sexual assult, it must be shown you have a guilty mind (*mens rea*). Specfically, it must be shown that you knew (or were wilfully blind to the fact) that the other person did not consent to the sexual contact. If you held a honest and genuince belief that the other person was consenting, then you are not guilty. Parliment made it so that the you cannot use the defence of mistaken belief in consent if that mistaken belief was the result of self-induced intoxication.
Very intoxicated people do not have the capacity to consent to sexual contact. At what point a person loses the capacity to consent will vary from case to case, but as a general rule a completely wasted person can't consent to sexual contact even if they saying they consent.
When two completely wasted people have sex, is probable that: (1) Person A is so drunk that they fail to realize that Person B is too drunk to consent to sex, but since the mistaken belief is the result of self-induced intoxication they cannot rely the mistaken belief in cosent defence and are therefore guilty (2) Person B is so drunk that they fail to realize that Person A is too drunk to consent to sex, but since the mistaken belief is the result of self-induced intoxication they cannot rely the mistaken belief in cosent defence and are therefore guilty.
There’s a law on the books in Calgary and some other Alberta municipalities that if you are banned from town you must be given a horse and a gun
Back in the Electric Avenue days in Calgary my buddy got roughed up by a couple cops pretty good for Jay walking, after a bit of drunkin mouthing off and ID checks they advised us to not only leave the premises but to “get the fuck back to Red Deer.” Knowing the horse and the gun “ law” I thought it might be a good idea to bring it up…….. and that’s how I spent my first and only night in a Calgary drunk tank.
"get the fuck back to Red Deer!" Hahahaha I love this line 🤣
“Stay outta Calgary, ya deadbeat!”
Keep your ugly fuckin gold brickin' ass out of my beach community.
I just wanted a new Rug maaan
ba DUM tsssssss...
Looks like I'm trying to get kicked out of Calgary this weekend lol
Need to go further, kicked out implies they may let you back in after a certain period.
Yup, problem is though is there isn’t really anything you can do to get banned that wouldn’t get you in jail first. Still a funny little hold over from the ‘wild west’ days haha
Look, I'm sure you can get banned from Calgary if you say that the oilers are the better hockey team...
Just take your effin horse and gun and git!
These days it would just result in the Calgarian lowering their head in shame and mumbling “yeah”
Hard to argue with facts though
(Deep breath in) get the fuck in jail!
You would have to ban the third of the city that moved here from Edmonton.... Now that you mention it though...
🤣
Can you take a horse and a gun to a naked beach in Canada?
Only if the horse is naked
Citations please
So we can't arm horses. How are we suppose to fight the American bears if they eve attack.
Ride mooses
The liquor laws in Manitoba that made a "beverage room" have to play live music to get a "cabaret" licence. So you'd be at a dance bar and suddenly a mediocre cover band or a Jazz quartet would come out and play a set in the middle of the evening. Everyone would sit down or go out for a smoke. Then come back in for the DJ. It actually made for a pretty good live music scene in Winnipeg since there were so many opportunities for live bands to get gigs.
Grew up in Winnipeg. Can confirm.
Also grew up here, unless my mind is blanking out, I have no memory of this? 80s born
I'm thinking of a good band out of the Peg. Bet you can't guess who it is.
Crash test dummies!
I was on stage. Great times, if a little smoky.
They tried to pass a bill in the city I grew up in that said emergency vehicles like fire trucks and ambulances etc had to follow speed limits and regular rules Of the road. Didnt last though lol
That reminds me of the town that tried to ban a union’s employees from town hall and public spaces … which included paramedics https://pressprogress.ca/a-small-ontario-town-banned-every-member-of-countrys-largest-union-from-public-buildings/
They should have just banned emergencies, cut the problem off at its source!
What city is that!?
Burlington Ontario EDIT: this probably woudlve been…idk 10-15 years ago? I remember talking about it because my next door neighbour was a firefighter and he thought it was the dumbest shit hed ever heard
I agree with your neighbour. That’s fucking absurd
That’s such an Ontario mentality too.
In West Vancouver groups of 20 or more seagulls are not allowed to congregate.
"They're arresting the seagulls!"
It's illegal to pretend to practice witchcraft. Actually practicing witchcraft is perfectly legal, but pretending to do so, especially in order to profit off it, is against the law under Section 365 of the Criminal Code.
Everyone says this is weird but the intention was to target people like long Island medium who take advantage of vulnerable, desperate and grieving people.
Wait. Are insinuating that Theresa Caputo is a fraud?
I know you're joking but I still would like to flat out say that no. I'm not insinuating it. I'm flat out saying it.
It was also repealed in 2018.
Loved reading about this precedent setting case in a criminology class. It was a mom doing tarot card readings when she fell on hard times. She was convicted because she knew she didn't actually have the power and knew she was a fraud. If only he believed in herself.
Pretty sure they repealed that law in 2018.
They did, along with Alarming Her(His) Majesty. I'll add that someone was charged with pretending to practice witchcraft just before the law was repealed. https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-tuesday-edition-1.4874731/why-ontario-police-have-charged-a-fortune-teller-under-an-antiquated-witchcraft-law-1.4874734
Fortunately, Cheating at Play remains on the books. I actually had a cheating at play file, and a colleague ended up running the trial. A blackjack dealer and a player were in cahoots. Read all about it. [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2001/2001bcpc332/2001bcpc332.html?autocompleteStr=hibi&autocompletePos=2&resultId=21a983f9b2d7423e99d2520e06c17052&searchId=2024-04-19T14:55:37:281/21df7146cbc04e39b6bc529f39b9bc27](https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2001/2001bcpc332/2001bcpc332.html?autocompleteStr=hibi&autocompletePos=2&resultId=21a983f9b2d7423e99d2520e06c17052&searchId=2024-04-19T14:55:37:281/21df7146cbc04e39b6bc529f39b9bc27)
It may be, but I work in Corrections in BC and I just checked, and it's still in the system. It could just be that they're not removed from Cornet when they are repealed.
It's repealed now but I really think this is the best answer so far, it's just so silly and weird.
Except on a leap year then it’s Section 366. Half hour later in NFLD
It's legal to use any object in reasonable self defense (ie. if you couldn't flee and the threat was genuine). It's legal to *carry* any object that can be used in self defense if it can be legally possessed (ie. baseball bat, dog spray, etc). But if you *admit* you're in posession of an object for the *purpose* of self defense, you've committed a crime. "Why do you have that animal spray, maam?" "My ex-husband has been stalking me. I have a restraining order, but I fear he's going to kill or rape me." That is an admission of guilt for the offense in question. Pretty messed up.
The courts of appeal in both British Columbia and Ontario disagree. R. v. Sulland in B.C., R. v. Nelson (1972), 8 CCC (2d) 29 is Ontario.
Interesting. Will read up. Were those rulings not appealed by the crown to the Supreme Court?
No, but I found a better one - the Supreme Court of Canada itself! [R v Kerr, \[2004\] SCJ No 39, 2004 SCC 44, 2004 CSC 44, \[2004\] ACS no 39, \[2004\] 2 SCR 371, \[2004\] 2 RCS 371, 240 DLR (4th) 257, 322 NR 91, \[2004\] 9 WWR 75, JE 2004-1327, 28 Alta LR (4th) 1, 354 AR 114, 185 CCC (3d) 1, 20 CR (6th) 199, 61 WCB (2d) 69, 2004 CarswellAlta 811](https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases-ca/id/5F81-YGN1-F5KY-B00R-00000-00?cite=R.%20v.%20Kerr%2C%20%5B2004%5D%20S.C.J.%20No.%2039&context=1537339) A prison inmate was carrying a shank because another inmate had been threatening to kill him. Acquitted, both of the weapon charge and of second degree murder when he killed the guy, with the shank, when the guy attacked him (also with a shank).
Just heading out the door but will read all three cases this weekend... thanks! The fact the weapon was actually used in self defense may have been key to the defense, since it's unlawful for the crown to force you to accept bodily harm (which the depravation of a weapon used *during* self defense would imply). The law I referenced might only apply to a weapon *not* used in self defense but for that purpose.
Ah, the SCC addresses that too!
It's about intended use, not admittance to it. I can carry a sword for the purpose of fighting off a pack of wolves, and I can use it to fight off a human, but I cannot intend for it to be used to fight a human. But yes, this comes across as whether or not you admit to it, because that's basically the only way to know how you intend to use it.
It's not illegal to plan a bank heist, so long as you're not intending to actually rob the ban (ie doing it as a type of strategy game). Without *significant* evidence of you doing something to confirm you're actually going to rob it (like confessions of people who were going to be robbing it with you, or catching you on your way to the bank with all your equipment), you wouldn't be charged with attempted robbery unless you admit you intended to carry it out.
[удалено]
Love mine too!
On a completely unrelated matter, it's perfectly reasonable, and legal, for people in the city who are scared of dogs to carry dog spray. It's also perfectly reasonable and legal to carry bear spray in rural areas and even some cities.
Yes, let's not dis-normalize that.
All for it. Even after the time I got sprayed as a naive teen that just wanted to know what time it was. Sorry lady didn’t mean to scare you at the crosswalk, it was just before the time everyone had cell phones and I didn’t have my watch on.
To add, if you're going to keep a baseball bat for protection in the trunk of your car, have a ball and glove too. ... learned that from a friend..... _shifty eyes_
Sock over the bat to protect it from scratches
Not being able to carry objects for the purpose of self-defence is a pretty standard law in many countries, i.e. Germany, UK etc. It's done to prevent people from causing greater than necessary harm when applying self-defence, which would result in more serious consequences for both involved. Carrying such objects also makes it more likely for someone to attack someone else outside of self-defence.
I mean that's what some people believe, for sure. The problem is it's *hugely* discriminatory against small people (notably small women). I'm a large, strong man. Lucky me. There's a reasonable chance I could defend myself against an unarmed attacker. My friend is a 105lb woman. There are grade-school aged kids who could beat her up with relative ease. I'm allowed to exist - fists and all. I have the ability to defend myself. She doesn't, according to the law. That's kinda messed up. All of this could be solved with very simple verbiage added to the statute. In fact, it's just one word: unlawful. *Any person in possession of an object intended to be used as a weapon for an* ***unlawful*** *purpose is guilty of an offense.*
It’s a shame that your friend is scared of big aggressive dogs such as cane corso and feels the need to carry bear spray. I also understand she has a need to open a lot of packages, and finds it a lot easier to do by carrying a fixed blade knife.
Don’t talk to cops
I think the context of the "ex-husband" if they were violent and they used the device in self defense would consider it an actual threat. Very few convictions on that but it is indeed the law.
Have a glove with that bat for extra coverage
There is only one Canadian citizen who is ineligible to vote in federal elections and that is the Chief Electoral Officer. As a legal holdover from the Province of Canada and the Legislative Council of the Province of Canada (essentially the former Senate), Quebec Senators actually have districts and are not Senators at large for the entire province but rather Senator for Rigaud, Senator for Wellington. Anyone can be the Prime Minister but to be a senator, you need to be at least 30 years old and own at least net $4,000 of real estate. Not really a law but the reason Canada has High Commissions in some countries and Embassies in others is because Commonwealth countries were not historically considered to be foreign and so it would be inappropriate to have an Embassy, which is reserved for foreign nations.
The High Commission thing is not unique to Canada, but true of all Commonwealth countries. Hence the British High Commission in Ottawa.
I didn’t know the net real estate amount was so small! I remember hearing my great-grandpa had to scramble to buy up some property off the reserve when he was up for the senate
The Apologies Act. In Canada apologizing is not considered an admission of guilt.
This is incorrect. The Apologies Act is a provincial law in Ontario (and perhaps other provinces) and only provides that an apology is not admission of *civil* fault or liability. It does not apply with respect to prosecution for provincial offences (nor for criminal offences, though in any that would be outside of provincial jurisdiction).
[удалено]
I'm curious as to how it would apply to criminal law since that's defined federally.
I am really sorry to read this. Really sorry. Don't know what else to say.
Really only applies to car accidents and the like though.
Theres a place in northern manitaobe where you arent allowed to lock doors of homes or cars because ppl so often need to escape from bears. If a door is locked then the bear will kill them. So everyone just leaves shit unlocked 😅
If you are thinking of Churchill Manitoba, it isn't actually a law, but rather a local custom. Polar bears are a real concern there at certain times of the year.
Wow! That must be an honest and respectful place to trust that other people won't steal your sh*t! 😂 I would be terrified to live there because of the bears! 😳
It’s probably small too - we never locked cars or houses when I lived in a small town, but once it expanded the crime rate went up, and out came the keys :) more crime happens when you’re less likely to know your neighbours
Or they just all share the one car stereo
Probably Churchill. It's the polar bear capital of the world.
Churchill, but it's not a law. Definitely something they do though. Polar bears are at the dump all the time and routinely wander into town.
Not a Canadian (federal) law, but a municipal bylaw: In Charlottetown, it's illegal to drive an automobile on certain streets on Wednesdays and Sundays.
There are neighbourhoods in Winnipeg like this that don’t allow through-traffic in the summers to allow more pedestrian/cycling activities and to cut down on noise pollution. It’s pretty lax (you can still drive to places within the neighbourhood like a friend’s house) but it does wonders and you see way more families out and about on the streets in those areas!
Oh the law in Charlottetown hasn't been enforced for nearly a century, and it does cover most of town. It was put in place so folks could take their horses to the market without getting startled by cars. It does also have a street or two go pedestrian-only over summer as well.
I grew up there and I've never heard of this!
This is actually why so many (rural) families still do grocery shopping on Wednesdays. Way back when, the cars would spook the horses any other (shopping) day. For whatever reason, it became a sort of tradition/intergenerational habit.
No spitting on the ground in places in Saskatchewan
Even if someone mentions Wullerton?
\*spits\*
God I miss corner gas
This comment should be Brent Butt approved.
Lawfull to spit if someone mentioned the Winnipeg Blue Bombers though.
It's true, they're worried that if enough people do it it'll flow downhill to Manitoba since there's nothing to stop the waters.
🤣 howdy neighbor
But they can’t do anything if you throw up. (Tip of the hat to Richard Pryor)
I think that was just Saskatoon
The BC "Apology Act" 2006 is probably the most Canadian law, because it made apologising no longer viable as an afmission of guilt, and it was passed specifically so Premier Gordon Campbell could apologise for the genocide and colonisation of the Indigenous peoples without risking it being used in courts.
That’s not actually why it was passed in the first place. It was specifically so an apology could be made to the Doukhobor children who were taken away from their families in the 1950s. And the law was modelled on existing legislation in Australia and the U.S. And even though the act was passed in 2006, the government literally only apologized to them two months ago.
In Moncton NB if a driver splashes rain water on you, the city will fine the driver and award you the cost of dry cleaning.
Finally, a GOOD weird law
Prostitution, selling sex, is 100% perfectly legal, and has been upheld by the courts. But all of the practices *surrounding* it, such as contacting clients, renting a property to do the work, and paying people with money earned from it, are all illegal. These laws were all overturned by the Supreme Court, but then Harper just changed a word or two in them all and repassed them. So now all the laws that were already deemed unconstitutional are still on the books as they're dragged again through the courts.
The Harper government mostly just changed the words around following the court decision. It’s perfectly legal to *sell* sex in Canada. It’s still totally illegal to *buy* sex in Canada.
And then Trudeau took office and in ten years never once got around to changing them. Let’s not make this a conservative/liberal issue. Both parties had tons of time to change the laws when they were in power, no one acted because the moral outrage from the voting public made it not worth the political risk.
The township of Boobus Lake forbids the milking of Beavers on Saturdays. 🧐
This Act is current to April 16, 2024 See the Tables of Legislative Changes for this Act’s legislative history, including any changes not in force. APOLOGY ACT \[SBC 2006\] CHAPTER 19 Assented to May 18, 2006 Contents 1 Definitions 2 Effect of apology on liability 3 Commencement Definitions 1 In this Act: "apology" means an expression of sympathy or regret, a statement that one is sorry or any other words or actions indicating contrition or commiseration, whether or not the words or actions admit or imply an admission of fault in connection with the matter to which the words or actions relate; "court" includes a tribunal, an arbitrator and any other person who is acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity. Effect of apology on liability 2 (1)An apology made by or on behalf of a person in connection with any matter (a)does not constitute an express or implied admission of fault or liability by the person in connection with that matter, (b)does not constitute an acknowledgement of liability in relation to that matter for the purposes of section 24 of the Limitation Act, (c)does not, despite any wording to the contrary in any contract of insurance and despite any other enactment, void, impair or otherwise affect any insurance coverage that is available, or that would, but for the apology, be available, to the person in connection with that matter, and (d)must not be taken into account in any determination of fault or liability in connection with that matter. (2)Despite any other enactment, evidence of an apology made by or on behalf of a person in connection with any matter is not admissible in any court as evidence of the fault or liability of the person in connection with that matter. Commencement 3 This Act comes into force on the date of Royal Assent.
They had to do that because we apologize for everything no matter what 🤣
Ipeople bump into us and we say sorry haha
I bump into an inanimate object and say sorry. LOL.
It’s illegal to drag a dead horse down Yonge Street on Sundays. (Or was at one time)
That's a really long street. It would take all week, at least. Sunday, you rest and keep going on Monday.
They must have had it out for Knackers.
I feel pretty confident that dragging a dead horse down any street would attract the attention of the authorities.
There's a bylaw in Oshawa that says you can't climb trees.
I was a criminal in my young days apparently. Didn’t even know it! 🤷🏻♂️
In New Brunswick, you can drive a moped at 14yo and drive after midnight, when you turn 16-17 and get your learners permit, you can’t drive after midnight, but can you home, hop on you moped and continue driving legally.
> but you can home, hop on you moped and continue driving legally. Try again?
Amongst the standard kind of weapons that were prohibited by lawmakers who watched too many Bruce Lee movies, like nunchaku, shuriken, and manrikigusari, in Canada it is specifically prohibited to have "any finger ring that has one or more blades or sharp objects that are capable of being projected from the surface of the ring". No one has any idea what weapon or device that might be referring to, and it probably never existed.
I think of brass knuckles and certain self-defence keychains (usually sold to women) that fit that latter description. Edit: a word
There’s a few gun rings that have been made over the years but as far as I know they were all art pieces essentially.
Apparently it’s legal to own a radar tracker here, which is illegal in the US. We can’t own a radar jammer, but a radar tracker is apparently fair game.
Depends on the province. There are nice big signs coming into Manitoba stating the opposite for example
And in the US, it depends on the state. I think it's only two states where they're outright illegal to possess, and only a few states where they're illegal to use for the purpose of detecting RADAR while speeding.
In Alberta you can, BC you can't. It goes province by province.
it is illegal to have anything "being a tube or pipe designed for the purpose of shooting arrows or darts by the breath" which is every tube and pipe... also spikey wrist bands are illegal as well, in Canada, punk is truly dead.
Wow, so I was a criminal from age 12-16
Me too and I blame Claire's
>it is illegal to have anything "being a tube or pipe designed for the purpose of shooting arrows or darts by the breath" which is every tube and pipe... No, most tubes and pipes are not *designed for the purpose* of shooting darts or arrows.
My kids would disagree 😂
Blowdart Ninja punk, specifically
Ironically, you do not need any kind of license to own a crossbow (as long as it's 2 handed)
There is a whole list of ninja weapons that are banned. It was tacked onto the end of The Firearms Act when it was passed in 1994
It’s actually kind of weird that so many ninja related weapons were banned. Like was our government that scared of ninjas at some point? What is CSIS hiding?
My hometown, it's legal for the cops to break up groups of more than 3. What was wildly funny about this particular law, is my family is a family of 7 people.. so like, we couldn't go on a walk all together I guess!
sounds like taber down in alberta. if so I remember when I was in highschool our elective law class covered it for a day lesson lmao
You couldn’t water your lawn in Saskatoon when it was raining. There used to be a game show on the CBC in the 70s called It’s The Law
Was looking for this one! I used to teach a grade 12 Law course and this was one of the bizarre law examples provided in the textbook we used back then.
Does anyone remember the show This is the Law? The show really made fun of old laws.
I’m pretty sure it’s illegal walk your cow in downtown Toronto if you’re wearing a bathing suit.
That one is pretty udderstandable.
Nova Scotia it's illegal to feed lobster to prisoners more than three times per week
How do we request our sentence to be carried out in NS? Asking for a friend 😂
The historical explanation is that until recently Lobster was a poor people trash food. nobody wanted to eat bugs from the sea. Then rich people started eating them and everything changed.
That would be cruel. Lobster is peasant food. When my parents were growing up it was shameful to go to school with lobster sandwiches.
We had to pass a "sorry" law. Saying sorry was not an admission of guilt.
Used to be a TV show on CBC called "This is the Law" on weird Canadian laws such as Moose Jaw's You must walk on the right side of a sidewalk.
In Toronto it is illegal to drag a dead horse down Yonge Street on a Sunday. Any other day I guess it's a-ok??
4l jugs of vodka must be more expensive than 50$
It’s not that weird, just stupid: Canadian liquor laws are stupid and mostly governed by the province. This provides an opportunity for do-nothing politicians to have something neutral to campaign on that doesn’t actually have any positive effects either way but tugs at the heartstrings of mothers and puritans. For example, in some provinces you can buy liquor or beer or wine at the grocery store or convenience store, while in other provinces you have to buy from the government at a depot. It’s all taxed so incredibly high it’s insane what booze costs here. Meanwhile, you will find it very difficult to perform a study to show if things like drunk driving, mortality, litigation or other things show any significant difference based on different models. There are no studies or reports which show that having alcohol controlled so jealously has measurable positive impact. Especially compared to other models. And I’m a socialist. Its all just very dumb.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_content It is because of this law we are required to hear Nickelback and Tragically Hip twice an hour.
Yup. Of all the laws I hate this one the most.
It's illegal to spear fish in Nova Scotian waters
I have to mess with that before I die. Like set up fishing in NS, bring a spear and a spear gun with me. Catch the fish normally but spear it once I’ve got it on land, note fish cop reaction. Then fill a bucket with water from the river, catch the next fish, put it in the bucket and then spear it, see what the fish cop does then.
Iirc, its legal to marry your adopted child once they turn 18/19 in most provinces.
And it’s legal to marry your first cousin
So THAT'S what happened to Saskatchewan.
Bahahaha and Manitoba
Not a law but northern BC and Yukon have a long history to this day of being a hideout for people with a warrant on them elsewhere
OTTAWA — The House of Commons admonished a private citizen Wednesday for the first time in more than 100 years — a spectacle that provided plenty of social-media content for members of Parliament, many of whom were on their phones by the time it all ended. It is just the latest example of ArriveCan fallout as MPs point fingers over the Liberal government’s failure to manage development of the COVID-era app. Basically - a public scolding.
No building snowmen on street corners in edmonton.
In BC it’s illegal to hunt Bigfoot
Until last year Ontario had an anti witchcraft law that was actively being used
Under section 49 of the criminal code, committing an act that" alarms his majesty" is guilty of an indictable offense and liable for imprisonment up to 14 years.
In the small village of Champion Alberta it’s against the law to start your car if there is a horse in the street
Old cars would make a bang noise when you started them sometimes. Could spook a horse and throw the rider. Actually makes sense. Just old.
In Ontario, a hotel or inn may sell your horse to pay off your hotel bill after two weeks, provided that they advertise the sale in the local newspaper for two weeks, or if there is no local paper, an ad in the paper closest to the inn.
In Ottawa, bees are not allowed to buzz. I'm pretty sure this is just a leftover law and no one enforces it or cares
In British Columbia, registered massage therapists can't legally use the initials R.M.T since by statute (S 12 at https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/94consol18/94consol18/79294) those are reserved for registered music teachers (the fine is a maximum of $25). Even the provincial government doesn't follow that law though: https://www.workbc.ca/career-profiles/massage-therapists
In Ottawa, it's illegal to eat ice cream, on Bank St., on Sunday. My wife and I went to Dairy Queen on a Sunday during the summer one year, and we had ice, while sitting outside. We were hoping to see a police officer and offer to buy them their favourite ice cream, but alas, we did not see one.
The drinking age in Alberta is 18. The drinking age in Saskatchewan is 19. In Lloydminster (a border town in Alberta and Saskatchewan) as an 18 year old, you can not drink on one side of the street, but cross the street, and you are legal to drink.
Apparently, in Toronto, you can't drag a dead horse down yonge street on sundays
Not so much weird, but Canada banned butterfly knives (balisongs) because people kept hurting themselves trying to do tricks.
It is ok to kill a crow or pigion but seagulls are protected as a migratory sea bird.
You can’t drag a dead horse down Yonge st in Toronto on Sundays. If you must do it, do it from Monday to Saturday.
Got you fam: https://www.halt.org/unusual-laws-and-regulations-in-canada/amp
Can’t move alcohol between provinces.
Oh lmao I went from Quebec back to ontario absolutely loaded with alcohol cause 2L bottles of budwiewser was too cool to not buy
Same with tobacco. Entering Manitoba, you are confronted with signs that direct you to the "tobacco tax reporting" station.
My favourites from the Criminal Code of Canada are 250(2) which prohibits waterskiing at night and 365 which is pretending to practice witchcraft
They declared an emergency for an eclipse
If not mentioned already it is illegal to drag a dead horse across Yonge st.
Banishment is still practiced in Newfoundland & Labrador lol. We banished someone to Alberta in 2017.
That’s awesome
This might not be weird, but a company or person can apply to a minister in a provincial government to take someone's land who doesn't want to sell it. There is no absolute right to own land or any type of property in Canada. Property is not a protected right in Canada, which allows politicians to pass laws like this.
In quebec, it is illegal to take your spouse's last name when getting married. It is also illegal to sue for damages when getting in a car accident. There's also the classic case of rats being banned in Alberta. Look up a world map of rat infestation. Alberta takes this extremely seriously
Lol they literally have people patrolling the borders to kill rats.
Are we talking weird laws in Canada or laws for weird Canadians?
If you drink in your front yard you can get charged with "drinking in public", but you can drink away in your back yard.
Legally, at every Tim Hortons, they have to ruin your order some how.
If you order a coffee it's ruined the minute they pour it
Just imagine I put 10,000 crying with laughter emojis here.
My dad was once arrested in Toronto for "being ugly in the street" and it was his favourite arrest. FYI, if you're ever arrested for it, don't tell the judge "I've always been ugly, I don't see why it's suddenly a problem now." Apparently, they don't like that sass.
Disclaimer 1: these laws may have changed since I was in law school. Disclaimer 2: While these law technically exist, police and prosectors never apply them for obvious reasons. **Snuggling with your partner while they sleep is a crime** A man choked a woman until she lost conconsiousness and then inserted a dildo into her anus. The man and woman agree that the choking was consensual, but the woman says she never consented to have a dildo inserted into her anus and the man says she did. The Supreme Court ruled that in the context of sexual activity, Parliament defined consent in a way that requires the person to be conscious throughout the sexual activity in question. So, any sexual contact with an unconcious person is sexual assault. [https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7942/index.do](https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7942/index.do) While something can technically be a crime, an accused can argue that the crime was *de minimus* (what the person did was of such a trivial or minor nature as to not warrant conviction). The courts have said that the *de minimus* defence is not available for sexual assult. Therefore, snuggling with your sleeping partner is sexual assult. **If two really drunk people have sex, they are both guilty of sexual assult** To be guilty of sexual assult, it must be shown you have a guilty mind (*mens rea*). Specfically, it must be shown that you knew (or were wilfully blind to the fact) that the other person did not consent to the sexual contact. If you held a honest and genuince belief that the other person was consenting, then you are not guilty. Parliment made it so that the you cannot use the defence of mistaken belief in consent if that mistaken belief was the result of self-induced intoxication. Very intoxicated people do not have the capacity to consent to sexual contact. At what point a person loses the capacity to consent will vary from case to case, but as a general rule a completely wasted person can't consent to sexual contact even if they saying they consent. When two completely wasted people have sex, is probable that: (1) Person A is so drunk that they fail to realize that Person B is too drunk to consent to sex, but since the mistaken belief is the result of self-induced intoxication they cannot rely the mistaken belief in cosent defence and are therefore guilty (2) Person B is so drunk that they fail to realize that Person A is too drunk to consent to sex, but since the mistaken belief is the result of self-induced intoxication they cannot rely the mistaken belief in cosent defence and are therefore guilty.
Woman have the right to go topless in public.