What do you do with trespassers?

The value of human life??? Save the children!!!

I leave my implements where I please on MY property.

Trespassers are vermin. You let them multiply you never get rid of them.
 
And then you have the landowners that believe they own county right of ways and claim to own land that is actually crown, or post grazing leases when they are not being used.... it goes both ways and most hunters just want to enjoy a day out. If its "Lawfully" fenced and posted OR the lawfull owner declines your request to hunt then you should respect his decision. If he's being a #### and claiming to own land that is not his, then the harrows should be placed in his driveway.
 
What loophole? Please explain.
Click to expand...

It sounds as though the boundary with the gate that was entered was not posted.


IMO there is no loophole, see post #61
Click to expand...

As to not having the land posted as per subsection 1, the Act clearly states in subsection 6, that not having signage does not imply consent to trespass, but only in section 1(posted land) does the Act actually specify that consent is legally required. Nowhere in the Act does it actually specify that consent is required on land that is not posted, as per subsection 1. That part of the act is actually very poorly worded, which is why I would suggest talking to the prosecutor to let him decide if there is a case to be made in this situation.
 
Is there any provision for a Trespass Notice to be served in your Act?

That gets their attention, and removes all doubt.
 
Is there any provision for a Trespass Notice to be served in your Act?

That gets their attention, and removes all doubt.
Click to expand...

Saskatchewan actually exempts hunters, fishermen, and trappers from their Trespass Act. That is the real problem here. If they were to remove that exemption, they wouldn't need to deal with trespass in the Wildlife Act, and things would be a lot simpler.

http://www.qp.gov.sk.ca/documents/English/Statutes/Statutes/T20-2.pdf

Exemptions from Act
17 This Act does not apply to:
(a) peace officers, firefighters, ambulance attendants, paramedics, first
responders or other emergency personnel while acting in the course of their
duties;
(b) persons authorized by an Act or law to enter in or on premises to install,
inspect, replace, remove or read meters or service connections that are part of
a public utility while acting in the course of their duties;
(c) inspectors appointed pursuant to The Electrical Inspection Act, 1993 or
The Gas Inspection Act, 1993 while acting in the course of their duties;
(d) individuals engaged in lawful hunting, fishing and trapping activities; or
(e) any other person or class of persons prescribed in the regulations.
Click to expand...
 
Stubblejumper - the key words in 17(d) is "engaged in lawful hunting..."

From R. v. Bear, 2004 SKPC 137 (CanLII),

[15] The accused further argued that there is an implied right of access because the subject land in this case was not posted, and that Section 41 of the Wildlife Act, 1998, makes it an offence to hunt on posted land except with the consent of the owner or occupant.

[16] Section 41(6) of the Act confirms that the absence of signs alone does not imply consent to entry on the land nor imply a right of access for the purpose of hunting.

[17] In R. v. Horse, 1988 CanLII 91 (SCC), [1988] 1 S.C.R. 187, the Supreme Court of Canada held in the interpretation of a similarly worded section which was the predecessor of section 41, that the right of access was restricted and is subject to the common law of trespassing. The court held that the statute reinforces the restriction to enter on private lands and makes it abundantly clear that the failure to post the land is not sufficient to imply consent to enter on the land or to imply a right of access. The court further held that hunters, whether they be treaty Indians or otherwise, enter private property with no greater rights than other trespassers. The absence of signs prohibiting hunting is not, without more, implied consent for a hunter to enter on the land for the purpose of hunting. There must be evidence of permission, either expressed or implied, before a right of access to hunt on private land exists.
Click to expand...
Emphasis added

Edited to add [15] and [16] as the accused argued the point that you were making in post 104.
 
In R. v. Horse, 1988 CanLII 91 (SCC), [1988] 1 S.C.R. 187, the Supreme Court of Canada held in the interpretation of a similarly worded section which was the predecessor of section 41,
Click to expand...


Similar isn't necessarily the same , and 1988 is before the current Wildlife Act(1998) or the Tresspass to Property Act(2009) were even written. With two new acts in place, a court might see things different today. Talking the situation over with the local prosecutor, might give the OP a better idea of where he stands legally.
 
stubblejumper said:
Similar isn't necessarily the same , and 1988 is before the current Wildlife Act(1998) or the Tresspass to Property Act(2009) were even written. With two new acts in place, a court might see things different today. Talking the situation over with the local prosecutor, might give the OP a better idea of where he stands legally.
Click to expand...

It is true that the Act changed between 1988 and the SCC case, but the Saskatchewan case that cited the SCC case was 2004. With respect to the changes in the Trespass to Property Act, you still have to be "lawfully" hunting. My view is that unless you have "evidence of permission, express or implied...", you are not lawfully hunting.

The Trespass to Property Act is also designed to reinforce restrictions - (as per the SCC ruling):
16 The provisions of this Act are in addition to, and not in derogation of, the
provisions of any other Act, regulations made pursuant to any other Act or a
municipal bylaw that deal with entry in or on premises for the purposes of engaging
in an activity and, if there is any conflict between the provisions of this Act and the
regulations and any other Act, the regulations made pursuant to any other Act or
the municipal bylaw, the provisions of the other Act, the regulations made
pursuant to the other Act or the municipal bylaw prevail.
Click to expand...


Also keep in mind that legilative interpretation is important when looking at these Acts. In Saskatchewan the Interpretation Act states:
10 Every enactment shall be interpreted as being remedial and shall be given the
fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation that best ensure the
attainment of its objects.
Click to expand...

So what are the intents of these Acts? I'd say the intent is to prevent trespassing.


My best friend is Crown Counsel and I have also done enough trials to know that, if the OP was accurate in his description of the event, the people who shot the deer would have an exceptionally difficult task in defending themselves. But there is something that I agree with you 100% - and that is that niether you nor I will make a difference in charge approval - only the opinion of the local Crown Counsel matters.
 
But there is something that I agree with you 100% - and that is that niether you nor I will make a difference in charge approval - only the opinion of the local Crown Counsel matters.
Click to expand...

Which is why I suggested going that route. He will go over the facts that can be established, and decide if he thinks that a successful prosecution is possible, before moving ahead with any charges.
 
And even without going the Crown route, having a a lawyers letter served on them, describing the incident, the properties they are not permitted to enter upon and the intention to proceed with further legal action can be quite sobering to the pricks who think they can go where they want.

Word gets around real quick. And might be cheaper than you think.
 
Is it over? To me the question is like having the neighbours kid climb the fence and drown in your pool. If you intentionally leave hazards around, that put even trespassers at risk you can count on being sued and your insurance company not backing you up. You can really wind up sure that you were right but still bankrupt. I know this does not lead to a solution, but for the most part this reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom