Trespassing: What is the law?

 Scenario by Qasim Syed, PLE Team Volunteer

Legal Info by JFCY

Jordan is 14 years old and has recently moved to a new school. He meets with a fellow peer in his class named James. James introduces himself to Jordan and invites him to tag along for lunch. James introduces Jordan to his friends who are a bit older.

The group discusses a prank they are attempting to pull. Jordan does not like the sound of the idea, but being new to the school, he would love the opportunity to make more friends and be the cool kid. The kids discuss that they will go to a factory and attempt to sneak in.

Later in the evening James and the group of kids go to the front of the factory. They see signs emphasizing the consequences of trespassing. Some of the signs are big and they say, “Trespassers will be prosecuted.” As the kids walk in Jordan becomes very nervous and contemplates leaving, however he doesn’t.

As the kids walk inside and observe the place they hear a security guard yelling and running towards them. When they look out the window they see two police cars. With nowhere to run or hide, Jordan wonders the consequences of trespassing. What will become of them? What will he tell his parents?  Will he be in trouble?

Trespassing:The Law in Ontario

Ontario has a law that makes trespassing illegal.  A trespasser is someone who is using land that doesn’t belong to them without permission of the person or people who are responsible for and who control that land.  Jordan and these youth are trespassing according to Ontario law, because posted signs make it clear that the factory shouldn’t be accessed without permission.

They could be charged by the police.  The offence is outlined in the Trespass to Property Act and is called “enter premise where entry prohibited”.  They could be given a ticket to pay a fine, or the officer could give them a “summons”, requiring the youth to attend court to deal with the charge.  If a youth under age 16 is given a summons, his/her parents will be notified of the charge by the police.  Either way (summons or ticket), the youth have the right to dispute the charge in court.  They should talk to a lawyer about their individual situation.

Since these youth are breaking provincial law, the section of the Provincial Offences Act that applies to people under 16 would apply if they were charged. (This is different from being charged with a criminal offence, where the Youth Criminal Justice Act applies to people under 18.)  

There are a number of differences between the treatment of adults who are charged with offences and young people who are charged with offences.  One is that young peoples' identities are protected from publication.  Another is a limit on punishments: even if the fine for a provincial offence is higher than $1000, the maximum person under 16 can be fined is $1000.

Behind the Scenes with the PLE Team

On December 20 some members of the YouTube Subcommittee of the PLE Team shot a public legal education video. The topic: Age of Consent for Sexual Activity, an area of law that is commonly misunderstood. The volunteers worked with Andrea to come up with a script and plan. Stay tuned for the release of this short video in January 2012. Thanks to everyone who helped: Tracy, Terence, Lucas, Christine, Arif and Andrea

To see more photos, check out our Facebook album FACEBOOK ALBUM

Competing Legal Rights in the News

Right to a Fair Trial vs Religious Freedom

By Bianca Thomas, PLE Team Volunteer and UofT law student

On December 8^th, the Supreme Court of Canada heard an appeal which seeks to balance the defendant’s right to have a fair trial and a victim’s right to exercise her religious beliefs by wearing a niqab during testimony at trial. Both the right to a fair trial and the right to exercise one’s religion are protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As a result, the court seems faced with the choice of choosing one right over the other.  The case is R v. N.S.

Lawyers for the defendant argue that it is necessary to see a witness’s face in order to assess their behaviour and how they react to questions. By allowing a witness to cover their face while testifying, lawyers are perhaps prevented from effectively questioning the witness, as they may are unable to pick up on non-verbal signals.   

However, lawyers for the victim, N.S., argue that facial expressions may often be misleading, especially where the person is of a different culture. Some witnesses, for example, may avoid eye contact because of a respect for authority, but in Canada, this would be considered suspicious. Also, by preventing a victim from wearing a niqab during testimony will potentially discourage Muslim rape victims from coming forward in the future. Not only that, but if a victim’s religious belief is sincere, and the witness believes that wearing the niqab is necessary in order to promote her faith, then it should be protected by the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada has not yet released its decision.

The court must engage in a careful balancing process when determining which of these rights should prevail. This could be one of the most difficult cases that the court has seen in years. What are your thoughts on this issue? Do you think that it is necessary for defence counsel to be able to see a witness’s face, or should a witness’s right to freedom of religion prevail?

For more, check out these news articles: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/court-to-decide-if-woman-can-testify-wearing-niqab-in-sexual-assault-case/article2263858/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/judges-lawyers-clash-over-right-to-testify-with-face-covered/article2264483/

In the news: the Child Advocacy Project

Check out this Toronto Star article on the Child Advocacy Project (CAP).  CAP, a program run by Pro Bono Law Ontario, matches volunteer lawyers with children and families experiencing legal issues at school. The free lawyers provide assistance with suspensions, expulsions, special education, etc.

JFCY is happy to work quite closely with CAP; we provide training on education law to the volunteer lawyers.

For more info on CAP, check out their website: http://www.childadvocacy.ca/

FAMILY LAW - ACCESS

Matt is nine years old. His mom and dad divorced one year ago and he has been living with his mom ever since. She has custody of Matt, who usually visits his dad once a week (“access”).  Two weeks ago Matt’s mom stopped the visits.

Mom wants Matt’s dad only to get access with Matt if it is “supervised”, because she wants to know everything they do together. Matt’s mom feels that this reason is enough to limit access and even to refuse to allow Matt’s dad have access with Matt at all.

Matt’s dad believes that there is no need for supervision when he has access visits with Matt.  He wants to continue seeing Matt on his own.

Matt misses his father and he has no idea what supervised access means. Matt is worried that he will never be able to see his dad again.

Legal Information

What is supervised access?

Supervised access means that you may not be alone while you visit with your parent. The purpose of supervised access to is primarily to ensure the child’s safety, but may also be used to monitor an access parent’s alienating behaviour (i.e., where he or she tries to break the bond between the child and the other parent), for example. Not all families need supervised access.  In cases where a children’s aid society thinks it is necessary, supervised access may be ordered by a court, unless both parents agree to it. Both parents have a right to be heard in court about whether they think supervised access is necessary.

Supervised access can mean that you must have your access visits at a specific person’s house, or that you must always have another person with you to supervise when you visit your access parent. The person supervising can be a family member or another trusted person but usually this must be first determined by the court.

Can Matt’s access visits with his dad be stopped altogether?

It is not Mom’s decision alone whether to cancel access between Matt and Dad.  Unless both parents agree, the decision about whether to restrict access would be made by a Judge in court.  Access will usually only be stopped altogether in extreme cases or under special circumstances, for example, when serious child abuse has been proven and the abusing parent refuses treatment.

Parents cannot refuse to pay child support because they cannot get access or choose not to visit their child. However, access will not be denied because a parent fails to pay child support. Access and child support and separate legal issues. There are other ways to get support from a non-paying parent.

Written By Lina Maria Sanchez (PLE Team Volunteer) and Meghan Lindo (JFCY law/Masters of social work practicum student from UofT)

Photo Tour of JFCY Office

Ever wondered what to expect when meeting with a lawyer at JFCY?  Click here to go to our Facebook page where you can view a  PHOTO TOUR OF JFCY.