St. Patrick's celebrations

[danbrotherston]

Do you have evidence that they "looked the other way on most [public drinking violations]"?  Or is this just something you feel must be true?  And this still wouldn't make it an illegal assembly.

No statistical data.  Look at the number of public drinking charges laid.  Look at the video of the number of people drinking in public.  That's my evidence.  So no it's not concrete.  

I never said it was an illegal assembly.  I simply said that laws were being broken.

Sorry, that was someone else who said it was an illegal assembly.

The police laying charges suggest that they are enforcing against this activity, and that it wasn't widespread.  Remember, drinking on private property, i.e., my porch, or my driveway, is legal.

[Spokes]

But drinking on the streets is illegal. We know that the entire street was packed. So all of those were breaking the law.

This has turned into a back and forth about what is legal or not. I think it's hard to not say that laws were being broken widespread, but that's besides the point, and that's just me.

But....the fact remains that the region paid 500,000 in police costs and even more in health care costs. That's an issue. I'm all for students and students having fun, but it's hard no to see that it's an issue

[danbrotherston]

But drinking on the streets is illegal.  We know that the entire street was packed.  So all of those were breaking the law.

This has turned into a back and forth about what is legal or not.  I think it's hard to not say that laws were being broken widespread, but that's besides the point, and that's just me.

But....the fact remains that the region paid 500,000 in police costs and even more in health care costs.  That's an issue.  I'm all for students and students having fun, but it's hard no to see that it's an issue

*sigh*...I think it's hard to say that the laws were being broken in a widespread fashion (not that such lawlessness is unusual in our society, just look at speeding--yet somehow, we don't call the cars on Fischer-Hallman "illegal").

As for the costs, sure, set that as the budget for the event next year, if it's successful, it should be easy to attract paying vendors the following year to cover the costs.

[Viewfromthe42]

When the city put on its own counter-event, it had lines and was filled, but the capacity and hours were so low that it didn't do anything to lower the Ezra event, and the groups that protest the loudest about Ezra protested even louder about the city's event because it had some city money (thought with WLU and the event organizer doing most), and it brought the event closer to their Macgregor-Albert neighbourhood.

[Spokes]

But drinking on the streets is illegal.  We know that the entire street was packed.  So all of those were breaking the law.

This has turned into a back and forth about what is legal or not.  I think it's hard to not say that laws were being broken widespread, but that's besides the point, and that's just me.

But....the fact remains that the region paid 500,000 in police costs and even more in health care costs.  That's an issue.  I'm all for students and students having fun, but it's hard no to see that it's an issue

*sigh*...I think it's hard to say that the laws were being broken in a widespread fashion (not that such lawlessness is unusual in our society, just look at speeding--yet somehow, we don't call the cars on Fischer-Hallman "illegal").

As for the costs, sure, set that as the budget for the event next year, if it's successful, it should be easy to attract paying vendors the following year to cover the costs.

Just because everyone speeds down Fischer-Hallman (me included) doesn't mean they're not breaking the law.

Just because people drink in the middle of the streets at the party and don't get charged doesn't mean it's not breaking the law.

But that's the issue.  Are tax payers willing to spend a half million dollars on this?  I think that's the whole issue, it seems like they're not.  If they were, why not just keep things status quo?

[danbrotherston]

*sigh*...I think it's hard to say that the laws were being broken in a widespread fashion (not that such lawlessness is unusual in our society, just look at speeding--yet somehow, we don't call the cars on Fischer-Hallman "illegal").

As for the costs, sure, set that as the budget for the event next year, if it's successful, it should be easy to attract paying vendors the following year to cover the costs.

Just because everyone speeds down Fischer-Hallman (me included) doesn't mean they're not breaking the law.

Just because people drink in the middle of the streets at the party and don't get charged doesn't mean it's not breaking the law.

But that's the issue.  Are tax payers willing to spend a half million dollars on this?  I think that's the whole issue, it seems like they're not.  If they were, why not just keep things status quo?

Students are taxpayers.

I'm not saying that the people speeding down Fischer Hallman aren't breaking the law . They are. Im pointing out they're treated differently than the students.

I'm also saying you have no evidence that all the students are drinking illegally and not being charged for doing so.  The only evidence is that the police did charge people.

[jamincan]

FWIW, the Liquor License Act states:

(2) No person shall have or consume liquor in any place other than,

(a) a residence;

(b) premises in respect of which a licence or permit is issued; or

© a private place as defined in the regulations.  R.S.O. 1990, c. L.19, s. 31 (2).

A private place is defined in regulations as:

(2) An indoor place to which the public is not ordinarily invited or permitted is considered to be a private place except at the times when the public is invited or permitted access to it.  R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 718, s. 3 (2).

(3) Despite subsection (2), an indoor place that is available for rental by members of the public for occasional use is not a private place.  R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 718, s. 3 (3).

(4) A motor vehicle equipped with sleeping accommodation and cooking facilities is considered to be a private place while it is parked and being used as a residence.  R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 718, s. 3 (4).

(5) Despite subsection (4), a motor vehicle is not considered to be a private place while it is on a highway or a King’s Highway within the meaning of the Highway Traffic Act.  R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 718, s. 3 (5).

(6) A boat that is used exclusively to carry freight and is under the command of a person certified under the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 is considered to be a private place.  R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 718, s. 3 (6); O. Reg. 246/16, s. 1.

(7) A boat with permanent sleeping accommodations and permanent cooking and sanitary facilities, other than a boat used to carry passengers for hire is considered to be a private place while the boat is at anchor or is secured to the dock or land.  R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 718, s. 3 (7).

(8) If a boat is considered under subsection (7) to be a private place and is secured to a dock or land to which the public is not ordinarily invited or permitted then the dock or land is considered to be a private place except at the times when the public is invited or permitted access to it.  R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 718, s. 3 (8).

(9) A boat that is used exclusively to carry passengers for hire and has sleeping accommodation for all passengers is considered to be a private place if it is under the command of a person certified under the Canada Shipping Act, 2001.  R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 718, s. 3 (9); O. Reg. 246/16, s. 1.

(10) A boat that is owned or operated by the Canadian Coast Guard is considered to be a private place.  R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 718, s. 3 (10).

This would seem to prohibit drinking on your front lawn.
Similarly, the law says, regarding public intoxication:

(4) No person shall be in an intoxicated condition,
(a) in a place to which the general public is invited or permitted access; or
(b) in any part of a residence that is used in common by persons occupying more than one dwelling in the residence.  R.S.O. 1990, c. L.19, s. 31 (4).

[Coke6pk]

I don't think the region is happy. I'm not even sure why that was said.  But if the police can get extra officers because of things like this, they then can turn around (after getting the budget) and then shut it down.

I still believe, tho, that this should be taken care of by the City of Waterloo and Laurier 100%. The region can do a charge back the city and university and they'll have it cleared up very quickly.

To go a step further, why should the city pay?  Because it's happening there?  This one's on the universities

No, this is on the students.

If we have a WR Connected party that takes over Ezra street and costs the taxpayer thousands, would we expect Laurier to pay?  [Or in this case, sue MyBB for costs?]

The problem is no one entity is responsible.  Most are students at Laurier, but no identifiable member is organizing.

Coke

[robdrimmie]

(2) No person shall have or consume liquor in any place other than,

(a) a residence;

This would seem to prohibit drinking on your front lawn (and back yard, for that matter??).

I suspect "residence" covers the entire property, not just the house. Residence and private place are distinct places, so the definition of private place that focuses on indoors doesn't apply to a residence.

[robdrimmie]

The problem is no one entity is responsible.  Most are students at Laurier, but no identifiable member is organizing.

Could the property owners on Ezra could be held responsible?

[jamincan]

This would seem to prohibit drinking on your front lawn (and back yard, for that matter??).

I suspect "residence" covers the entire property, not just the house. Residence and private place are distinct places, so the definition of private place that focuses on indoors doesn't apply to a residence.

I went back and re-read that section and subsection one explicitly defines the residence as the parts that the public is generally not invited or permitted access to. I'm pretty sure the front yard would be excluded, but the back yard would be included.

[robdrimmie]

I went back and re-read that section and subsection one explicitly defines the residence as the parts that the public is generally not invited or permitted access to. I'm pretty sure the front yard would be excluded, but the back yard would be included.

I'm not a lawyer but I disagree with your interpretation. Unless someone with actual knowledge chimes in, I don't think we can use this information to determine the legality of the Ezra street party in any meaningful way.

[Spokes]

Just because everyone speeds down Fischer-Hallman (me included) doesn't mean they're not breaking the law.

Just because people drink in the middle of the streets at the party and don't get charged doesn't mean it's not breaking the law.

But that's the issue.  Are tax payers willing to spend a half million dollars on this?  I think that's the whole issue, it seems like they're not.  If they were, why not just keep things status quo?

Students are taxpayers.

I'm not saying that the people speeding down Fischer Hallman aren't breaking the law . They are. Im pointing out they're treated differently than the students.

I'm also saying you have no evidence that all the students are drinking illegally and not being charged for doing so.  The only evidence is that the police did charge people.

You're right.  I have no evidence.  I'm just assuming that given the number of people drinking in the streets and given the number of charges laid, that the majority weren't charged.

[ijmorlan]

The problem is no one entity is responsible.  Most are students at Laurier, but no identifiable member is organizing.

Could the property owners on Ezra could be held responsible?

I hope not. It’s hard enough to run a rental property without having parental responsibility for ones tenants.

[robdrimmie]

I hope not. It’s hard enough to run a rental property without having parental responsibility for ones tenants.

That's a fair point.

Ultimately I'm trying to get the charges back to the students, as I agree with the assertion above that they are ultimately the ones responsible for the cost. If the landlords are fined, they would increase rent (or more likely divest themselves of the property or stop renting it to students, which aren't great solutions). Is there precedent for the city charging a private individual for costs related to emergency services? I know that ambulance trips aren't covered by insurance, and there is a fine for pulling a fire alarm when there isn't a fire.

If police come to a house party because of noise complaints or some such, are the residents (homeowner or tenant or whatever relationship to the property they have) on the hook for the cost of the police response? Wages, fuel, etc?

I suspect not, but genuinely don't know. It seems to me that typically this is the kind of cost the community absorbs. While the scale is extremely different, it makes sense to me that we should continue doing so. I respect that people don't want their taxes going to support a party they don't like, but there's any number of things I dislike my taxes supporting, and any number of taxes I wish I could pay for different services.

I still don't have a strong opinion, but I am not seeing anything in this thread that persuades me that the party should be stopped or that anyone but existing budgets should pay for whatever resource pressure it creates. As Dan pointed out, the students are taxpayers (if not directly through property tax, then indirectly through rent) and like all other taxpayers they burden the system in some ways and benefit it in others.