St. Patrick's celebrations

[jamincan]

I think the idea with "jerk" parent is that the parent is a jerk only in their child's eyes.

[jeffster]

I think the idea with "jerk" parent is that the parent is a jerk only in their child's eyes.

Very true in most cases!

[ijmorlan]

I think the idea with "jerk" parent is that the parent is a jerk only in their child's eyes.

Very true in most cases!

And usually temporarily — as the child grows they realize they were given something valuable. Not always true, of course, and it’s perfectly possible for a parent to be an actual jerk to their kid, but I think that’s a big part of the difference between the two meanings of “jerk”.

[Bob_McBob]

Waterloo city council just passed a motion giving bylaw officers the power to compel identification under the public nuisance bylaw. In the meeting, their own staff admitted bylaw officers in Ontario are required to inform people they don't have to produce identification if asked. The city had been mulling asking the province for this authority, but apparently decided to just forge ahead and do it instead. Their legal counsel believes the bylaw amendment will hold up in court, when they are inevetably sued.

They've also passed restrictions desginating specific days around St Patrick's Day for special treatment under the bylaw, and want the province to eventually allow them to implement "surge fines".

https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/new-bylaws-...-1.4606772

From the agenda packet:

Further, staff are proposing an additional amendment to the Public Nuisance By-law to increase staff’s authority to ensure proper and accurate identification is obtained from persons who are subject to legal proceedings under the By-law, including the existing provisions and the proposed amendment relating to loud music.

The proposed amendment is clear in that officers can only require the production of proper identification when they have established that they plan to lay a charge under the By-law. Further, staff will receive enhanced training and guidance from Legal Services to ensure that they clearly understand the authority contained in the amendment.

Municipal Enforcement and Legal Services staff have collaborated to prepare the proposed amending by-law an resolution for Council’s consideration.

[jeffster]

Waterloo city council just passed a motion giving bylaw officers the power to compel identification under the public nuisance bylaw. In the meeting, their own staff admitted bylaw officers in Ontario are required to inform people they don't have to produce identification if asked. The city had been mulling asking the province for this authority, but apparently decided to just forge ahead and do it instead. Their legal counsel believes the bylaw amendment will hold up in court, when they are inevetably sued.

They've also passed restrictions desginating specific days around St Patrick's Day for special treatment under the bylaw, and want the province to eventually allow them to implement "surge fines".

https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/new-bylaws-...-1.4606772

From the agenda packet:

Further, staff are proposing an additional amendment to the Public Nuisance By-law to increase staff’s authority to ensure proper and accurate identification is obtained from persons who are subject to legal proceedings under the By-law, including the existing provisions and the proposed amendment relating to loud music.

The proposed amendment is clear in that officers can only require the production of proper identification when they have established that they plan to lay a charge under the By-law. Further, staff will receive enhanced training and guidance from Legal Services to ensure that they clearly understand the authority contained in the amendment.

Municipal Enforcement and Legal Services staff have collaborated to prepare the proposed amending by-law an resolution for Council’s consideration.

I have to wonder if this is the same legal staff that was involved in the entire RIM fiasco (the initial approving getting the loan) and the subsequent lawsuit they pursued (and not entirely won).

A better option would be to do some road work that day -- fill in any potholes properly, repaint lines, fix curbs and sidewalks. Stuff that needs to be done regardless. Perhaps clean some of the water mains by opening a couple hydrants. Kill two birds with one stone and avoid any issues. But I digress.

But, no, they'll take a more convoluted path that will see them in court, losing, again, and not solving the issue.

[ijmorlan]

Waterloo city council just passed a motion giving bylaw officers the power to compel identification under the public nuisance bylaw. In the meeting, their own staff admitted bylaw officers in Ontario are required to inform people they don't have to produce identification if asked. The city had been mulling asking the province for this authority, but apparently decided to just forge ahead and do it instead. Their legal counsel believes the bylaw amendment will hold up in court, when they are inevetably sued.

They've also passed restrictions desginating specific days around St Patrick's Day for special treatment under the bylaw, and want the province to eventually allow them to implement "surge fines".

https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/new-bylaws-...-1.4606772

From the agenda packet:

I have to wonder if this is the same legal staff that was involved in the entire RIM fiasco (the initial approving getting the loan) and the subsequent lawsuit they pursued (and not entirely won).

A better option would be to do some road work that day -- fill in any potholes properly, repaint lines, fix curbs and sidewalks. Stuff that needs to be done regardless. Perhaps clean some of the water mains by opening a couple hydrants. Kill two birds with one stone and avoid any issues. But I digress.

But, no, they'll take a more convoluted path that will see them in court, losing, again, and not solving the issue.

Big thumbs up to the idea of opening a bunch of fire hydrants or otherwise making the street difficult to use that day!

Related question about identification: how can it be that identification does not need to be provided if a ticket is being issued? Without a requirement to show ID, any ticket could be trivially avoided by giving a false identity. Or have I misunderstood, and the point is that right now identification can only be required if a ticket is to be issued, and now the City wants to change it to allow demanding identification without a ticket being issued?

[Bob_McBob]

Related question about identification: how can it be that identification does not need to be provided if a ticket is being issued? Without a requirement to show ID, any ticket could be trivially avoided by giving a false identity. Or have I misunderstood, and the point is that right now identification can only be required if a ticket is to be issued, and now the City wants to change it to allow demanding identification without a ticket being issued?

No, your original understanding is correct. Bylaw enforcement officers do not have the authority to compel people to produce identification, which is a source of significant frustration for the city with respect to the Ezra street party. Rather than asking the province to change the law, the city unilaterally decided to give themselves this authority, though it's unclear how they would actually enforce it. Will police be called to arrest anyone who breaks a bylaw if they refuse to identify themselves? I'm also unclear on whether police themselves can compel identification and arrest people for breaking bylaws in Ontario.

This is a huge overreach by the city, especially considering the extraordinary powers of warantless property searches and seizures bylaw enforcement officers already have in Ontario. I have major safety concerns about Ezra, but draconian bylaws and probably illegal policing powers are not the way to solve it.

[plam]

Related question about identification: how can it be that identification does not need to be provided if a ticket is being issued? Without a requirement to show ID, any ticket could be trivially avoided by giving a false identity. Or have I misunderstood, and the point is that right now identification can only be required if a ticket is to be issued, and now the City wants to change it to allow demanding identification without a ticket being issued?

Depends on whether you are driving/cycling or not. If not, you are not required to produce ID. But providing false information is an offence.

This is written from the perspective of answering police questions. I imagine by-law officers have a subset of those powers. http://svan.ca/police-rights/

[ijmorlan]

This is a huge overreach by the city, especially considering the extraordinary powers of warantless property searches and seizures bylaw enforcement officers already have in Ontario. I have major safety concerns about Ezra, but draconian bylaws and probably illegal policing powers are not the way to solve it.

Thanks for the clarification. I am inclined to believe your first sentence above, and I agree with the second. However, I do question whether actually being able to demand identification upon issuing a ticket is really a draconian authority. It seems obvious to me that there is no point in issuing a ticket to an unidentified individual. The only people who will ever be affected by being ticketed are people who aren’t used to lying to bylaw officers; routine offenders will quickly learn a false identity to give.

[danbrotherston]

This is a huge overreach by the city, especially considering the extraordinary powers of warantless property searches and seizures bylaw enforcement officers already have in Ontario. I have major safety concerns about Ezra, but draconian bylaws and probably illegal policing powers are not the way to solve it.

Thanks for the clarification. I am inclined to believe your first sentence above, and I agree with the second. However, I do question whether actually being able to demand identification upon issuing a ticket is really a draconian authority. It seems obvious to me that there is no point in issuing a ticket to an unidentified individual. The only people who will ever be affected by being ticketed are people who aren’t used to lying to bylaw officers; routine offenders will quickly learn a false identity to give.

At least for the police, a person who chooses not to identify themselves, or who the police believe has given them a false identification, can be detained.

As for whether it is truly draconian, here's a question, what is the penalty for not carrying "papers"?

[panamaniac]

Thanks for the clarification. I am inclined to believe your first sentence above, and I agree with the second. However, I do question whether actually being able to demand identification upon issuing a ticket is really a draconian authority. It seems obvious to me that there is no point in issuing a ticket to an unidentified individual. The only people who will ever be affected by being ticketed are people who aren’t used to lying to bylaw officers; routine offenders will quickly learn a false identity to give.

At least for the police, a person who chooses not to identify themselves, or who the police believe has given them a false identification, can be detained.

As for whether it is truly draconian, here's a question, what is the penalty for not carrying "papers"?

There is no penalty, afaik.

[ijmorlan]

Thanks for the clarification. I am inclined to believe your first sentence above, and I agree with the second. However, I do question whether actually being able to demand identification upon issuing a ticket is really a draconian authority. It seems obvious to me that there is no point in issuing a ticket to an unidentified individual. The only people who will ever be affected by being ticketed are people who aren’t used to lying to bylaw officers; routine offenders will quickly learn a false identity to give.

At least for the police, a person who chooses not to identify themselves, or who the police believe has given them a false identification, can be detained.

As for whether it is truly draconian, here's a question, what is the penalty for not carrying "papers"?

I think I know what you are alluding to, but the question is, can bylaws actually be enforced? I’m talking about a situation in which a ticket is to be issued. So the allusion is really inappropriate in this context.

[Coke6pk]

You are not required to provide identification for a by-law offence, but you are required to identify yourself. In my previous life, I charged many who used verbal ID. If the name/information was false, that's a criminal matter, and police would arrest and hold for proper identification.


While thee may be a desire to give a false name, there are many ways to determine that, and if so, you ave a bigger issue than the by-law ticket.

Coke

[Bob_McBob]

This article sums things up reasonably well.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/...-1.2701387

I'm unclear what enforcement mechanism the city plans to use if someone refuses to produce identification, but from watching the council meeting it sounded like refusing would be a bylaw infraction with a separate fine in and of itself. I don't believe municipal enforcement officers should have the legal authority to compel people to produce identification on pain of fines, and I don't believe the city can legally grant itself that authority.

[ijmorlan]

You are not required to provide identification for a by-law offence, but you are required to identify yourself.  In my previous life, I charged many who used verbal ID.  If the name/information was false, that's a criminal matter, and police would arrest and hold for proper identification. 


While thee may be a desire to give a false name, there are many ways to determine that, and if so, you ave a bigger issue than the by-law ticket.

Coke

Maybe I misunderstand what happens when one is ticketed for an offence. How (without revealing any trade secrets, obviously!) would you go about establishing the true identity of somebody you were attempting to ticket for drinking on a public sidewalk, for example? If they confidently give a name, what would even cause you to suspect it to be an alias? And once the interaction has ended, all you have is a piece of paper with a bogus name on it — I’m not aware of anything that could be used later to tie it to the person, even if the same person commits another offence. It’s not even like going on the 407 with a false plate where one can imagine matching up the video image with other video images and with ownership records to eventually figure out whose car is in the photo. I mean, you don’t photograph people to whom you are giving tickets?