Added Cards To Strategic Risk

Question 1

If numerous people gather in protest, who and what to do.

Answer 1

Criminal Code;

Unlawful assembly

63 (1) An unlawful assembly is an assembly of three or more persons who, with intent to carry out any common purpose, assemble in such a manner or so conduct themselves when they are assembled as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of the assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that they

(a) will disturb the peace tumultuously; or
(b) will by that assembly needlessly and without reasonable cause provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously.

Marginal note:Lawful assembly becoming unlawful

(2) Persons who are lawfully assembled may become an unlawful assembly if they conduct themselves with a common purpose in a manner that would have made the assembly unlawful if they had assembled in that manner for that purpose.

Marginal note:Exception

(3) Persons are not unlawfully assembled by reason only that they are assembled to protect the dwelling-house of any one of them against persons who are threatening to break and enter it for the purpose of committing an indictable offence therein.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 64
Marginal note:Riot

64 A riot is an unlawful assembly that has begun to disturb the peace tumultuously.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 65
Marginal note:Punishment of rioter

65 (1) Every person who takes part in a riot is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Marginal note:Concealment of identity

(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) while wearing a mask or other disguise to conceal their identity without lawful excuse is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

City bylaw;
https://www.hamilton.ca/sites/default/files/media/browser/2019-12-16/by-law_17-225_consolidated.pdf

Question 2

What if someone shows up and begins yelling.

Answer 2

Causing disturbance, indecent exhibition, loitering, etc.

175 (1) Every one who

(a) not being in a dwelling-house, causes a disturbance in or near a public place,
(i) by fighting, screaming, shouting, swearing, singing or using insulting or obscene language,
(ii) by being drunk, or
(iii) by impeding or molesting other persons,
(b) openly exposes or exhibits an indecent exhibition in a public place,
(c) loiters in a public place and in any way obstructs persons who are in that place, or
(d) disturbs the peace and quiet of the occupants of a dwelling-house by discharging firearms or by other disorderly conduct in a public place or who, not being an occupant of a dwelling-house comprised in a particular building or structure, disturbs the peace and quiet of the occupants of a dwelling-house comprised in the building or structure by discharging firearms or by other disorderly conduct in any part of a building or structure to which, at the time of such conduct, the occupants of two or more dwelling-houses comprised in the building or structure have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied,

is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Question 3

What is the Good Samaritan Drug Overdose ACT?

Answer 3

About the Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act
The Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act provides some legal protection for individuals who seek emergency help during an overdose.

The Act became law on May 4, 2017. It complements the Canadian Drugs and Substances Strategy, our comprehensive public health approach to substance use. Harm reduction is a key part of the strategy alongside prevention, treatment, and enforcement.

We hope the Act will help to reduce fear of police attending overdose events and encourage people to help save a life.

Legal protection granted by the Act
The Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act provides some legal protection for people who experience or witness an overdose and call 911 or their local emergency number for help.

The Act can protect you from:

Charges for possession of a controlled substance (i.e. drugs) under section 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
Breach of conditions regarding simple possession of controlled substances (i.e. drugs) in:
pre-trial release
probation orders
conditional sentences
parole
The Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act applies to anyone seeking emergency support during an overdose, including the person experiencing an overdose. The Act protects the person who seeks help, whether they stay or leave from the overdose scene before help arrives. The Act also protects anyone else who is at the scene when help arrives.

The Act does not provide legal protection against more serious offences, such as:

outstanding warrants
production and trafficking of controlled substances
all other crimes not outlined within the Act

Question 4

Are you required to assist police?

Answer 4

Criminal Code 129 Every one who

(a) resists or wilfully obstructs a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty or any person lawfully acting in aid of such an officer,
(b) omits, without reasonable excuse, to assist a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty in arresting a person or in preserving the peace, after having reasonable notice that he is required to do so, or
(c) resists or wilfully obstructs any person in the lawful execution of a process against lands or goods or in making a lawful distress or seizure,

is guilty of

(d) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or
(e) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Question 5

When restraining a arm of someone who spits and/or bits, how do you protect yourself while keeping the patient safe?

Answer 5

1. You can never be put in a unsafe position unless your trained to be there. There are no programs like this but here’s a few pointers;
2. Stand to the side of them while in bed so that your shoulder is online with theirs and your basically looking at their feet. Position your arm with their arm keeping the elbow just below the shoulder to give a slight hit. Or position your elbow at the forearm fir the same reason.
3. Keep your back almost at their ear incase they try to head butt or bit you, this allows you to move away or give a slight elbow to arm shoulder or face.
4. If they move their arm grab their wrist overtop of theirs and turn into their body.
5. By twisting their wrist towards them you make the radial and ulna bone intertwin so that applying restraints will be more secure and this is what is taught by Mike.

Question 6

What is a consensual encounter?

Answer 6

This is from a US site but most applies.

Website:
(https://www.fighterlaw.com/criminal-law-101/crime-defenses/police-encounters/)

First and foremost, you should know the difference between the three types of police encounters along with the rights given to you by the United States Constitution.

There are three types of police encounters:

Consensual Encounter
Investigatory Stop
Arrest
CONSENSUAL ENCOUNTER

A consensual encounter occurs when an individual is approached by a police officer and the officer initiates conversation. A consensual encounter does not involve police commands, force, or lights and sirens. There is no need for a crime or even a suspicion of a crime to have occurred for a consensual encounter to take place.

The officer may ask you questions and you have the right to refuse to answer.

During a Consensual Encounter you have the right to:

Walk away
Refuse to identify yourself
Tell the officer you do not wish to speak to them
The test to determine if a police officer is conducting a consensual encounter or an investigatory stop is whether a reasonable person would not feel free to leave.

Some people would feel as if they are not free to leave if the officer is asking the individual questions in a forceful manner or if several officers surround the individual. When in doubt simply ask the officer, “Am I free to leave?”

If an officer shows authority in a manner that restrains the individual’s freedom of movement such that a reasonable person would feel compelled to comply, the consensual encounter has now become an investigatory stop.

INVESTIGATORY STOP

The second level of encounter is called an Investigatory Stop or Investigatory Detention. Also known as a Terry Stop from the legal case Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). In Terry, the Supreme Court held that police may briefly detain an individual who they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity.

The key term here is reasonable suspicion.

In order for a police officer to detain a person for investigation, the officer must have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.

During an Investigatory Stop you do not have the right to walk away. You do not have the right to refuse to identify yourself. However, you do have the right to tell the officer you do not wish to speak to them. Remember this is your constitutionally guaranteed Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.

The United States Constitution states, “Citizen’s Fourth Amendment rights are triggered during investigatory stop, and such stop requires proof of well-founded, articulable suspicion of criminal activity.

Whether an officer has a founded suspicion for a stop depends on the totality of the circumstances, in light of the officer’s knowledge and experience; a bare suspicion or mere hunch that criminal activity may be occurring is not sufficient.”

In other words, it is against the law for a police officer to conduct an investigatory stop without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

Stop and Frisk is another term for detention. During this brief detention, the police officer may “frisk” your outer clothing, if he or she has reason to believe you have any weapons on you. This is done for the officer’s safety. However, during this frisk, if the officer feels something from plain touch and can tell it is contraband they can then do a full search of your person because now they have probable cause to conduct a search.

After this detention, the officer must either let you go or, if probable cause is found, make an arrest.

ARREST

The last level of police encounters involves an arrest.

An officer makes an arrest by physically restraining a person or by using authority in order to show that the individual is not free to leave. The officer must have probable cause that the individual committed a crime in order to make the arrest.

The key term here is probable cause.

Probable cause is the legal standard that a police officer must have in order to make an arrest, conduct a personal or property search, or obtain a warrant for arrest. Probable cause is a stronger standard than reasonable suspicion and because of that it requires facts or evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a suspect has committed a crime.

A police officer may make an arrest without a warrant in several circumstances, some of those include:

A warrant for an arrest has been issued which is still in effect, and the officer knows of the warrant even though another officer holds it.
A felony committed and the officer has reason to believe the accused committed the felony.
A misdemeanor or felony committed in the officer’s presence.
However, there are some misdemeanors offenses where Florida law allows an officer to make an arrest without a warrant and even when the crime was not committed in the officer’s presence.

If you are arrested try to stay calm. Do not resist the officer, this will only make things worse and give the officer another opportunity to add an additional charge to your record. But most of all remember your right to remain silent and your right to an attorney.

Question 7

What is the difference between Breach of Peace and Cause Disturbance?

Answer 7

Breach of Peace is Criminal Code 30 and states;
“Preventing breach of peace
30 Every one who witnesses a breach of the peace is justified in interfering to prevent the continuance or renewal thereof and may detain any person who commits or is about to join in or to renew the breach of the peace, for the purpose of giving him into the custody of a peace officer, if he uses no more force than is reasonably necessary to prevent the continuance or renewal of the breach of the peace or than is reasonably proportioned to the danger to be apprehended from the continuance or renewal of the breach of the peace.
Cause Disturbance “Causing disturbance, indecent exhibition, loitering, etc.

And

Criminal Code 175 (1) Every one who

(a) not being in a dwelling-house, causes a disturbance in or near a public place,
(i) by fighting, screaming, shouting, swearing, singing or using insulting or obscene language,
(ii) by being drunk, or
(iii) by impeding or molesting other persons,
(b) openly exposes or exhibits an indecent exhibition in a public place,
(c) loiters in a public place and in any way obstructs persons who are in that place, or
(d) disturbs the peace and quiet of the occupants of a dwelling-house by discharging firearms or by other disorderly conduct in a public place or who, not being an occupant of a dwelling-house comprised in a particular building or structure, disturbs the peace and quiet of the occupants of a dwelling-house comprised in the building or structure by discharging firearms or by other disorderly conduct in any part of a building or structure to which, at the time of such conduct, the occupants of two or more dwelling-houses comprised in the building or structure have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied,

is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Marginal note:Evidence of peace officer

(2) In the absence of other evidence, or by way of corroboration of other evidence, a summary conviction court may infer from the evidence of a peace officer relating to the conduct of a person or persons, whether ascertained or not, that a disturbance described in paragraph (1)(a) or (d) or an obstruction described in paragraph (1)(c) was caused or occurred.

Question 8

What is a arrest (history) and how do you legally arrest someone? For ie “Trespassing”.

Answer 8

The Ontario Trespass to Property Act is the province’s civilian/security services workhorse, where licensed premises and licensed events are not involved. It is important to remember that this Act contains civilian arrest authority but no civilian release authority. Once an arrest is made you must turn the arrested subject over to the police forthwith.
You cannot ‘change your mind’, ‘give them a break’ or ‘get them off the property and let them go’! Nor can your supervisor, or any other civilian authority release them or order you to release them. If the subject believes they were arrested and released without police involvement they can have all persons involved charged and sued. The only exception is a tactical disengagement for safety reasons! Arrest is something you either don’t start or you will finish. No games or excuses will be acceptable if and when this gets to court. (Yes, I’ve listed above some of the excuses I’ve been given over the years, they all are not acceptable under law.)

Now, let’s examine the most common questions regarding this Act.

According to the act, who can be classified as an “occupier?”

An occupier can be (as persons authorized by the owner/occupier):
A tenant or guest in a residence
A security officer
A plain clothes officer preventing offenses on property
A bouncer in a bar
An “extra duty” or “paid duty” police officer

What qualifies as a “premises” under the definition in this Act?

Premises means just about any type of “real” property including trains, ships, trailers, and vehicles as long as it is not in service.

Under the T.P.A., what are the offenses for which a Security Officer may make an arrest without a warrant?

(1) Without permission enters when prohibited,
(2) Engages in a prohibited activity on the property
(3) Fails to leave when directed;

What does it mean?

An offense is committed if a person enters onto property when they are not allowed; everyone is prohibited ie: “NO TRESPASSING”, An individual is prohibited - “barred or banned”; Engages in a particular type of behaviour. For example:

• On a farmer’s land “No snowmobiling”
• In a pool - “No spitting”
• In a theater - “No cellular phones”
• In a restaurant - “No smoking”
• In a store - “No soliciting”

It is understood that engaging in behaviours or activities regulated by a criminal law on property guarded by security officers meets the threshold of trespassing.

A person fails to leave when asked to; if an individual does not leave, the occupier or their agent may have some limited arrest authorities.

Is a fence or sign always required?

If it grows, don’t go there! A Lawn does not require a sign that says “KEEP OFF THE GRASS.” It is implied that it is prohibited from being walked on.

What is the presumption in the TPA about when a person can approach a building or dwelling?

There is a presumption that access for lawful purposes to the door of a building or premises by a means apparently provided and used for this purpose. That reasonable entry is permitted if not completely blocked.(ie. Fence, closed and locked gate) This is for the purpose of communicating with the owner or occupier.)

If the invitation is removed (verbally, signs, written notice) the individual must leave. If they don’t, they are trespassing.

In the enforcement industry such as property standards and bylaw enforcement, there is case law within other statutes that exempts them from prosecution under this act. They are on the property of others for a “lawful purpose” which exempts them as trespassers.

How can trespass notice be served under this act?

Verbally, in writing, or by way of a sign posted. All of these must be in accordance with the regulations under this act.

Can physical force be used to enforce the provisions of section 2?

There is no statutory authority within this act to use force. However the Asante-Mensah case established case law for the use of force under this Act (and there are links to the Criminal Code authorities) that have now entrenched a use of force authority for the T.P.A.

R v Asante-Mensah, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 3, 2003 SCC 38, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court affirmed the limits to which private citizens may undertake an arrest, as well as the limits of private individuals in the use of force to protect property. This case holds particular importance as the prevalence of private security has become increasingly popular across Canada. Daniel Asante-Mensah was a “scooper,” a type of Toronto taxi driver that picks up fares from the Pearson International Airport without the proper permit authorized under the Ontario Trespass to Property Act. He collected passengers from the airport and, on numerous occasions, received notice under section 3 of the Act that he was prohibited from entering onto airport property on penalty of trespass.

To control the problem of “scoopers,” the airport authorities instructed the airport inspectors to undertake citizen’s arrest under section 9 of the Act. One of the inspectors attempted to arrest Asante-Mensah by touching his shoulder and informing him that he was under arrest and would be detained until the police arrived. Asante-Mensah attempted to get into his car but was blocked by the inspector. However, Asante-Mensah responded by shoving the car door into the inspector, which gave him room to get into his car and he drove off. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, held that the inspector had properly arrested Asante-Mensah. In reference to R. v. Whitfield, the Court held that a citizen’s arrest at common law allows for a use of “reasonable force”. This includes reasonable force necessary to undertake the arrest and maintain it.

At trial, the judge held that there was no arrest as the inspector was not authorized to use “reasonable force.” The verdict was overturned on appeal. Asante-Mensah tried to challenge the law under section 7 and section 9 of the Charter but it was rejected and was not appealed on.

In June 1967, James Whitfield was driving down a street in eastern Toronto. He had been wanted for damaging the seat cushions of a local restaurant. The police spotted him in his car and approached him at a stop light. Officer Kerr told him that he had a warrant for his arrest. Whitfield drove off but had to stop due to oncoming traffic. Kerr ran up to the car and grabbed Whitfield by the collar and said he was under arrest, but Whitfield accelerated and Kerr fell to the road.

Whitfield was convicted of escape of lawful arrest.

Judson J., writing for the majority, adopted the common law definition of arrest as consisting of “the actual seizure or touching of a person’s body with a view to his detention. The mere pronouncing of words of arrest is not an arrest, unless the person sought to be arrested submits to the process and goes with the arresting officer.” Consequently, there are two requirements to affect an arrest: actual seizure or touching of the suspects body with a view to detention; and pronouncing “words of arrest” to the suspect.

On the facts, the Court held that Whitfield was put under arrest and so the charge of escaping arrest was upheld.

In the subsequent Supreme Court case of R v Latimer, the court held that arrest may also be effected by words and a restraint on liberty accompanied by submission.

Question 9

What is a legal arrest?

Answer 9

R v Whitfield (1969), [1970] S.C.R. 46 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the legal requirements of an arrest under the Criminal Code.

In June 1967, James Whitfield was driving down a street in eastern Toronto. He had been wanted for damaging the seat cushions of a local restaurant. The police spotted him in his car and approached him at a stop light. Officer Kerr told him that he had a warrant for his arrest. Whitfield drove off but had to stop due to oncoming traffic. Kerr ran up to the car and grabbed Whitfield by the collar and said he was under arrest, but Whitfield accelerated and Kerr fell to the road.

Whitfield was convicted of escape of lawful arrest.

Reasons of the court Edit

Judson J., writing for the majority, adopted the common law definition of arrest as consisting of “the actual seizure or touching of a person’s body with a view to his detention. The mere pronouncing of words of arrest is not an arrest, unless the person sought to be arrested submits to the process and goes with the arresting officer.” Consequently, there are two requirements to affect an arrest: actual seizure or touching of the suspects body with a view to detention; and pronouncing “words of arrest” to the suspect.

On the facts, the Court held that Whitfield was put under arrest and so the charge of escaping arrest was upheld.

In the subsequent Supreme Court case of R v Latimer, the court held that arrest may also be effected by words and a restraint on liberty accompanied by submission.

Question 10

What is the meaning of “detained” or “detention”?

Answer 10

The police have a common law right to detain people for investigative purposes. The investigation must be based on a “reasonable suspicion that the particular individual is implicated in the criminal activity under investigation” for it to be considered lawful.[1]

Any detention must be “reasonably necessary” based on the “totality of the of the circumstances”. The nature and extent of the interference with liberty must be one that is “necessary” in light of the duties being executed.[2] The suspicion formed must include a “clear nexus” between the detainee and the criminal offence under investigation.[3]

Police are not permitted to detain anyone for the purpose of “ferreting out criminal activity” or to determine if someone is “up to no good”. There must be “particularized” suspicion relating to specific criminal activity.[4]

The right against arbitrary detention does not extend to a free-standing right to flee.[5]

Detention Defined
A person is detained where their liberty is deprived through “physical constraint” or where “the state assumes control over the movement of a person by demand ord direction which may have a significant legal consequence and which prevents or impedes access to counsel”.[6]

Requirements for Lawful Detention
The detention must be in relation to a suspected (1) “recent or on-going criminal offence” that is (2) connected to the detainee.[7] The crime must be known by the officer. It is not sufficient if the crime is merely suspected.[8]

Police Obligations Upon Detention
Where a person is detained, absent statutory exceptions, they are entitled to a right to counsel.

So long as there is no detention, the police are entitled to question a person without advising of any right to counsel, even if they intend to arrest that person. [9]

Sufficiency of Belief [10]
An officer’s “grounds to believe” an offence has been committed will fall short of being “objectively reasonable and probable” allowing for an arrest. If the officer instead has a “reasonable suspicion” that the suspect was involved in a criminal offence, it may be enough to justify investigative detention.[11]

Duration of Power
Investigative detention is permissible only so long as it is “reasonably necessary” in the “totality of the circumstances”.[12] What is reasonably necessary will depend on the “nature of the situation” such as:[13]

intrusiveness of the detention
Nature or seriousness of the offence,
complexity of the investigation,
any immediate public or individual safety concerns,
the ability of the police to continue the investigation without continuing the detention of the suspect,
the lack of diligence of the police,
the lack of immediate availability of investigative tools,
the information known to the police about the suspect or the crime, and
the extent to which the detention was reasonably responsive or tailored to these circumstances, including its geographic and temporal scope.
Detention vs Warrantless Arrest
Section 495(2) requires that an officer not arrest a suspect unless there is reason to do so. Reasons include:[14]

to establishing identity
reasonable belief that the offence may continue or be repeated if not arrested
reasonable belief that evidence may be lost if not arrested
Appellate Review
Whether someone was unlawfully detained under s. 9 of the Charter is a question of law and is reviewable on a standard of correctness.[15]

The existence of reasonable suspicion is a question of law and reviewed on a correctness standard.[16]

History
In earlier cases, the term used was adopted from US law of “articulable cause”, which later was changed to “reasonable grounds to detain”.[17]

Question 11

What is trespassing?

Answer 11

Trespass to Property Act, 2.:
Every person who is not acting under a right or authority conferred by law and who,
(a) without the express permission of the occupier, the proof of which rests on the defendant,
(i) enters on premises when entry is prohibited under this Act, or
(ii) engages in an activity on premises when the activity is prohibited under this Act; or
(b) does not leave the premises immediately after he or she is directed to do so by the occupier of the premises or a person authorized by the occupier,
is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $2,000. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 2 (1).

The law of trespass in Canada is made up of tort law, provincial legislation, and criminal law.

Tort law

Trespass to land is one of the oldest torts known in law. Historically, it has been held to occur whenever there has been an unauthorized physical intrusion onto the private property of another. Trespass also occurs when a person remains on an individual’s land after permission has been withdrawn.

Trespass to land is actionable “per se”. That means that someone can be sued and found liable for trespassing even if there is no proof of damage. In a trespass case, if the incident was for particularly malicious purposes, such as to intimidate the land owner, even punitive damages may apply.

That said, however, any person can go onto the private property of another during daylight hours if permission to do so is implied. For example, if there is a path up to the front door of a residence and there are no signs warning people to stay off the land, there is implied permission for people to enter, such as a letter carrier. This implied permission can, of course, be revoked instantly by the person in charge of the property. If you are told to leave, you must leave or you could be sued for trespass.

Provincial regulation

Every province in Canada has trespass legislation, such as Ontario’s Trespass to Property Act. Only the territories rely on the common law. In some provinces, Privacy Acts, Motor Vehicle Acts, Fish and Wildlife Acts and even All Terrain Vehicle Acts may give a legal right to an owner to prosecute trespassers.

The purpose of any trespass legislation is to give greater control over entry or use of an owner’s or tenant’s premises, to provide penalties and remedies for breaches of the Act, and to facilitate the recreational use of private lands.

The law, in most cases, does not take away an owner’s or tenant’s right to sue for trespass, but usually grants the government the authority to seek its own sanctions as a way to control this sort of behaviour.

While trespassing is usually defined as the unlawful entry onto the private land of another, it also includes performing an unlawful activity on the land and refusing to leave when told to do so.

In some provinces, such as Ontario, there is a reverse onus provision. In Ontario, a person is presumed to be trespassing if he or she is found in a private garden, field or other land under cultivation, inside lands that are fenced for livestock or cultivation and on lands where notice has been posted. It is important to note that trespass is not presumed in privately owned natural areas if it is not posted as prohibited. This point is in line with the philosophy of encouraging recreational activity on privately held lands.

Offenders may be fined, in some cases up-to several thousand dollars. There are a number of defences available to a person charged under provincial trespass legislation. If there is a fair and reasonable supposition that an accused had a right to be on the land, the person may be acquitted. There is also an implied permission to approach a door of a building unless there is a notice warning people to stay away.

Criminal law

Entering onto private land at night is treated much differently, and implied permission does not extend to trespassing at night, which is a criminal offence. The Criminal Code makes it an offence to loiter or prowl at night on the property of another person near a dwelling-house situated on that property. “Night” is defined by the Criminal Code as between 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 am. “Dwelling-house” is defined by the Criminal Code as a permanent or temporary residence and anything attached to it.

The essence of loitering is wandering about apparently without a precise destination. It is conduct which essentially has nothing reprehensible about it as long as it does not take place on private property where the loiterer has no business. The substance of prowling is to move about stealthily, furtively, secretly, and clandestinely or move in small degrees.

The prosecutor does not have to prove that the accused was looking for an opportunity to carry out an unlawful purpose. Where prowling is proved, it is up to the accused to prove he had a lawful excuse for being there.

Question 12

What are the fines for trespassing?

Answer 12

Schedule 85

Trespass to Property Act

• Enter premises when entry prohibited
  - 2(1)(a)(i). 50.00
• Engage in prohibited activity on premises
  
  • 2(1)(a)(ii). 50.00
• Fail to leave premises when directed
  
  • 2(1) (b). 50.00

Question 13

Can your employer remove you from your job if you do not take a hep b vaccine?

Info taken from

https://www.hepb.org/blog/do-you-have-to-tell-your-employer-about-your-hepatitis-b/

Answer 13

Can an employer withdraw a job offer after they learn I have hepatitis B? No, because the majority of people with hepatitis B are healthy, productive and able to perform their jobs. Unless you have severe liver disease, hepatitis B does not impair your ability to be a teacher, nurse, doctor or home health aide.

If your hepatitis B status is made known as a result of a blood test or exam, that information should go no farther than the human resources department. Federal law requires employers to keep all medical records and information confidential and in separate files.

What if they say my hepatitis B poses a threat to clients, coworkers or patients?

There is no medical basis for that fear. The U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have determined that hepatitis B-infected nurses, doctors, dentists and other providers do not pose a threat to patients. If they say it does, send them these reports (see below). Call or email us if you need help.

The U.S. Department of Justice’s warning letter to medical, dental, nursing and other allied health programs to stop discrimination against applicants with hepatitis B. The letter can also be found online at: http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/office/hep-b-letter.pdf

And Updated CDC Recommendations for the Management of Hepatitis B Virus–Infected Health-Care Providers and Students is found at: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/rr/rr6103.pdf

What can I do if I feel I’ve been discriminated against?

You can file an ADA complaint against a state or local government or any business by mail or e-mail. For more information click here. You can also file a complaint by email and if you have questions about filing an ADA complaint, call the ADA Information Line at 800-514-0301.

Question 14

Can a police officer make you assist him? It depends…if you have a reasonable reason not to help him/her and tell him/her…then no.

Answer 14

Refusing to assist a police officer, peace officer or other law enforcement officer is an offence in various jurisdictions around the world. Some jurisdictions use the terminology ‘“refusing to aid a police officer” or “failure to aid a police officer”.

This principle originates from Norman England, where local Sheriffs in England would be the only peace officer in an area. He would summon assistance from locals in order to enforce the King’s laws or to apprehend an offender.[1] It subsequently became part of the common law that all persons must assist a constable or peace officer when so requested. This still remains as one of the few common law offences which exist in England/Wales and some other states/countries.

Canada Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)[2]
See 129(b) for circumstances where it is a crime not to act in assistance of the police.

129 Every one who

(a) resists or wilfully obstructs a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty or any person lawfully acting in aid of such an officer,
(b) omits, without reasonable excuse, to assist a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty in arresting a person or in preserving the peace, after having reasonable notice that he is required to do so, or
(c) resists or wilfully obstructs any person in the lawful execution of a process against lands or goods or in making a lawful distress or seizure,

is guilty of

(d) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or
(e) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refusing_to_assist_a_police_officer

Also;

Canada Edit
In Canada, the Criminal Code makes it illegal for a motor vehicle driver to disobey an order to stop for a police officer.[citation needed] This includes flight from a peace officer. Such a charge, other than those involving death or bodily harm, can be prosecuted either summarily or by indictment. Flight from police causing injury or death is always indictable, with maximum penalties of 14 years and life imprisonment, respectively. A conviction also comes with a mandatory driver licence suspension by the relevant provincial or territorial Ministry of Transportation (e.g. minimum 5-year suspension of Ontario-wide driving privileges).

Question 15

You see a co worker soliciting the services of another union or product. Is this lawful?

Answer 15

Solicitation is the act of offering, or attempting to purchase, goods or services. Legal status may be specific to the time or place where it occurs.[clarification needed] The crime of “solicitation to commit a crime” occurs when a person encourages, “solicits, requests, commands, importunes or otherwise attempts to cause” another person to attempt or commit a crime, with the purpose of thereby facilitating the attempt or commission of that crime.[1]:698–702

Question 16

When someone’s makes racist comments, says that represents slavery. how do you explain racism and slavery?

Answer 16

Racism;
Racism is the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another.[1][2][3][4] It may also mean prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different race or ethnicity.[2][3] Modern variants of racism are often based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples. These views can take the form of social actions, practices or beliefs, or political systems in which different races are ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities.[2][3][5]

Not only was their black slavery which was wrong, there was also “white slavery” and still is.

White slavery (also white slave trade or white slave trafficking) refers to the chattel slavery of Europeans, whether by non-Europeans (such as North Africans and the Muslim world), or by other Europeans (for example naval galley slaves or the Vikings’ thralls). Slaves of European origin were present in ancient Rome and the Ottoman Empire.

On the European continent under feudalism, there were various forms of status applying to people (such as serf, bordar, villein, vagabond and slave) who were indentured or forced to labor without pay.

Under Muslim rule, the Arab slave trades that included Caucasian captives were often fueled by raids into European territories or were taken as children in the form of a blood tax from the families of citizens of conquered territories to serve the empire for a variety of functions.[1] In the mid-19th century, the term ‘white slavery’ was used to describe the Christian slaves that were sold into the Barbary slave trade.

The modern legal term applies more narrowly to sexual slavery, forced prostitution and human trafficking, with less focus on the skin color of victims or perpetrators.

History:
The phrase “white slavery” was used by Charles Sumner in 1847 to describe the chattel slavery of Christians throughout the Barbary States and primarily in the Algiers, the capital of Ottoman Algeria.[2] It also encompassed many forms of slavery, including the European concubines (Cariye) often found in Turkish harems.[3]

The term was also used by Clifford G. Roe from the beginning of the twentieth century to campaign against the forced prostitution and sexual slavery of girls who worked in Chicago brothels. Similarly, countries of Europe signed in Paris in 1904 an International Agreement for the suppression of the White Slave Traffic aimed at combating the sale of women who were forced into prostitution in the countries of continental Europe.

Question 17

What is the difference between “Arrest and Detention”.

See below “Arrest vs Detention”
http://www.creejustice.ca/index.php/ca/laws/your-rights-under-the-law#detention-vs-arrest

Answer 17

It is important to distinguish between “detention” and “arrest”. You are being detained as soon as a police officer restricts your liberty, either through physical or psychological means. For example, you’re driving your car when a police officer intercepts you by activating the flashing light on the police car and indicating that you must pull over. If this happens, you are being detained but not arrested. If police are placing you under arrest, they must clearly say “You’re under arrest”. For example, if the police officer notices after pulling you over that you have a loaded handgun in your car, she may place you under arrest for illegally carrying such a weapon.

Question 18

What does it mean to detain someone?

https: //www.google.ca/amp/s/dictionary.cambridge.org/amp/english/detain
https: //www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/detain

Answer 18

Definition of detain. transitive verb. 1 : to hold or keep in or as if in custody detained by the police for questioning. 2 obsolete : to keep back (something due) : withhold. 3 : to restrain especially from proceeding was detained by a flat tire.

Question 19

What does reasonable suspicion
mean?

http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Reasonable_Suspicion

Answer 19

A “suspicion” refers to an expectation that a person is “possibly engaged in some criminal activity.”[1]

A suspicion must be reasonable to be lawful, which requires “more than a mere suspicion and something less than a belief based upon reasonable and probable grounds”. It must be supported by factual elements that can be independently assessed.[2]

Lower Than “Probable”
Reasonable suspicion is a standard lower than “reasonable and probable grounds”.[3] The main distinction is “merely the degree of probability demonstrating that a person is involved in criminal activity, not the existence of objectively ascertainable facts”.[4] It refers to the “possibility of uncovering criminality, not the probability of doing so”.[5]

It follows that the “degree of reliability and the amount of information to establish that lower threshold is lower” than RPG.[6]

“Reasonable”
The presumption of reasonable suspicion should “not be disturbed unless it is unreasonable or not rationally capable of supporting an inference of suspicion.” [7]

Taking Account of Realities of Policing
In evaluating police decision-making, the reviewing judge must “take into account that the police at the scene are often required to make quick decisions based on available information, some of which may not be complete or exact, in situations that are rapidly changing and potentially volatile.”[8]

The judge should also account for an officer’s experience in the particular type of investigation. The officer’s experience may allow him to draw inferences and deductions that regular people would fail to make.[9]

See R v Gunn, 2012 SKCA 80

Reasonable Suspicion Test

A reasonable suspicion lies between a mere suspicion and reasonable and probable grounds. [1]

Multitude of Conclusions Possible
Reasonable suspicion does not require that it be the only possibility, but merely one possible conclusion based on supported facts.[2] It also means that reasonable suspicion does not need to be the only inference from a particular constellation of factors.[3]

Where suspicion deals with possibilities rather than probabilities it necessarily means that it is possible to reasonably suspect that innocent people are involved in crime.[4]

Reliability and Specificity of Evidence
Reasonable suspicion can rely on information that is less reliable than for establishing “reasonable and probable grounds”.[5]

The evidence forming reasonable suspicion need to indicate the “possibility of criminal behavour”. The evidence itself need not include unlawful behaviour or evidence of a specific criminal act.[6]

Assessed on Totality of Evidence
The assessment is based on the totality of the evidence-all surrounding circumstances-rather than piece by piece consideration of whether the evidence is consistent with the factors. [7] The inquiry must consider “the constellation of objectively discernible facts said to give the investigating officer reasonable cause to suspect that the individual is involved in criminal activity”.[8]

No Obligation to Make Inquiry
The obligation of police to consider all factors does not require them to make inquiry into exculpatory factors or rule out innocent explanations.[9]

Relevant Factors
The suspicion must be “sufficiently particularized” as an overly “generalized suspicion” would capture too many innocent persons.[10] Accordingly, factors that may “go both ways” are not sufficient on their own to support reasonable suspicion.[11] Such factors do not preclude reasonable suspicion arising when they are part of the constellation of factors.[12]

Any factors that are favourable or unfavourable (including “exculpatory, neutral or equivocal”) must still be considered as part of the totality of circumstances.[13]

Standard of Review
Determination of whether factors amount to a reasonable suspicion is question of law reviewable on a standard of correctness.[14]

Question 20

What is a Reasonable Suspicion Test?

http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Reasonable_Suspicion

Answer 20

Reasonable Suspicion Test

A reasonable suspicion lies between a mere suspicion and reasonable and probable grounds. [1]

Multitude of Conclusions Possible
Reasonable suspicion does not require that it be the only possibility, but merely one possible conclusion based on supported facts.[2] It also means that reasonable suspicion does not need to be the only inference from a particular constellation of factors.[3]

Where suspicion deals with possibilities rather than probabilities it necessarily means that it is possible to reasonably suspect that innocent people are involved in crime.[4]

Reliability and Specificity of Evidence
Reasonable suspicion can rely on information that is less reliable than for establishing “reasonable and probable grounds”.[5]

The evidence forming reasonable suspicion need to indicate the “possibility of criminal behavour”. The evidence itself need not include unlawful behaviour or evidence of a specific criminal act.[6]

Assessed on Totality of Evidence
The assessment is based on the totality of the evidence-all surrounding circumstances-rather than piece by piece consideration of whether the evidence is consistent with the factors. [7] The inquiry must consider “the constellation of objectively discernible facts said to give the investigating officer reasonable cause to suspect that the individual is involved in criminal activity”.[8]

No Obligation to Make Inquiry
The obligation of police to consider all factors does not require them to make inquiry into exculpatory factors or rule out innocent explanations.[9]

Relevant Factors
The suspicion must be “sufficiently particularized” as an overly “generalized suspicion” would capture too many innocent persons.[10] Accordingly, factors that may “go both ways” are not sufficient on their own to support reasonable suspicion.[11] Such factors do not preclude reasonable suspicion arising when they are part of the constellation of factors.[12]

Any factors that are favourable or unfavourable (including “exculpatory, neutral or equivocal”) must still be considered as part of the totality of circumstances.[13]

Standard of Review
Determination of whether factors amount to a reasonable suspicion is question of law reviewable on a standard of correctness.[14]

Question 21

You do not have probable cause to search someone after detaining them. But in order to detain a person who you believe is trespassing and search them, they have to be?

Answer 21

If you see someone who you know does not have the right (has been warned before) not to be in the areas such as common areas, they can be detained. And if arrested they then can be searched. But the right again to search and seizure is not applied if not arrested. Only when arrested they have to be told they are arrested and held.(whether physically or implied by verbal). Everyone has the right not to not loose their integrity, dignity and autonomy. But when arrested those rights are suspended by provincial act and case law to support that right of the arrestor.
The values underlying the privacy interest protected by section 8 are dignity, integrity and autonomy (R. v. Plant, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281 at page 292). The protection section 8 provides for privacy ― personal, territorial and informational — is essential not only to human dignity, but also to the functioning of our democratic society. At the same time, section 8 permits reasonable searches and seizures in recognition that the state’s legitimate interest in advancing its goals or enforcing its laws will sometimes require a degree of intrusion into the private sphere (Goodwin v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), [2

Question 22

When does trespassing turn from a provincial law to a criminal law?

Answer 22

Criminal law

Entering onto private land at night is treated much differently, and implied permission does not extend to trespassing at night, which is a criminal offence. The Criminal Code makes it an offence to loiter or prowl at night on the property of another person near a dwelling-house situated on that property. “Night” is defined by the Criminal Code as between 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 am. “Dwelling-house” is defined by the Criminal Code as a permanent or temporary residence and anything attached to it.

The essence of loitering is wandering about apparently without a precise destination. It is conduct which essentially has nothing reprehensible about it as long as it does not take place on private property where the loiterer has no business. The substance of prowling is to move about stealthily, furtively, secretly, and clandestinely or move in small degrees.

The prosecutor does not have to prove that the accused was looking for an opportunity to carry out an unlawful purpose. Where prowling is proved, it is up to the accused to prove he had a lawful excuse for being there.

Question 23

What is empathy?
What is sympathy?
What is apothy?

Can you have all or only a few?

Answer 23

Empathy is having the ability to understand what another person experiences from their point of view. There are actually three types of empathy (click here to learn more). In some cases, people experiencing empathy actually go beyond understanding another’s experience and can actually feel it.

Sympathy is when someone shares feelings of sadness for another person’s misfortune. While someone with empathy may feel sympathy for a friend, it’s not necessary for these feelings to overlap. For instance, a person can have sympathy for a friend who lost a loved one but have no idea what that experience is like, but they do know their friend is sad. Conversely, a person could be super empathetic and not feel sympathy for someone is experiencing a hard time.

Apathy is a complete lack of feeling or concern for something or someone. It’s not malicious or angry; rather, it’s complete indifference. Perhaps, a numbness to a situation.

As such, apathy and sympathy cannot co-exist. However, empathy and apathy could, because a person could understand another person’s experiences and not care.

Question 24

Listen to a Podcast of CC 30 on Prevention of Breach Of Peace.

Answer 24

https://www.ideablawg.ca/blog/2015/3/6/episode-36-of-the-ideablawg-podcasts-on-the-criminal-code-of-canada-preventing-breach-of-peace-sections-30-and-31

Question 25

What are 3 types of empathy?

Answer 25

Our page on empathy defines empathy as ‘feeling with’ someone – being able to put yourself in their place as if you were them, and feeling those feelings. It explains that there are several different elements that make up empathy.

There are also, however, different types of empathy that have been defined by psychologists. These are cognitive, emotional and compassionate empathy.

Cognitive Empathy
Cognitive empathy, also known as ‘perspective-taking’ is not really what most of us would think of as empathy at all.

Cognitive empathy is basically being able to put yourself into someone else’s place, and see their perspective.

It is a useful skill, particularly in negotiations for example, or for managers. It enables you to put yourself in someone else’s shoes, but without necessarily engaging with their emotions. It does not, however, really fit with the definition of empathy as ‘feeling with’, being a much more rational and logical process.

Effectively, cognitive empathy is ‘empathy by thought’, rather than by feeling.

Emotional Empathy
Emotional empathy is when you quite literally feel the other person’s emotions alongside them, as if you had ‘caught’ the emotions.

Emotional empathy is also known as ‘personal distress’ or ‘emotional contagion’. This is closer to the usual understanding of the word ‘empathy’, but more emotional.

Compassionate Empathy
Finally, compassionate empathy is what we usually understand by empathy: feeling someone’s pain, and taking action to help.

The name, compassionate empathy, is consistent with what we usually understand by compassion. Like sympathy, compassion is about feeling concern for someone, but with an additional move towards action to mitigate the problem.

Compassionate empathy is the type of empathy that is usually most appropriate.

As a general rule, people who want or need your empathy don’t just need you to understand (cognitive empathy), and they certainly don’t need you just to feel their pain or, worse, to burst into tears alongside them (emotional empathy).

Instead, they need you to understand and sympathise with what they are going through and, crucially, either take, or help them to take, action to resolve the problem, which is compassionate empathy.

Read more at: https://www.skillsyouneed.com/ips/empathy-types.html

Question 26

What is the weakest and strongest part of the skull?

Answer 26

The weakest part is the pterion.

The pterion is known as the weakest part of the skull. The anterior division of the middle meningeal artery runs underneath the pterion. Consequently, a traumatic blow to the pterion may rupture the middle meningeal artery causing an epidural haematoma.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterion

And the strongest part of the skull is the frontal bone.

Frontal bone: This bone comprises the forehead (squama frontalis) and the upper orbit of the eye (pars orbitalis). It joins the parietal bones at the coronal suture. Two temporal bones: These bones are located at the sides and base of the skull, and they are the hardest bones in the body.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16651971/

Question 27

What’s is uttering threats and what charges does it carry?

Answer 27

Uttering threats is governed by section 264.1(1) of the Criminal Code which provides every one commits an offence who, in any manner, knowingly utters, conveys or causes any person to receive a threat to cause death or bodily harm to any person; to burn, destroy or damage real or personal property; or to kill, poison or injure an animal or bird that is the property of any person.

What is the Definition of a Threat?

Threats can encompass a wide range of potential conduct. In its simplest form, a threat charge can arise because someone reports to the police that another individual made a verbal comment to them that was threatening. Section 264(1) sets out that criminal charges will arise for uttering threats if a person utters, conveys or causes any person to receive a threat:

To cause death or bodily harm to another person;
To burn, destroy or damage real or personal property; or
To kill, poison or injure an animal or bird that is the property of any person.
Therefore, a threat can be any verbal comment, any action or an intended act that causes a message to be passed on to another individual that deals with one of the above listed subject matters.

https://mydefence.ca/toronto-threatening-death-lawyer/

Question 28

What is the Pandemic Act and how does that affect Security?

Who can apply to become a Screening Officer? And how?

Answer 28

The Pandemic Act or Quarantine ACT states,

Screening technology

14 (1) Any qualified person authorized by the Minister may, to determine whether a traveller has a communicable disease or symptoms of one, use any screening technology authorized by the Minister that does not involve the entry into the traveller’s body of any instrument or other foreign body.

Marginal note:Refusal to be screened

(2) If a traveller refuses to be screened with the screening technology and the person using it is not a screening officer or quarantine officer, the person shall immediately inform a screening officer or quarantine officer of the refusal.

Marginal note:Duty to provide information

15 (1) Every traveller shall answer any relevant questions asked by a screening officer or quarantine officer and provide to the officer any information or record in their possession that the officer may reasonably require in the performance of a duty under this Act.

Marginal note:Duty to disclose communicable disease

(2) Any traveller who has reasonable grounds to suspect that they have or might have a communicable disease listed in the schedule or are infested with vectors, or that they have recently been in close proximity to a person who has, or is reasonably likely to have, a communicable disease listed in the schedule or is infested with vectors, shall disclose that fact to a screening officer or quarantine officer.

Arrest without warrant

18 A peace officer may, at the request of a screening officer or quarantine officer, arrest without a warrant and bring to a quarantine officer any traveller who the peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe has refused to be isolated or refuses to comply with a measure under subsection 15(3).

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/q-1.1/FullText.html#h-419253

Screening Officer

Specialized and rigorous training
New employees receive up to 180 hours of paid, specialized and rigorous training, both in class and on-the-job, to certify them as a Screening Officer. They become experts in how to handle a wide range of situations, from providing proper customer service to passengers with special needs to initiating emergency procedures should a prohibited item, such as a firearm or an improvised explosive device, is discovered.

Being alert and detail-oriented is key in responding to unfolding events. The ability to prioritize and multi-task under pressure in a dynamic environment is also highly valued, allowing appropriate reactions within sometimes chaotic situations.

We also train our screeners on how to use all the latest technology, including x-ray machines, walk-through and hand-held metal detectors and full-body scanners. Candidates should be able to learn how to capably use this equipment during the training period.

https://www.garda.com/blog/screening-officer-a-pivotal-role-to-airport-security

Question 29

Is it a persons right to receive healthcare in Canada?

Answer 29

5.1 The Right to Health Care – Public Perception or Legal Right?

To begin, it is important to distinguish between a legal right to health care and the public perception of the existence of that right. In Volume Four, the Committee noted the existence of public opinion polls that reveal that Canadians, encouraged by politicians and the media, believe they have a constitutional right to receive health care even though no such right is explicitly contained in the Charter.[1] Nor does any other Canadian law specifically confer that right, although government programs exist to provide publicly funded health services.[2]
Text Box: The Committee has previously noted the existence of public opinion polls that reveal that Canadians believe they have a constitutional right to receive health care even though no such right is explicitly contained in the Charter.

The preamble to the Canada Health Act[3] (the Act) states that:

continued access to quality health care without financial or other barriers will be critical to maintaining and improving the health and well-being of Canadians.

As well, section 3 of the Act provides that the primary objective of Canadian health care policy is:

to protect, promote and restore the physical and mental well-being of residents of Canada and to facilitate reasonable access to health services without financial or other barriers.

These statements from the Canada Health Act, supportive as they are, do not grant a right to health care.

https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/committee/372/soci/rep/repoct02vol6part2-e.htm

Question 30

When someone says “you don’t have a right to stop me”, or “you don’t have the right to restrain me”.
Your answer is…..???

Answer 30

Under the charter of rights and freedoms, you say “we are not ARBITRARILY detaining you…it’s for your safety and/or the safety of others” in accordance with the principals of fundamental justice. As stated in Charter of rights #7.
Or “we are not unreasonably searching/and seizing your property”…”we are removing the
property fir safety reasons”.

So what is arbitrary and unreasonable?
http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Search_Incident_to_Arrest

http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Investigative_Detention

See below links for where info was found.
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art8.html

Question 31

How long can someone be held arrested by police?

Answer 31

Duration in Holding Cells
Police have statutory authority to hold someone after arrest for up to 24 hours.[4] However, holding accused cells after arrest, beyond what would be legitimately necessary has resulted in a violation of s. 9 and may permit a stay of proceedings.[5]

↑ R v Tran, 2010 ABCA 211 (CanLII), per curiam, at para 30
↑ Tran
↑ e.g. R v Holbrook, 2008 SKPC 133 (CanLII), per Harradence J
↑ see Initial Post-Charge Detention
↑ e.g. R v Poletz, 2014 SKCA 16 (CanLII), per Caldwell JA - holding in cell for 12 hours due to “convenience” or “lack of resources” violated s. 9, but stay order was overturned

Question 32

What is a investigative detention?

Answer 32

“Investigative detention” defined: An investigative detention is a temporary seizure of a
suspect for the purpose of determining, (1) whether there is probable cause to arrest him, (2) whether further investigation is necessary, or (3) whether the officer’s suspicions were unfounded.1

https://le.alcoda.org/publications/files/CCIchap1.pdf

Question 33

What is fundamental justice?

Answer 33

To limit the rights to life, liberty and security of the person, the authors of the Charter specifically chose the term “fundamental justice” over “due process” because they believed the term “fundamental justice” would still be interpreted to mean conventional “natural justice”. “Due process” was rejected because in the United States, use of that term in the constitution led to judges expanding its meaning (see Lochner era) in ways the Canadian government felt would be undesirable. As constitutional scholar Peter Hogg points out in his book Constitutional Law of Canada, however, the new wording of section 7 removed the context of the “fair hearing” found in the Canadian Bill of Rights, which meant the definition of fundamental justice was now ambiguous and could still be further developed by Canadian courts. This is indeed what happened; since the 1985 Supreme Court decision Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, the meaning of the words “fundamental justice” in section 7 has been greatly expanded and encompasses much more than mere procedural rights.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_justice

Further:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_Re_BC_Motor_Vehicle_Act

Question 34

Does being nice to your patients, results in less law suits?

Answer 34

Physicians’ suspicion of the importance of these measures has recently found scientific support. A study in 2012 showed that the most satisfied patients had:

a higher rate of hospitalization,
greater cost of care,
more prescription drug usage and
a higher mortality rate.
Thus, more care does not equal better care, so patients need to be careful what they wish for and demand. It may work against them.

But if the thought of being nice to patients to get better ratings makes caregivers bristle, one way to think of it is this: Be nice, because if the patient likes you, you’re less likely to be sued.

http: //pilchermd.com/2015/06/03/nice-doctors-dont-get-sued-as-often/
https: //pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7911925/
https: //jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/414233

Question 35

What reasonable doubt in Canadian law?

Answer 35

Reasonable Doubt

The standard of proof in a Canadian criminal trial is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that the judge or jury must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. The Crown has the burden of proof. This means that the Crown must prove that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If the Crown fails to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the judge/jury must acquit the defendant. It is not up to the defendant or his or her criminal defence lawyer to prove the defendant’s innocence. At minimum, it is sufficient for the defence to argue that the Crown has failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The term “reasonable doubt” has a specific meaning in criminal law. The Supreme Court of Canada has offered a number of guidelines applicable to the concept of reasonable doubt. In our criminal justice system, every defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The notion of reasonable doubt is inextricably intertwined with the presumption of innocence. In order to rebut the presumption of innocence, the prosecution must prove their case to the extent that a reasonable person could not have any reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant.

https://www.torontodefencelawyers.com/blog/general-category/beyond-reasonable-doubt-canadian-criminal-law/

Question 36

What is reasonable grounds?

Answer 36

Canadian Criminal law distinguishes be- tween the thresholds of “reasonable suspi- cion” and “reasonable grounds to believe” required in order for police officers to lawfully arrest persons, conduct certain forms of searches, and to obtain warrants. Officers wishing to lawfully exercise these powers must satisfy the requisite legal standard, or risk violating individuals’ constitutional rights with the ensuing possibility of exclusion of evidence. Unfortunately, recent attempts to clarify differences between the two thresholds is complex to articulate, confusing, and impracticable.
This article examines the fundamental difficulties related to the current theor- etical and practical distinctions between both standards. These issues are import- ant for legal practitioners and judges interpreting whether the standards have been reached and whether constitutional rights have been violated, and, as a theor- etical and pragmatic basis upon which to interpret the scope of new police powers.
It is argued that the current confu- sion between both standards arises from the faulty usage of notions of “possibil- ity” and “probability.” Furthermore, in identifying new police powers, courts have sometimes imposed legal standards which cannot safely or reasonably be met. Ultimately, I will attempt to provide a more coherent theoretical basis for distinguishing between both standards based on comprehensible pragmatic considerations. As a result, I hope to
not only articulate a more simple and
meaningful distinction between both standards based on certain overarching considerations, but which will also assist in identifying which standard ought to apply in identifying new police powers.

https://www.canlii.org//w/canlii/2016CanLIIDocs120.pdf

Question 37

In transporting a form 1 from west 5th, what are your options?
Situation: If the patient hates his nurse and is known to be aggressive…is a flight risk and or self-harm, and you believe it will only take 2 security to transfer and even that will be unsure of a safe arrival….can u?
-can you restrain to stretcher
-can you handcuff to stretcher or vehicle?
-can you pre-restrain pt to the stretcher?
-can RN Chem restraint the pt before leave
-can CN hold off on the trans until dayshift
Arrives to use night with days Sps to combine 2 teams to transfer or call-in days to do a early transfer?
-can the CN request another guard to assist
Chem restraint and assist in transfer with the
PES S/P?
-can you stop the transfer if you feel based
previous history (self wound/swallow/flight
risk) that it is the best interest of the pt and
staff that the transfer be postponed until
Security and Er admin come in). If so how do
If your only 1-2 security and no team leader?

Answer 37

Where are the polices for this? And what would the hospital expect the security or the RN staff to do if the patient escalates to want to leave via transfer? And there’s no Chem restrain or mechanical or pinels on the patient?

Question 38

What are Good Bosses and How Bosses Demoralize Employees!

How to be a good leader!

Answer 38

Goto:
Bosses Demoralize Employees
https://youtu.be/67YztHgt3Fw
“Do think just do”, and “not allow staff to be free to create, breeds engagement.

Managing Up:
https://youtu.be/HBKkQzFAVtE
Bringing solutions to your bigger boss.

Question 39

What to do when someone is severely handicapped…or has a severe spectrum disorder?

Answer 39

View training material.

Question 40

A cop from another city walks into hospital and makes a threat to return in uniform and badge to threaten nurses.

Answer 40

Response: You need your local authority. They need be informed that you have a officer from another city who pretends to be a officer since he fails to show his ID and if he does failing to act in accordance to his aoth and that they need to know he is bullying the staff.
He has to identify himself when approached. You will in the meanwhile contact the administrator and advise the nurse who he or she bullied, to call Hamilton police that a “police officer from peel is threatening her while at her job”. Security is to continue with identification or ask the individual to leave and will be trespassed. Regardless he will be trespassed for making threats as a police officer to staff.
Every officer in Canada takes a pledge:

I solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be loyal to Her Majesty the Queen and to Canada, and that I will uphold the Constitution of Canada and that I will, to the best of my ability, discharge my duties as a member of the (insert name of municipality) Police Services Board faithfully, impartially and according to the Police Services Act, any other Act, and any regulation, rule or by-law.

So help me God.

So by threatening the staff, you thereby failed to discharge your duties to be faithful, impartial to the people of Canada as you took an oath to and and performed an act (like threats). Is that true officer?

Question 41

What is the oath that every officer of Ontario must take?

Answer 41

I solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be loyal to Her Majesty the Queen and to Canada, and that I will uphold the Constitution of Canada and that I will, to the best of my ability, discharge my duties as a member of the (insert name of municipality) Police Services Board faithfully, impartially and according to the Police Services Act, any other Act, and any regulation, rule or by-law.

So help me God.

Question 42

Need to cover a shift; do you pull and cover or just cover?

Rule1: if both are in OT..you can’t pull.

Rule2: if the hours aren’t not the same you can’t pull.

Rule3:

Regardless the PES holds the equipment and responds to Codes.

Answer 42

1. Sick call of a guard on a 12hr day…
2. Sick call of a guard on a 8hr day…
3. Sick call of a guard when all are in OT..
4. Cover a PES shift…
5. Additional shift requested for ER…

6.

Question 43

What to know if police begin speaking to you as if you are their inferior or they are superior.

Answer 43

The police have a Code of conduct that they must adhere to.

See Part VII
Code Of Conduct

2. (1) Any chief of police or other police officer commits misconduct if he or she engages in,
   (a) Discreditable Conduct, in that he or she,
   (i) fails to treat or protect persons equally without discrimination with respect to police services because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or disability,
   (ii) uses profane, abusive or insulting language that relates to a person’s race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or disability,
   (iii) is guilty of oppressive or tyrannical conduct towards an inferior in rank,
   (iv) uses profane, abusive or insulting language to any other member of a police force,
   (v) uses profane, abusive or insulting language or is otherwise uncivil to a member of the public,
   (vi) wilfully or negligently makes any false complaint or statement against any member of a police force,
   (vii) assaults any other member of a police force,
   (viii) withholds or suppresses a complaint or report against a member of a police force or about the policies of or services provided by the police force of which the officer is a member,
   (ix) is guilty of a criminal offence that is an indictable offence or an offence punishable upon summary conviction,
   (x) contravenes any provision of the Act or the regulations, or
   (xi) acts in a disorderly manner or in a manner prejudicial to discipline or likely to bring discredit upon the reputation of the police force of which the officer is a member;
   https: //www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/100268

Question 44

What do you do when someone overdoses while your in control of that person?

Answer 44

Normally the SIU would be called but one would think that you are supposed to be in control, but your not. Training would have to be re-evaluated to review the scenario l, if the situation was brought upto admin.

Question 45

Who can take a complaint?

Answer 45

They can make a complaint to the “institutional privacy office” or the “information and Privacy Commissioner or Ontario (IPC) about how their PHI is handled.

Risk Management is another

Ombudsman of Ontario

IPC or Information privacy commissioner Brian Beamish

Question 46

What is Health Care Act or Health Care Consent Act?

Answer 46

Look up CMPA or
www.cmpa-acpa.ca

Health Care Consent Act

2 issues

1. Emergency treatment
2. Assault and Battery

2 types of consent

1. Implied
2. Expressed

Look up on web

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Care_Consent_Act_(Ontario)

Question 47

If you see a police officer doing something which is beyond their scope of duties (ie sexual assault or assault). How do you protect the rights of the patient while protecting the officers from
civil litigation or SIU?

Answer 47

All officers are subject to a SIU investigation should the be any allegations of sexual assault.
All fire discharges or deaths are called upon by the SIU to investigate.

They are a civilian organization (lawyer also present) during the interview.

You do not have to speak to them but should have a union representative present.

You also cannot stop a officer but confront them afterwards.

Are you liable if you did not confront them? If you see the incident and forgot about the incident then you should have reported it. But it is not your duty to report in police. It is your duty to keep the patient safe from harm.

If a police officer assaults a person while a restraining of a person was initiated, then it is within their scope of force to apply a restraint technique equal to and not more than the physical assault and use as much fir to able to stop the assault of that person.

Question 48

A person comes into the hospital and refuses to leave. He says “your refusing me my healthcare”. But the doctor saw him and already discharged him because he has no ailments for the doctor to treat and the doctor told him that infront of you. What do you say and do?

He is not following directions to leave now that the dr told him 2x there is nothing he can do fir him.

If a police officer is called and advocates fir him even though he has been discharged, it’s because the officer is concerned by removing him from the hospital that he could be liable for refusing the discharged male The Right to Provide the necessities of life.

See Section 215 of Criminal Code

Answer 48

We need to address his “right to healthcare” first.

1. He has not been denied his healthcare but there is no specific right to healthcare in the charter of rights.
   There is a right to receive healthcare under the People’s Healthcare Act. But it is not a right in the charter of rights specifically. There is also a law under criminal code to provide care who is already under your care. Criminal Code says it is a criminal act is not to provide “such as food, shelter, medical attention, and protect from harm”. See R. Vs Chartrand.

https: //canadianhealthadvocatesinc.ca/?s=Patient+rights
https: //sencanada.ca/content/sen/committee/372/soci/rep/repoct02vol6part2-e.htm
http: //www.advocacycentreelderly.org/appimages/file/Failing%20to%20Provide%20the%20Necessaries%20of%20Life%20is%20a%20Crime.pdf

What he was was that he was not satisfied with his Quality of healthcare. But he was seen
So what do you do now?
He is now trespassing. So you need to follow the steps for trespassing.

3a. Tell him who you are and that he now does not have a right to be here.
3b. Tell him he has to leave because his treatment or assessment has finished.
3c. Tell him how to leave by showing the door or telling him which way to leave.
3d. Unless he is damaging property or assaulting you or someone you should refrain from physically removing him. Wait fir police and have the dr paged to tell police to remove him.

Question 49

Who has the right to hold someone in the hospital?
Fir example a patient is brought in by police and wants to leave.

1. When do you take over from police?
2. You now have control of patient but he seems fine but you know he’s going to leave? What do you do? How to protect yourself?
3. Person says security has no right to secure them but you do have the right under? What act or law?

3.

Answer 49

1. You take over from police when the facility (doctor) has seen them and given his directions (ie release or keep or restrain).

See CC sec 17 and form 9

2. You do have the right under the Restraint minimization act in that the facility (dr) has the right to impose restraints on you based on his assessment. He gets this right under the Healthcare Consent Act and the Mental Health Act. The dr must remove the patients right to consent fir himself to prevent serious harm to himself by assessing him before you take control of him.
   https: //www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/96h02

Question 50

What is a implicit bias? How does that affect you at your work? Or for what you do?

How do you over come your implicit bias?

Answer 50

The attitudes or stereo types that unconsciously affects a individuals interpretation of a situation.

https: //youtu.be/PIuF2WluqYE
https: //www.rw-3.com/blog/6-ways-to-break-your-implicit-bias-patterns

Question 51

How many police and nursing services like COAST and the Mobile Crisis Rapid Response Team (MCRRT) program
are in the nearby area?

Answer 51

Hamilton
Has COAST and MCRRT;

COAST: hours of operation are?
Stands for:
What they do and who they are
https://coasthamilton.ca

MCRRT: hours of operation are
Stands for
What they do and who they are
https://www.stjoes.ca/health-services/mental-health-addiction-services/mental-health-services/coast/mcrrt

Niagara have COAST:
https://www.niagarapolice.ca/en/what-we-do/coast.aspx#

Halton has;
https://www.haltonpolice.ca/en/services-and-reporting/crisis-outreach-and-support.aspx#

Grimsby:

Toronto:

PEEL: They have MCRRT too
https://cmhapeeldufferin.ca/news/peel-regional-police-launches-the-mobile-crisis-rapid-response-team-mcrrt/

Brantford:

Opp have mobile crisis and response team:
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/beta.ctvnews.ca/local/ottawa/2020/11/10/1_5182738.html

https://www.camhs.ca/programs/mobile-crisis-rapid-response-team/

Question 52

A patient requires IM meds and all has been cleared by the doctors. She (patient) waved her rights after speaking to a rights advisor
to refused meds. Now she refuses meds and wants her rights back.
What do you do and how do you make it safe for the nursing staff to allow them a safe delivery of meds and keep all safe?

Answer 52

1. Establish with all security and nurses attending what can be done and what was done.
2. From the most qualified staff member(s) what are her rights to refuse.
3. What are the reasons for the meds to be delivered.
4. What can the patient be allowed to do such as talk to the Doctor and/manager.
5. How can you safely secure the patient without causing more psychological damage.
   6.

Question 53

You are part of the team who are restraining a patient in ER. The person was brought in by police and still in handcuffs and now in a Acite Care room. The nurses informed you they want you to pinel the person the police are with. Normally the nurses get the restraints ready but it looks better if we initiate the restraints. At this point, the Police have not handed over safe custody of the person meaning they have not been searched and restraints have not been applied.

1. Do you search or do the police?
2. When can you apply the restraints?
3. Can you subject to SIU investigation because of your involvement?

Answer 53

First of all police are supposed to have the person in their custody. If they cannot control them, and they ask for your help, then it is a indictable offence should you refuse without just cause. Second, if the nurses (not police or EMS or Corrections) direct you to apply restraints, you must get them ready. (Check policy) If police release their handcuffs you should be present to assume custody to put into restraints or they can hold the patient until the restraints are applied. Normally nurses apply the restraints while you assist police or assume control of the patient. Either way the patient cannot be released unless the nursing staff or physician directed you to not apply the restraints from handcuffs.

1. If it is safe, the best time to search is when they are in handcuffs. But because the legs are secured in a pinel restraint, then a body search would be safer if they are combative. Have a female officer search if the patient is a female.
2. Applying the restraints is a nurse or physician direction only (Restraint Minimization Act 2001 - Enhancement of Freedom 5(1). You can only apply your handcuffs if the person is fighting between removal of handcuffs. Let the nurses know you are going to do this. The safest way is to apply you handcuffs to each arm to the bed, just after release. Then apply your restraints if there not enough people to help or that person is super strong on street drugs.
3. Yes you can be subject to a SIU investigation, but you do NOT have to make a comment. It is not a function of your duties and is outside the scope of our duties. It is not written anywhere in policy. It is also not in the scope of the managers duty to direct you to make mention. You can then ask for a union representative to be present during that interview and have that right to do so. But because it is a civilian investigation, you do not have to participate. If you do ask for a copy of the recording, or tell them you are making your own or do not make a comment. You cannot be punished. If you see something that the police or EMS or corrections failed to do or was inappropriate to you or the patient, you must notify the CN or site admin.

Question 54

Is leaving the hospital while in a form1 a criminal act?

Answer 54

No it is not. It is within the hospitals right to keep a person in the hospital fir a psychiatric evaluation against their will. See Healthcare Consent Act and (extra reading - Public Hospitals Act), and Mental Health Act.

Question 55

A lady is irate and in her chair. Can the chair be used to secure her?

Answer 55

Yes it can as long it is used to prevent further injury to staff and the person. Prior to entry make a plan based on the knowledge that the nurses know…room…location of subject….physical limitations…person best to have a rapport with.
Then after entering and explaining the reasons fir the visit and what the dr wanted, should she refuse to comply and fight from her position;

1. Use the arm rests to secure her by holding the arms to the chair.
2. Use the legs of the chair to push against her legs if she is trying to kick you.
3. Only use the chair for temp means to initiate another plan to restrain her. Our training does not include people who are using a extra ordinary force to repel you and begin assaulting you. If they are on a form 1 and you cannot disengage then restrain her by any means of which to stop the assault.

Criminal Code:
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/rsddp-rlddp/p5.html

Patient Restraint Minimization Act:
Enjancemrnt of freedom 5(1)
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/01p16

Common law duty of care givers
https://www.allaboutestates.ca/physical-restraint-seniors-hospitals/
And
https://www.medicalprotection.org/uk/articles/mps-dilemma-is-it-ok-to-physically-restrain-a-patient

Question 56

Are there any crisis intervention services in the area? How to get ahold of them?

Answer 56

Here are a lot of services in the area pertaining to psychiatric crisis.

https://www.hnhbhealthline.ca/listServicesDetailed.aspx?id=10110

Question 57

Can the fire department enter anywhere in the hospital and allowed access? Can he or she enlist the help of police to gain that access?

Answer 57

Use of force
(5) A person who enters on land or premises under this section may call on police officers as necessary and may use force as necessary to make the entry. 1997, c. 4, s. 15 (5).

Section Amendments with date in force (d/m/y)

Assistance
16 A person who enters on land or premises under section 14 or 15 may call on any other persons he or she considers advisable to assist. 1997, c. 4, s. 16.

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/97f04