Provincial Offences

Provincial Offences Act

This Act applies most specifically to those Security Guards certified by municipalities as “Certified Contract Officers” or “CCO” for the purposes of issuing Parking Infraction Notices for parking offences on private property.

Purpose of Act

The purpose of this Act is to replace the summary conviction procedure for the prosecution of provincial offences, including the provisions adopted by reference to the Criminal Code (Canada), with a procedure that reflects the distinction between provincial offences and criminal offences.

Issuance and service

A provincial offences officer who believes that one or more persons have committed an offence may issue, by completing and signing in the form prescribed under section 13, (a) a certificate of offence certifying that an offence has been committed; and (b) either an offence notice indicating the set fine for the offence or a summons.

Certificate of service

Where service is made by the provincial offences officer who issued the certificate of offence, the officer shall certify on the certificate of offence that he or she personally served the offence notice or summons on the person charged and the date of service.

Filing of certificate of offence

A certificate of offence shall be filed in the office of the court as soon as is practicable, but no later than seven days after service of the offence notice or summons.

PART II

COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS FOR PARKING INFRACTIONS

“14. In this Part, “parking infraction” means any unlawful parking, standing or stopping of a vehicle that constitutes an offence.

Proceeding, parking infraction

14.1 In addition to the procedure set out in Part III for commencing a proceeding by “laying an information” a proceeding in respect of a parking infraction may be commenced in accordance with this Part.

Certificate and notice of parking infraction

15. (1) A  provincial  offences  officer  who  believes  from  his  or  her  personal knowledge that one or more persons have committed a parking infraction may issue,

  1. A certificate of parking infraction certifying that a parking infraction has been committed; and
  2. A parking infraction notice indicating the set fine for the infraction

Municipal by-laws

  1. If the alleged infraction is under a by-law of a municipality, it is not necessary to include a reference to the number of the by-law on the certificate or

Service on owner

  1. The issuing provincial offences officer may serve the parking infraction notice on the owner of the vehicle identified in the notice,
  1. By affixing it to the vehicle in a conspicuous place at the time of the alleged infraction; or
  2. By delivering it personally to the person having care and control of the vehicle at the time of the alleged

Service on operator

The issuing provincial offences officer may serve the parking infraction notice on the operator of a vehicle by delivering it to the operator personally at the time of the alleged

Certificate of service

The issuing provincial offences officer shall certify on the certificate of parking infraction that he or she served the parking infraction notice on the person charged and the date and method of

Penalty for failure to attend

42. (1) Every person who, being required by law to attend or remain in attendance at a hearing, fails without lawful excuse to attend or remain in attendance accordingly is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $2,000, or to imprisonment for a term of not more than thirty days, or to both.

General penalty

61. Except where otherwise expressly provided by law, every person who is convicted of an offence is liable to a fine of not more than $5,000.

Notice of order

  1. Where the court makes a probation order, it shall cause a copy of the order and a copy of section 75 to be given

Regulations for community service orders

  1. The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations governing restitution, compensation and community service orders, including their terms and conditions
  2. The court shall not make a probation order when an individual has been convicted of an absolute liability offence, unless the order is made in addition to a sentence of imprisonment imposed under section 69 in default of payment

Absolute liability offence is an offence where the defendant cannot use the fact they did not intend to commit an offence as an excuse to obtain a finding that they were not guilty.

Elaboration in Simple Terms:

  1. Probation Order Communication:
    • When a court decides to give someone a probation order (a way of supervising and supporting an individual instead of sending them to jail), it must provide them with a copy of that order and a copy of a specific section of the law (Section 75).
  2. Rules for Community Service Orders:
    • The important people in the government can create rules (called regulations) about orders where someone has to do community service (like cleaning up a park). These rules can cover things like how much restitution (repayment for harm done), compensation (money to make up for losses), and community service someone has to do, and what rules they need to follow.
  3. No Probation for Absolute Liability Offences:
    • If someone is found guilty of an offence where they can’t use the excuse that they didn’t mean to do it (absolute liability offence), the court usually can’t give them a probation order unless they’re also being sent to jail for not paying a fine.
    • Absolute liability offences are situations where if you did the thing, you’re considered guilty, no matter if you meant to or not. So, if someone breaks a rule or law that falls into this absolute liability category, the court usually can’t just give them probation without some other consequences, like going to jail.

These rules and orders are meant to help the legal system work in a fair and consistent way, ensuring that consequences are appropriate for different types of offences.

PART V GENERAL PROVISIONS

77. (1) every person is a party to an offence who,

  1. Actually commits it;
  2. Does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it; or
  3. Abets any person in committing

Elaboration in Simple Terms:

If we talk about a law or rule, being a “party to an offence” means being involved in doing something wrong. There are three ways a person can be involved:

  1. Actually Commits It:
    • This is when a person directly does the thing that’s against the rules or laws. For example, if stealing is against the rules, the person who takes something without permission is actually committing the offence.
  2. Aids Someone to Commit It:
    • This happens when a person does something or doesn’t do something to help someone else do the wrong thing. For instance, if stealing is the offence, and someone helps by keeping a lookout while another person steals, they are aiding in committing the offence.
  3. Abets Someone in Committing It:
    • “Abet” means encouraging or assisting someone in doing something wrong. So, if someone encourages or helps another person in breaking a rule or law, they are abetting in committing the offence.

In simple terms, it’s like saying you can be in trouble not just for doing something wrong yourself but also for helping or encouraging others to do something wrong. The law wants to make sure everyone involved in wrongdoing is held responsible.

Common purpose

(2) Where two or more persons form an intention in common to carry out an unlawful purpose and to assist each other therein and any one of them, in carrying out the common purpose, commits an offence, each of them who knew or ought to have known that the commission of the offence would be a probable consequence of carrying out the common purpose is a party to the offence.

Elaboration from a Security Guard’s Perspective:

Imagine you’re part of a team of security guards working together to keep a place safe. In the world of rules and laws, if you and your colleagues share a plan to do something illegal (unlawful), and one of your team members actually goes ahead and does something wrong as part of that plan, everyone involved can be in trouble.

Here’s how it works:

  1. Common Intention:
    • Let’s say, you and your security team members agree to do something not allowed (unlawful), and you all work together with the same plan in mind.
  2. Assistance and Unlawful Act:
    • If, while carrying out this shared plan, one of your team members commits an offence (breaks a rule or law), then everyone who knew or should have known that this wrongdoing was likely to happen is also considered part of that offence.
  3. Knowledge Matters:
    • The key point is that if you were aware or should have been aware that a rule or law would likely be broken as part of your shared plan, you could be seen as part of the offence.

In simpler terms, it’s like being part of a team where everyone knows the plan, and if someone on the team does something against the rules, everyone who knew it might happen could be held responsible. So, it’s a reminder to be cautious and make sure everyone in the team is on the right side of the rules and laws.

Counselling

78. (1) Where a person counsels or procures another person to be a party to an offence and that other person is afterwards a party to the offence, the person who counselled or procured is a party to the offence, even if the offence was committed in a way different from that which was counselled or

(2) Every person who counsels or procures another person to be a party to an offence is a party to every offence that the other commits in consequence of the counselling or procuring that the person who counselled or procured knew or ought to have known was likely to be committed in consequence of the counselling or procuring.

Elaboration from a Security Guard’s Perspective:

In the world of security and following rules, sometimes people might try to encourage or convince others to do something wrong. Here’s how this concept works:

  1. Counselling or Procuring:
    • Imagine you, as a security guard, witness someone advising or persuading another person to be involved in breaking a rule or committing a crime.
  2. Being Part of the Offence:
    • If the person who received advice or encouragement actually goes ahead and does something wrong (commits an offence), the one who provided the advice or encouragement becomes a party to the offence.
  3. Different from Original Plan:
    • Even if the offence is committed in a way different from what was advised or encouraged, the person who provided the counsel or encouragement is still considered part of the offence.
  4. Broader Responsibility:
    • The concept goes further. If someone encourages another person to do something wrong, and that person commits additional offences that were likely to happen because of the encouragement, the one providing the encouragement is also responsible for those additional offences.

In simpler terms, if you see someone convincing or pushing another person to break the rules, and that person goes ahead and does something wrong, the one who provided the advice or encouragement can also be held responsible—even if the actual wrongdoing is different from what was originally suggested. It’s a way of discouraging people from influencing others to do something against the rules.

Computation of age

79. In the absence of other evidence, or by way of corroboration of other evidence, a justice may infer the age of a person from his or her

Common law defences

80. Every rule and principle of the common law that renders any circumstance a justification or excuse for an act or a defence to a charge continues in force and applies in respect of offences, except in so far as they are altered by or inconsistent with this or any other

Elaboration from a Security Guard’s Perspective:

In the context of security and following the law, there are certain established rules and principles that provide justifications or excuses for actions or serve as defenses against charges. Here’s what this means for a security guard:

  1. Common Law Principles:
    • Common law refers to legal principles developed through judicial decisions over time.
  2. Justifications and Excuses:
    • Some circumstances may justify or excuse certain actions. For instance, in certain situations, an action might be considered lawful or understandable.
  3. Defenses to Charges:
    • There are established defenses that individuals can use when facing legal charges. These defenses are based on recognized legal principles.
  4. Continuation of Common Law:
    • The statement emphasizes that all these existing rules and principles from common law still apply. They are not thrown out or invalidated.
  5. Exception for Changes:
    • However, if there are specific changes introduced by new laws (like the one being discussed), or if there is inconsistency, those changes take precedence.

In simpler terms, as a security guard, you need to be aware that the usual legal rules and principles that justify or excuse actions, as well as defenses against charges, are still in effect. But if there are new laws that modify or conflict with these principles, the new laws would be followed instead. This ensures a balance between established legal norms and any updates or changes introduced by more recent laws.

Ignorance of the law

81. Ignorance of  the  law  by  a  person  who  commits  an  offence  is  not  an  excuse  for committing the

Penalty for false statements

86. Every person who makes an assertion of fact in a statement or entry in a document or form for use under this Act knowing that the assertion is false is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $2,000.

Contempt

91. (1)  Except as otherwise provided by an Act, every person who commits contempt in the face of a justice of the peace presiding over the Ontario Court of Justice in a proceeding under this Act is on conviction liable to a fine of not more than $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than thirty days, or to both.

Elaboration from a Security Guard’s Perspective:

In the context of your role as a security guard, this statement means the following:

  1. Contempt in the Face of a Justice of the Peace:
    • If, during a legal proceeding that involves the Ontario Court of Justice, someone shows disrespect or disrupts the proceedings in the presence of a justice of the peace, it is considered contempt.
  2. Penalties for Contempt:
    • If a person is found guilty of committing contempt in such a situation, there are specific penalties:
      • Fine: The person can be fined, and the maximum amount is $1,000.
      • Imprisonment: Alternatively, they may face imprisonment for a period of up to thirty days.
      • Combined Penalties: It’s also possible to face both a fine and imprisonment.
  3. Legal Authority:
    • The authority for imposing these penalties comes from the relevant Act governing legal proceedings in Ontario.
  4. Exceptions from Other Acts:
    • The phrase “Except as otherwise provided by an Act” means that if there are specific provisions or rules in other Acts (laws), those would take precedence.

In essence, as a security guard, you should be aware that disruptions or disrespectful behavior during legal proceedings within the Ontario Court of Justice can lead to significant consequences, including fines and possible imprisonment. Your role may involve maintaining order and preventing such contemptuous behavior to ensure the smooth functioning of the legal process.

PART VI YOUNG PERSONS

93. In this Part, “parent”, when used with reference to a young person, includes an adult with whom the young person ordinarily resides;

“Young person” means a person who is or, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, appears to be,

  1. twelve years of age or more, but
  2. under sixteen years of age, and includes a person sixteen years of age or more charged with having committed an offence while he or she was twelve years of age or more but under sixteen years of

Elaboration from a Security Guard’s Perspective:

  1. Definition of “Parent”:
    • In the context of your duties as a security guard, understanding the term “parent” is important. When dealing with a young person, “parent” includes not only biological or legal parents but also any adult with whom the young person typically lives.
  2. Definition of “Young Person”:
    • “Young person” refers to an individual who is, or appears to be:
      • Twelve years of age or more: This includes individuals aged twelve and above.
      • Under sixteen years of age: The term specifically applies to those below the age of sixteen.
      • Inclusive of Sixteen-Year-Olds Charged with Offences: It’s essential to note that the definition extends to individuals who were sixteen or older at the time of being charged with an offense committed when they were twelve to under sixteen years old.
  3. Relevance to Security Duties:
    • As a security guard, encounters with young persons may involve different considerations, especially regarding legal regulations and the appropriate handling of situations involving individuals under the age of sixteen.
    • Understanding the broad definition of “parent” emphasizes the need to communicate and coordinate with adults responsible for the young person’s care.
  4. Legal Implications:
    • The definitions in this part may be relevant in situations where you need to interact with or address incidents involving young persons. It’s crucial to be aware of age distinctions, as legal procedures and consequences can differ for individuals under sixteen.
  5. Protection of Minors:
    • Your role may include ensuring the safety and well-being of young persons, and being aware of their age and guardianship arrangements is fundamental to providing effective security.

In summary, as a security guard, understanding the definitions of “parent” and “young person” is essential for effective communication, compliance with legal regulations, and ensuring the appropriate handling of situations involving minors under the age of sixteen.

Minimum age

94. No person shall be convicted of an offence committed while he or she was under age twelve

Identity of young person not to be published

99. (1) No person shall publish by any means a report,

  1. Of an offence committed or alleged to have been committed by a young person; or
  2. Of a hearing, adjudication, sentence or appeal concerning a young person who committed or is alleged to have committed an offence, in which the name of or any information serving to identify the young person is

For the purposes of this section, the word publish means make public

Elaboration from a Security Guard’s Perspective:

  1. Offence Commitment Under Age Twelve:
    • As a security guard, it’s important to be aware that individuals under the age of twelve cannot be convicted of criminal offences. This means that if you encounter a person who is under twelve years old involved in an incident, legal consequences, such as criminal convictions, would not apply.
  2. Identity Protection of Young Persons:
    • This section emphasizes the protection of the identity and privacy of young persons involved in legal proceedings.
    • Publication Prohibition: It is prohibited to publish, through any means, reports of:
      • Offences committed by a young person.
      • Hearings, adjudications, sentences, or appeals related to a young person’s offence.
    • Identification Safeguards: Any information that could reveal the identity of the young person should not be disclosed. This includes not only the name but any details that could lead to the identification of the young person.
    • Definition of “Publish”: In the context of this section, “publish” means making such information public.
  3. Implications for Security Personnel:
    • If you come across incidents involving young persons, especially those under twelve, it’s crucial to be aware that different legal considerations apply.
    • When dealing with incidents that may involve legal proceedings, take care not to disclose information that could identify the young person, as it is legally protected.
  4. Legal Consequences for Violation:
    • Violating the prohibition on publishing information that identifies a young person involved in an offence can have legal consequences. As a security guard, you should exercise discretion and adhere to legal requirements to protect the privacy and rights of young persons.

In summary, this section underscores the legal protections afforded to young persons, especially those under twelve, and emphasizes the importance of not publishing information that could identify them in any way. As a security guard, compliance with these legal provisions is crucial when dealing with incidents involving young individuals.

Offence

  1. Every person who contravenes subsection (1) and every director, officer or employee of a corporation who authorizes, permits or acquiesces in a contravention of subsection (1) by the corporation is guilty of an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine of not more than $10,000.
  2. Subsection (1) does not prohibit the following:
    1. The disclosure of information by the young person
    2. The disclosure of information by the young person’s parent or lawyer, for the purpose of protecting the young person’s
    3. The disclosure of information by a police officer, for the purpose of investigating an offence which the young person is suspected of having
    4. The disclosure of information to an insurer, to enable the insurer to investigate a claim arising out of an offence committed or alleged to have been committed by the young
    5. The disclosure of information in the course of the administration of justice, but not for the purpose of making the information known in the
    6. The disclosure of information by a person or member of a class of persons prescribed by the regulations, for a purpose prescribed by the

Scenario from a Security Guard’s Perspective:

Let’s consider a scenario where you, as a security guard, are involved in an incident at a shopping mall that includes a young person under the age of sixteen being apprehended for alleged shoplifting.

  1. Basic Situation:
    • You apprehend a young person who appears to be under the age of sixteen for shoplifting.
  2. Legal Considerations:
    • You are aware that the Young Offenders Act protects the identity and privacy of young persons involved in legal matters.
  3. Prohibited Actions (Subsection 1):
    • Subsection (1) states that anyone who contravenes the rules about disclosing information about a young person is guilty of an offence and may be fined.
    • This includes individuals and corporate entities, with potential fines of up to $10,000.
  4. Exceptions (Subsection 1 Does Not Prohibit):
    • You know that Subsection (1) doesn’t prohibit certain disclosures, such as:
      • Disclosures by the Young Person: The young person can disclose information about themselves.
      • Disclosures by Parents or Lawyers: The young person’s parent or lawyer can disclose information to protect the young person’s interests.
      • Disclosures by Police Officers: Police officers can disclose information for the purpose of investigating the alleged offence.
      • Disclosures to Insurers: Information can be disclosed to insurers for investigating a claim related to the alleged offence.
      • Disclosures in the Administration of Justice: Information can be disclosed in the course of the administration of justice, but not for the purpose of making it public.
      • Disclosures by Persons Prescribed by Regulations: Certain individuals or classes of persons, as prescribed by regulations, can disclose information for specific purposes.
  5. Application to the Scenario:
    • In this scenario, as a security guard, you are cautious not to disclose any information about the young person to the public or media, ensuring compliance with the law.
    • If law enforcement arrives, you may provide necessary information for their investigation.
  6. Legal Compliance:
    • By adhering to these legal provisions, you contribute to protecting the young person’s privacy while ensuring that necessary information reaches the appropriate authorities for the administration of justice.

In summary, this scenario highlights the importance of understanding and complying with the legal protections provided to young persons involved in legal matters, particularly regarding the disclosure of information.

Arrest without warrant limited
106. No person shall exercise an authority under this or any other Act to arrest a young person without warrant unless the person has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that it is necessary in the public interest to do so in order to,

  1. Establish the young person’s identity; or
  2. Prevent the continuation or repetition of an offence that constitutes a serious danger to the young person or to the person or property of

Scenario from a Security Guard’s Perspective:

Let’s imagine a scenario where you, as a security guard at a shopping mall, encounter a situation involving a young person who is suspected of shoplifting.

  1. Observation of Suspected Shoplifting:
    • While monitoring the mall premises, you notice a young person behaving suspiciously in a store, putting items into their bag without paying.
  2. Engagement with the Young Person:
    • As part of your responsibilities, you approach the young person and politely ask them to accompany you to the mall security office to discuss the situation.
  3. Assessment of the Situation:
    • Upon engaging with the young person, you gather information and assess the situation. You become aware that the young person is under the age of sixteen.
  4. Understanding the Legal Requirement:
    • As a security guard, you are aware of the legal requirement that prohibits the exercise of authority to arrest a young person without a warrant unless there are reasonable and probable grounds.
  5. Conditions for Arrest Without Warrant:
    • According to the law, a person can only arrest a young person without a warrant if there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe that it is necessary in the public interest to do so in order to:
      • Establish the young person’s identity.
      • Prevent the continuation or repetition of an offence that constitutes a serious danger to the young person or to the person or property.
  6. Applying the Legal Requirement:
    • In this scenario, you evaluate whether there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the arrest is necessary for the public interest.
    • If you determine that the shoplifting incident poses a serious danger to the young person or others in the mall, you may consider exercising your authority to arrest without a warrant.
  7. Lawful Decision-Making:
    • Your decision to take any action is guided by the legal requirement and is aimed at ensuring the safety of the young person and others while preventing the continuation of the offence.
  8. Contacting Law Enforcement:
    • If you decide that an arrest is necessary, you may contact law enforcement to handle the situation further, ensuring that the legal procedures for dealing with young persons are followed.

In summary, this scenario emphasizes the importance of understanding the legal framework surrounding the arrest of young persons without a warrant and ensuring that any actions taken align with the specified conditions, prioritizing public safety and preventing further offences.

Substantial wrong

  1. On an application for relief in the nature of certiorari, the Superior Court of Justice shall not grant relief unless the court finds that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred, and the court may amend or validate any decision already made, with effect from such time and on such terms as the court considers

Certiorari is a legal term meaning the higher court sends the lower court an order to send the record of the trial concerned for review by the higher court. This section means that unless there is a serious wrong created by the lower court’s decision, the lower court’s decision will not be reviewed.

Scenario from a Security Guard’s Perspective:

Let’s consider a situation where you, as a security guard at a large event venue, witness an incident involving the ejection of an individual from the premises. The individual claims that the ejection was unjust and involves a substantial wrong.

  1. Incident at the Event:
    • While performing your duties, you observe a person engaging in disruptive behavior, violating the venue’s rules. As a result, you, along with other security personnel, decide to eject the individual from the event.
  2. Claim of Unjust Ejection:
    • The ejected individual later claims that they were unfairly treated and that the decision to remove them from the event was a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.
  3. Application for Relief in the Nature of Certiorari:
    • The individual decides to seek relief by filing an application for certiorari, asking the Superior Court of Justice to review the decision made during the ejection.
  4. Legal Standard for Granting Relief:
    • According to the legal provision outlined in this scenario, the Superior Court of Justice will not grant relief unless it finds that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred.
  5. Assessment by the Superior Court:
    • The court, upon receiving the application, reviews the circumstances surrounding the ejection. It considers whether there is evidence of a significant error or injustice in the decision made by the security personnel.
  6. Determining Substantial Wrong:
    • The court evaluates whether the ejection was based on valid reasons, such as a violation of venue rules, or if there was a procedural error that led to an unjust outcome.
  7. Court’s Authority to Amend or Validate:
    • If the court determines that there was a substantial wrong, it has the authority to amend or validate the decision. This means the court can rectify any errors and ensure that justice is served.
  8. Effective Time and Terms:
    • The court, if granting relief, may specify the effective time from which the decision is amended or validated. It can also set terms or conditions to address the situation appropriately.

In summary, this scenario illustrates how the legal concept of certiorari applies when an individual challenges the decision to eject them from an event venue. The Superior Court of Justice will only intervene if there is a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice, emphasizing the importance of fair and just decision-making by security personnel.

Habeas corpus

142. (1) On application, the Superior Court of Justice may by order grant any relief in respect of a matter arising under this Act that the applicant would be entitled to in an application for an order in the nature of habeas corpus.

Habeas Corpus is a legal action that compels an authority holding someone prisoner to bring them before the courts in order to prove the legality of holding the person prisoner. Habeas corpus has been enshrined in our Charter Rights under Section 10.

Scenario from a Security Guard’s Perspective:

Let’s consider a situation where you, as a security guard at a shopping mall, are involved in an incident where an individual claims their rights have been violated during an arrest by local law enforcement.

  1. Incident at the Shopping Mall:
    • While patrolling the shopping mall, you observe a person engaging in suspicious behavior, and local law enforcement decides to arrest the individual based on their actions.
  2. Claim of Rights Violation:
    • The arrested individual claims that their rights were violated during the arrest, and they believe they are being unlawfully detained.
  3. Application to the Superior Court:
    • The individual decides to seek legal remedy by applying to the Superior Court of Justice for relief, claiming that their rights under the law have been infringed.
  4. Order in the Nature of Habeas Corpus:
    • The applicant, in this case, is seeking relief similar to what they would obtain through an application for an order in the nature of habeas corpus. Habeas corpus is a legal action that questions the legality of a person’s detention.
  5. Superior Court’s Consideration:
    • The Superior Court, upon receiving the application, considers the circumstances surrounding the arrest and the individual’s claim of rights violation.
  6. Legal Relief Granted:
    • If the Superior Court finds merit in the applicant’s claim and determines that their rights were indeed violated, the court has the authority to grant relief.
  7. Analogous to Habeas Corpus:
    • The relief granted by the court is analogous to what the individual would obtain through a traditional habeas corpus application. This could involve the release of the individual if their detention is deemed unlawful or the rectification of any rights violations.
  8. Protection of Charter Rights:
    • The reference to habeas corpus in the legal provision emphasizes the significance of protecting an individual’s Charter rights, including the right not to be arbitrarily detained.

In summary, this scenario illustrates how an individual, feeling that their rights have been violated during an arrest, can seek relief from the Superior Court of Justice. The court has the authority to grant legal remedies analogous to those available through a habeas corpus application, reinforcing the protection of Charter rights in situations involving potential rights infringements.

ARREST, BAIL AND SEARCH WARRANTS

Arrest without warrant

145. Any person may arrest without warrant a person who he or she has reasonable and probable grounds to believe has committed an offence and is escaping from and freshly pursued by a police officer who has lawful authority to arrest that person, and, where the person who makes the arrest is not a police officer, shall forthwith deliver the person arrested to a police

Scenario from a Security Guard’s Perspective:

Imagine you’re a security guard stationed at a busy shopping mall. Your primary duty is to ensure the safety and security of shoppers and staff within the premises.

  1. Observation of Suspected Shoplifting:
    • While conducting your routine patrols, you notice an individual acting suspiciously in a department store. The person is seen concealing items without making any attempt to pay for them.
  2. Contacting Local Law Enforcement:
    • As a responsible security guard, you promptly contact local law enforcement to report the suspected shoplifting incident. You provide them with details about the individual’s description, location, and the items involved.
  3. Chase and Escalation:
    • A police officer responds to your call and arrives at the mall. Upon approaching the suspected shoplifter, the individual suddenly runs away, attempting to escape.
  4. Assisting the Police Officer:
    • Recognizing the urgency of the situation, you decide to assist the police officer. You have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the individual has committed an offence (shoplifting) and is attempting to escape.
  5. Arresting the Suspect:
    • Acting within your authority, you make a citizen’s arrest. This means you detain the suspected shoplifter until the police officer can take over. This is done to prevent the escape of the person who has allegedly committed an offence.
  6. Delivering the Suspect to Police:
    • After making the arrest, your next immediate action is to deliver the detained person to the police officer who has lawful authority to make arrests. This ensures a smooth transition of custody.
  7. Cooperation with Law Enforcement:
    • You provide the police officer with relevant information about the incident, such as what you observed, the items involved, and any other details that may aid in their investigation.
  8. Maintaining Public Safety:
    • Throughout this process, your primary goal is to maintain public safety within the shopping mall. By promptly addressing the suspected shoplifting and assisting law enforcement, you contribute to the overall security of the premises.

In summary, this scenario illustrates how, as a security guard, you may be involved in making a citizen’s arrest when witnessing a crime like shoplifting. Your actions are aimed at preventing the escape of the suspected offender and ensuring a seamless transfer of custody to the responding police officer.

Use of force

146. (1) Every police officer is, if he or she acts on reasonable and probable grounds, justified in using as much force as is necessary to do what the officer is required or authorized by law to

(2) Every person upon whom a police officer calls for assistance is justified in using as much force as he or she believes on reasonable and probable grounds is necessary to render such assistance.

147. Where a person is wrongfully arrested, whether with or without a warrant, no action for damages shall be brought,

  1. against the police officer making the arrest if he or she believed in good faith and on reasonable and probable grounds that the person arrested was the person named in the warrant or was subject to arrest without warrant under the authority of an Act;
  2. Against any person called upon to assist the police officer if such person believed that the police officer had the right to effect the arrest; or
  3. Against any person required to detain the prisoner in custody if such person believed the arrest was lawfully

(2)It is the duty of everyone who arrests a person, whether with or without warrant, to give notice to that person, where it is feasible to do so, of the reason for the arrest.

Scenario from a Security Guard’s Perspective:

Imagine you’re a security guard working in a bustling entertainment venue. Your role is to ensure the safety of patrons and staff. Here’s how the situation could unfold:

  1. Disturbance at the Venue:
    • You receive reports of a disturbance involving a patron who is behaving aggressively toward others. As the security guard on duty, your responsibility is to address the situation and prevent harm to others.
  2. Assessment of the Threat:
    • Upon arriving at the scene, you observe the aggressive behavior and determine that it poses a risk to the safety of other patrons. You decide to intervene and attempt to de-escalate the situation.
  3. Calling for Police Assistance:
    • Recognizing that the disturbance may require law enforcement involvement, you call the local police for assistance. You provide them with details of the situation, the individual involved, and the potential threat to public safety.
  4. Police Officer’s Response:
    • A police officer promptly arrives at the venue to assess the situation. The officer observes the aggressive behavior and determines that an arrest is necessary to maintain order and prevent harm.
  5. Use of Force by the Police Officer:
    • In accordance with the law, the police officer is justified in using as much force as is necessary to carry out the arrest. This force is reasonable and proportional to the threat posed by the aggressive individual.
  6. Assistance from Security Guard and Others:
    • The security guard and any other individuals who respond to the police officer’s call for assistance are also justified in using force to render assistance. This force is deemed necessary to support the police officer in controlling the situation.
  7. Wrongful Arrest Protections:
    • Suppose, in the course of the arrest, it is later revealed that the person was wrongfully arrested (e.g., mistaken identity). In such cases, the law protects the police officer and anyone assisting in the arrest if they believed in good faith and on reasonable and probable grounds that the arrest was lawful.
  8. Duty to Provide Notice:
    • It is the duty of everyone involved in the arrest, including the security guard, to give notice to the person being arrested of the reason for the arrest where feasible. This communication ensures transparency and adherence to the individual’s rights.

In summary, this scenario illustrates how security guards may collaborate with law enforcement to address disturbances, and it emphasizes the legal justification for using force when required to maintain public safety. The duty to provide notice ensures that individuals being arrested are informed of the reasons for their arrest.