Knock Knock guess who?

[shortlived]

Ok, english is a problem for you but thats ok.

Anyhow, trespass law is funny that way, and the authorities recognize it as such. If one claims no sign was seen or was not posted where they entered, then nothing can be done to them other than to be made to leave the property.

Been through it before.

Anyhow, you can keep on deluding yourself that anyone, anywhere on any property with even just one No Trespass sign is fair game to be arrested.

I suggest you give it a try! ahhh.....I see you are now argreeing with me.

Well done ol' chap !

--------

DUDE A PROHIBITION NOTICE CAN COME IN THE FORM OF A LETTER ALSO A sign posted in clear view is more than sufficient notice to make an arrest I said nothing about the police being called.

You can be arrested after the fact, the corruption of police in dealing with various matters is completely secondary to the ability for an individual to arrest someone for trespassing on their property who has been served a prohibition notice.

A fence is enough to make an arrest.

The point here is that no government employees do not have divine right to trespass, not be fined, and not be arrested for trespass, and no there is no default right to investigate people or search their property without a search warrant.

Those sorts of acts are just corrupt, illegal and unconstitutional conduct by government agencies.

The point here is people do not have to submit to the violation of their privacy nor submit to unlawful search.

Edited February 25, 2013 by shortlived

[guyser]

The point here is that no government employees do not have divine right to trespass, not be fined, and not be arrested for trespass, and no there is no default right to investigate people or search their property without a search warrant.

Those sorts of acts are just corrupt, illegal and unconstitutional conduct by government agencies.

The point here is people do not have to submit to the violation of their privacy nor submit to unlawful search.

Yes well, case law does not agree with you.

Not to mention, building standards enforcement,by law officers , utility easements, all of them can simply show up and do their job, although they are generally likely to give advance notice as a courtesy

One cannot simply put up a NT sign and expect anyone to respect the sign if there is a right of way across that land. Hell, I could drive over the fence if my neighbours tried that. I'd laugh at them too !

Edited February 25, 2013 by guyser

[shortlived]

Yes well, case law does not agree with you.

Not to mention, building standards enforcement,by law officers , utility easements, all of them can simply show up and do their job, although they are generally likely to give advance notice as a courtesy

One cannot simply put up a NT sign and expect anyone to respect the sign if there is a right of way across that land. Hell, I could drive over the fence if my neighbours tried that. I'd laugh at them too !

NO THEY Can't.

I know the rules.

First off they have to provide notice, except in emergency sitautions.

If you don't have their service then they cannot use your property without your permission.

While in practice everyone is expected to be forced by utilities. People such as myself who do not have utility service, will enforce the trespass notice because they have no legitimate grounds to invade my property and privacy.

Also bylaws may differ, but notice is expected else it is an invasion of privacy, unless it is an emergency situation.

Only individuals such as fire officers are provincially delegated and none is federal, However if you give notice to the fire officer, they have to give notice (your local laws may differ)

In my case I've looked into it and the letter of the law is very clear, no one has right to enter your property without notice unless it is an emergency.

Secondarily if you do not have utility service they cannot enter your property -- however if there is already equipment on your property you can ask for it to be removed.

The allowance of land use is problematic but it in those events does represent an infringement on your title.

if you don't have utility services you can request a private companies equipment to be removed from your property. If not it is legally your property and you can remove it yourself if there are no specific laws granting it, but even then it is a form of an expropriation and unlawful limitation on title.

Notice is required except for emergency situations.

You are either being obtuse or pussy footing around the fact I stated if a prohibition notice is given, this means the notice is received. Posting an allowance only to yodel into your property would be sufficient prohibition to stop them from doing anything but yodeling.

No trespassing YODEL ONLY ZONE, no right of entry no solicitors, do not disturb, trespassers will be prosecuted, notice from the owner of _____. No approach to house, DANGER, high voltage area, do not enter. No government agents, no creeps, no EI employees, no DEA, no vacume sales people, no anyone without express permission of the owner, this property is off limits, man eating shotgun on property beware of landmines. WARNING! Rusty nails and used condom pathway. Object that looks like door is really high power dc microwave transmission system. Cannibal rehab building.

DO NOT TRESPASS |-UCKER!

Rights of way aren't peoples property.. they are rights of way.

easements do not denote "full rights to title" they are easements.

Edited February 26, 2013 by shortlived

[jacee]

If Harper's quota is to take back half a mil$ from ei recipients, then he'd better be paying it back to those paying ei premiums!

Ei is not a cash cow for him!

[michelpaulanderson.ndp]

Ur trying to argue against me for some reason. They can tear up ur front lawn. Park heavy machinery on it and nothing u can do. So much for property rights eh?

So what your saying is that the city owns a portion of the land that a private citizen lives on and owns. Wouldn't that make it the cities land and not yours? Just because you own property adjacent to city land doesn't mean you own it all. So sure the city can do what it wants with the property it owns...it owns it after all.

[Topaz]

How many of you think that maybe the EI should be a provincial service and taken it away at the federal level, which would mean EI payments would go to the provinces?

[Signals.Cpl]

How many of you think that maybe the EI should be a provincial service and taken it away at the federal level, which would mean EI payments would go to the provinces?

And what happens when say Nova Scotia experiences higher unemployment than Ontario or Alberta? One province will have a surplus while another will have a deficit... Provinces that have higher rate of EI use will have to put money in to the program to equal it while others will use the excess as government revenue.

[shortlived]

U cannot stop them from putting in sidewalks or widening roads onto ur property. Nothing.

Well maybe you can't.

There are avenues individuals can take.

Being legal is not the end all of life, being moral is.

That is why juries exist.

Plus its not "your land" within the Canadian legal framework once it is expropriated.

Edited March 5, 2013 by shortlived

[Topaz]

And what happens when say Nova Scotia experiences higher unemployment than Ontario or Alberta? One province will have a surplus while another will have a deficit... Provinces that have higher rate of EI use will have to put money in to the program to equal it while others will use the excess as government revenue.

I realize that but if the provinces and territories get all the money paid in by workers to date, and any excess, that would give the provinces a start to make sure thier workers are looked after and not have to go through all the screwing the feds are giving workers now and I think it would be easier for the workers to deal with the provincial government than the feds. IF it can be done is another matter..

[Signals.Cpl]

I realize that but if the provinces and territories get all the money paid in by workers to date, and any excess, that would give the provinces a start to make sure thier workers are looked after and not have to go through all the screwing the feds are giving workers now and I think it would be easier for the workers to deal with the provincial government than the feds. IF it can be done is another matter..

Really? What happens when there is a deficit as is seen in Ontario and the provincial government decides to raid the funds in EI? What happens when a province cannot afford to support the program because there is a disproportionate amount of unemployed in that province? So either this will become another price tag to add to equalization or provinces will start to cut the benefit as a way to save money while the provinces with a surplus will not be looking out and planning for the future instead they will be spending the money here and now instead of building up a reserve fund for EI incase the times get bad.

The atlantic provinces will be buried by this, Quebec and Ontario will manage simply because of the size of the workforce and anything west of Manitoba will be ok for now and will likely have a surplus. So to sum this up we will see either benefits cut in some provinces, rules to get EI tightened to such a point as it becomes inaccessible to most people who would otherwise qualify or the Federal government will have to assume the balance for the provinces that have a deficit any way you look at it everyone get's screwed.