I received a questionnaire that I have to fill out to indicate whether I’m eligible to be a juror (in Ontario). One of the questions is:
Have you been convicted of any criminal offence that can be prosecuted by way of an indictment for which you have not been granted a pardon?
Then it goes on to list crimes that cannot be prosecuted by way of indictment, such as “being nude in a public place”, “being found in a bawdy house”, “being found in a gaming/betting house”, “engaging in a prize fight” and “failing to keep watch while towing person on water skis/surfboard” (sounds like a fun weekend).
The crime that puzzles me is “trading in lumbering equipment without consent of owner”. A quick Google search suggests that “lumbering equipment includes a boom chain, chain, line and shackle”, but wouldn’t it just be theft if you took it without the owner’s consent? Or is this supposed to cover some sort of “Beachcombers”-style salvage situation?
Thanks, this must be the non-indictable offense in question:
“Every one who, being a dealer in second-hand goods of any kind, trades or traffics in or has in his possession for sale or traffic any lumbering equipment that is marked with the mark, brand, registered timber mark, name or initials of a person, without the written consent of that person, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.”
Next time I go into a second-hand store, I’m going to scratch my initials on all the boom chains I can find and then call the cops.
(I’m still not clear on why this needs its own offence in the criminal code and isn’t covered under the broader heading of “selling things that don’t belong to you is illegal”.)
Apparently the Ottawa River was quite polluted in the Good Old Days thanks to pulp and paper mills; I recall reading of an episode once in the 70’s where the press boat was following the Queen (HMS The Queen’s Boat?) on a tour behind Parliament hill. When the boats put into shore, one overenthusiastic reporter jumped onto the shore right away, only to find that “shore” was a raft of scuzzy woodchips lining the shore out to where the water was five feet deep. The Queen did not laugh, in fact she expressed concern that the chap was all right who had taken a chemical bath up to his neck.
I imagine that, back in the day, you would find that kind of stuff lying on the riverbank pretty often. The law was probably intended to counter the general presumption of “finders keepers.”
For context, there is a famous (in Canada anyway) song/vignette called “Log Driver’s Waltz” which played a lot on CBC. Most of the posts on this thread are referencing it in some way for the lulz.
If you look into Section 339.1 you’ll see “(b) removes, alters, obliterates or defaces a mark or number on,…”
That, I think is the crux of the law. By removing marks on timber floating down a river, or found on a river, or mixed into your own load you’ve effectively robbing the actual owner. It would be similar to branding steers and having those cattle stolen and the brands altered.
I don’t know anything about Canada but in my experience in Alaska, any stick of wood that is going to go in the water has to be branded with the logger’s brand. All of the brands are registered with the state and are published in a brand book. Any branded logs or equipment that escape from the log booms are still the property of the owner. As said above it’s a lot like cattle.
Anyway, would anyone like to explain the significance of this, and the other offenses listed in the OP, not being prosecuted by way of indictment? And if I’m reading the OP correctly, we can indeed indulge in trading in lumbering equipment without consent of owner and, it appears, being found in a bawdy house, and still serve on juries. How come these crimes don’t count for jury-eligibility purposes?
It’s a cumbersome way of weeding out people who have been convicted of offences where the potential penalty is more than 6 months.
If a matter can only be tried by summary process, or if the Crown elects to proceed summarily instead of by indictment, then the accused faces a maximum sentence of six months.
If the matter is by indictment, then the accused may be facing a sentence of up to 5 years or more.
I guess the thinking is that bring convicted of an offence that carried a sentence of no more than 6 months shouldn’t keep you off a jury, but a conviction for a more serious offence should.
ETA: I think some summary matters may now carry a sentence of up to 18 months, but the distinction still makes sense.