I hear what you are saying, but I remember having cops at our house. There was something about the liquor license and also the raffle tickets for donations of gifts in kind. So we lost out on tickets and had to do silent auctions. We got out of individual fundraisers almost immediately.
So you were holding both an unlicensed gambling event AND selling liquor without a license, both extremely illegal. Yeah, the cops will come have a look-see if anyone says anything.
Of course you can’t raise funds by doing something illegal, like selling booze without a license or running your own lottery; you also could not raise funds by robbing banks or selling cocaine. It’s not the fundraising that’s illegal, it’s the criminal act you undertake to raise the funds.
A stag-and-doe is perfectly legal; just charge $50 admission and have it at a licensed bar, which of course can sell booze legally. Or tell people it’s a BYOB, or give them booze for free and charge enough in the donation that you’ll end up ahead.
Ok Rick but we aren’t talking about a 50 dollar a head Buck and Doe, we are talking about a Shag, Thunder Bay style. A party held in a rented hall. Someone arranges the liquor licence for the shag, and often the Dads or friends run the bar. They also raffle off prizes. Some of the prizes are worth hundreds if not into the 1000s of dollars. I worked with a lot of young women in their twenties, many of them went Black Friday or Boxing Day shopping to get huge TVs and other prizes to raffle off at the Stags. “Big Prizes” and Families of the bridal party would be hit up for donations from the various companies they worked for gift baskets or certificates and things. There were never gaming licenses procured, and yes it was illegal, but what the officers told me was “Shags are illegal. However unless someone makes a complaint we are not going to shut down every shag in the city.”
In our case the fundraiser was for a boy with cancer. There was a rift in the family, and one side called the OPP to complain, (something about religious beliefs and cancer treatments) and we had the liquor license pulled. It was then we found out that having draw prizes at a fundraiser counts as “illegal gaming.” Our raffle prizes donated by businesses etc, (we did not buy prizes so they were smaller donated items) up for silent auction. The event paid for itself and raised several thousand dollars for the boy, but the fact remains we had booked the hall for the evening too, and no one came for the dance.
I agree that ignorance of the law is not an excuse. I know now that having raffles and so forth are illegal, but in the past I saw other people/ couples /events use the same format. We were completely above board and honest, let the police in, saw our workstation and records which were clear. We had some long discussions with the officers, one who was 8 months pregnant and we swapped mommy stories too. We complied with everything.
So, yes an illegal alcohol and gambling event. I bet you have been to an event that broke the same or similar laws. Ask the little old ladies at the church about their church tea and quilt raffle some day. Or call your local constabulary.
So you’d agree “You cannot fundraise for a person or couple” is not really an accurate statement?
“You cannot have a fundraiser (of the type we were having and is described above) for an individual or couple. You can only fundraise in that manner for registered charities. Fundraising events like benefits and shags are illegal, however in practice we do not go and stop them unless complaints are made.” was what was told to me.
It may not be true doper fashion not to provide a link to the requisite legislation, but this happened in 2008, I no longer live in Ontario, and you can believe me or not. I \m sorry I mentioned it. It is something I frequently mention when shags are discussed; most people do not know the legal status, and are shocked to discover it. The last few years I lived in town I was more likely to work for someone else the night of a co workers shag and not attend.
Here’s the law. That will be 5 cents please.
It’s a masterwork of poor drafting due to its vagueness of terms. TLDR: vis a vis shags, it is usually illegal for friends to fundraise for the betrothed through gambling at shags on two grounds: first, the friends usually don’t have the formal organizational structure to qualify for a license, and second, the fundraising objective is a bit of a stretch compared to what we usually think of as charity.
Part of the problem is that the legislation is a blue law that does not fit normal societal bounds. It is absurd that family, friends and community should not be permitted to help a couple get off to a better financial start to their marriage, but the law does not recognize this.
To be fair, though, the other side of the coin is that people holding shags tend to trust each other and do not recognize the need for regulation and oversight, which opens the door to abuse.
The legislation needs to be brought in line with societal norms.
Again, though, what is being left out here is that the law says you can’t do this by holding a gambling event. That document isn’t the “Fundraising Is Illegal Act,” it’s the “Lottery Licensing Policy Manual.”
The law does not say you cannot fundraise. It says you can’t hold gambling events under certain (well, most) circumstances. You can fundraise for a couple though the simple shortcut of not connecting it to winning a game of chance.
Now, I’m not saying it’s necessarily a good idea to have it this way but the government’s not going to make it all that easy to you to compete with their legal near-monopoly on gambling. ** That’s THEIR scam, and you better believe they don’t want you in on it.**
When it comes to outfitting people about to be married, 50/50 brings in a lot more money than pass-the-hat. 50/50 is illegal unless permitted, but cannot be permitted under the existing legislation. The law does not reflect Thunder Bay community standards.
How about the 50/50 draws they hold at hockey games? Well, in Ottawa anyway. People walk out of there with a couple of thousand dollars. How does that fit into the existing laws?
Amateur sport organizations usually can be permitted under the law, and often youth organizations can be permitted under the law. Youth + sports = gambling permitted.
I see. Rick may take exception to the Senators being called an amateur sports organization though. 
The funds raised by the Ottawa Senators Foundation go to helping kids, not the the Ottawa Senators hockey franchise.
Thanks, Muffin. Next time I am in Thunder Bay, you will get your shiny nickel and a plate of pancakes is on me. 
[QUOTE=Leaffan]
I see. Rick may take exception to the Senators being called an amateur sports organization though.
[/QUOTE]
Funny Stuff there. Almost as good as the pallbearers joke. Thanks for the grin. This weekend, week, month has not been the “smiling-est month ever”.
Yes, the federal Parliament should base the criminal laws on the community standards of Thunder Bay.
If it takes basing our laws on the community standards of Thunder Bay to legalize having a good shag, then so be it.
If the province were to adjust its interpretation of “charity”, then a change in the federal law would not be necessary. But in any event, as we all know, whatever Thunder Bay wants, Thunder Bay gets, so sooner or later (well, later), the rest of Canada will be happily shagging along with us.
You know, 50/50 draws etc. were the bane of my existence for fourteen years when I coached an adult canoe team. They are into fundraising. I am allergic to fundraising. The crew says, “go sell this book of tickets”, so I go sell the book of tickets, feeling very awkward about it. Then over the next few months every person to whom I sell a ticket later sells one of their cause’s tickets to me, for there’s this unwritten social contract that must not be violated: “If thou shalt sell, then thou shalt buy.” Whatever happened to people being able to chose the recipients of their gifts rather than being guilted into giving? (Then again, come to think about it, a couple of my most trivial gifts – a cooler of bottled water and an old cell phone – have resulted in police bomb squad calls, so I do recognize that sometimes it can be better to simply purchase a 50/50 ticket.)
The canoe crew is very practical and not overly concerned with legalities (well if truth be known, they couldn’t give a good god damn – when the police came to break up our crew’s rooftop pool party in Duluth, one of the crew offered the cop a glass of wine just after he told us to put the alcohol away – everyone was quite nice to him, but utterly ignored his requests and pleasantly chatted with him until he went away). I mean, as a designated driver for my rugby team I’ve been kicked out of a lot of places, but I’ve never seen a group of people so oblivious to the law as my canoe crew. In contrast to them, aside from river poaching, I’m so squeaky clean that you can hear me walking along the street – squeak, squeak, squeak, squeak. No drink – squeak – no gamble – squeak. I think happy thoughts. I live in a happy world. I don’t like being dragged into illegal gambling. Remember Ozzie and Harriet? I’m Ozzie. Seriously.
Being naive to things such as alcohol and gambling, it took me a few years to clue into the difference between 50/50s that were licenced and those that were not. I knew that my crew raised thousands of dollars each year for medical research, and there was some sort of regulatory process with which they complied. I assumed that when they sold different 50/50s for team fundraising that they also complied with the regulations. The asshole for hire in me knows that it is important to never make assumptions, but nonetheless I assumed that they jumped through the regulatory hoops for all their fundraisers, not just the big ones.
One year they ran into a bump when getting permitted, so they asked me for help. I didn’t have a clue as to lottery, but I’ve helped charities and not-for-profits deal with regulatory stuff, so I looked into it for them. AAAKKKKKK!!! That’s when I learned that although their major fundraisers were legit, their team fundraisers were not. That’s when I had to have a heart to heart with them about their illegal activities.
Of course they ignored me and have not changed their evil ways, but three good things came out of it. First, they now accept that I truly am allergic to fundraising – particularly illegal fundraising; second, I actually learned a lot about the gaming regs in Ontario, have been able to reduce my crew’s infractions, and have even made a bit of coin advising other organizations on it; third, I have come to accept that my crew are truly good people doing good things who are not about to let a dumbass blue law stand in their way.
So let the government(s) adapt to the wishes of the people. (And don’t ever, never, ever ever ever, try to get me to sell a ticket for you!)
Except it’s not something as simple as one province adjusting "its interpretation of ‘charity’ ". The charity requirement comes from a federal law, the Criminal Code, and must have a uniform meaning across Canada.
As well, whether something is a charity must meet a legal definition, as interpreted by the courts. Believe it or nor, the definition of charity dates back to an English law from 1601, the Charitable Uses Act, often called the Statute of Elizabeth. The four centuries of case-law interpreting that Act, plus a lot of case-law considering whether something is a charity for the purposes of the Income Tax Act, have given a pretty firm definition to “charity”.
One province can’t just decide to give a different interpretation to a legal term in a federal statute as a matter of local policy.
Here’s the preamble to the Statute of Elizabeth, which is the foundation in the common law countries for what counts as a “charity”:
[QUOTE=Parliament of England]
… Releife of aged impotent and poore people, some for Maintenance of sicke and maymed Souldiers and Marriners, Schooles of Learninge, Free Schooles and Schollers in Universities, some for Repaire of Bridges Portes Havens Causwaies Churches Seabankes and Highwaies, some for Educacion and prefermente of Orphans, some for or towardes Reliefe Stocke or Maintenance of Howses of Correccion, some for Mariages of poore Maides, some for Supportacion Ayde and Helpe of younge tradesmen Handicraftesmen and persons decayed, and others for reliefe or redemption of Prisoners or Captives, and for aide or ease of any poore Inhabitantes concerninge paymente of Fifteenes, setting out of Souldiers and other Taxes;
[/QUOTE]
Shags ain’t there.
Mariages of poore Maides?
Here’s a modern paraphrase, as used by the Supreme Court in ruling that a soccer organization didn’t count as a charity for income tax purposes:
[QUOTE=Supreme Court of Canada]
. . . relief of aged, impotent, and poor people; the maintenance of sick and maimed soldiers and mariners, schools of learning, free schools, and scholars in universities; the repair of bridges, ports, havens, causeways, churches, sea banks and highways; the education and preferment of orphans; the relief, stock, or maintenance of houses of correction; marriages of poor maids; supportation, aid, and help of young tradesmen, handicraftsmen, and persons decayed; the relief or redemption of prisoners or captives; and the aid or ease of any poor inhabitants concerning payments of fifteens, setting out of soldiers, and other taxes.
[/QUOTE]