A Canoe is a Vessel for the Purposes of the Criminal Code
“Vessel” is defined in Canada’s major
shipping legislation – i.e. the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and
the Navigation Protection Act etc. – to include ships, boats
or crafts of any kind, without regard to method or lack of propulsion. Canoes accordingly fall within the scope of those acts. In the Criminal Code, the term is undefined. This matters when
folks get charged with dangerous operation of a vessel contrary to section 249
and/or operating a vessel while impaired contrary to section 253.
This was exactly the case in R. v.
Sillars, 2018 ONCJ 816 – a sad case involving the tragic death of a child.
See here for background details: https://www.muskokaregion.com/news-story/8973313-alcohol-marijuana-factors-in-muskoka-canoe-accident-that-left-boy-dead-court-hears/
In summary, the defendant, Mr. Sillars,
was charged with impaired operation of a vessel causing death, operating a
vessel with more than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood and dangerous
operation of a vessel. He defended those charges on the basis that the “vessel”
he occupied at the time, a canoe, did not fall within the scope of the Criminal
Code.
In his lawyers’ view, the purpose of Criminal
Code provisions is to punish misconduct that is sufficiently morally
culpable to warrant the stigma of a criminal sanction. In their view, operating
a non-motorized canoe did not meet that standard – just like operating a
bicycle while impaired does not result in an impaired driving charge.
Accordingly, they argued that the Criminal
Code definition of “vessel” did and could not include canoes.
On the contrary, the crown argued that
operating any kind of vessel, including a canoe, involves a real degree of danger.
It also cited section 4(4) of the Criminal Code as authority
for the court to rely on the definitions of “vessel” in Canada’s shipping
legislation when interpreting the Criminal Code. That section provides that:
“Where an offence that
is dealt with in this Act relates to a subject that is dealt with in another
Act, the words and expressions used in this Act with respect to that offence
have, subject to this Act, the meaning assigned to them in that other Act.”
In the end, the court agreed with the
Crown and concluded that:
[55]
Considering the totality of the materials before me and considering that the
words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical
and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the
Act and the intention of Parliament, it is my finding that the term “vessel”
contained in s. 253(1)(a), s. 253(1)(b) and s. 249(1)(b) includes a canoe…
[56]
Section 4(4) of the Criminal Code permits the court to look to
other federal enactments where the subject-matter of those Acts is the same as
the Criminal Code. Looking to other Acts is also permitted by the
Interpretation Act, s. 15(2)(b). I find that the subject-matter common to all
of these federal enactments is that the definition of “vessel” includes all
“vessels” however propelled, which consequently includes a canoe. The
subject-matter common to these federal enactments was a mode of transportation
or conveyance, namely “vessels,” used on Canadian waterways.
This decision brings the interpretation of
“vessel” as found in the Criminal Code
in line with Canada’s other shipping legislation.
Here's a link to the case: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2018/2018oncj816/2018oncj816.html?autocompleteStr=2018%20ONCJ%20816&autocompletePos=1
