Is MP a Public Place?

wanttodo said:

For the purposes of Bill C36, is a MP considered a public place?

There are many MPs that are next to parks, schools and religious institutions. Would these be hotspots for LE?

From section 286..."in the case where the offence is committed in a public place, or in any place open to public view, that is or is next to a park or the grounds of a school or religious institution or that is or is next to any other place where persons under the age of 18 can reasonably be expected to be present,"[/yarI]

Click to expand...

MPAsquared said:

True. But what does that mean? Nada. Entering a room doesn't prove criminal activity. Take street walkers...if I grab a guy & fuck him behind a club in an alley way, does that equate hooking? No. A crime must be witnessed for a cop to lay a charge or arrest. First off, bylaw don't lay charges so eliminate them from any c-36 talk as that is not their domain. Cops can walk into any room anywhere in the city, coitus doesn't equal crime. Nor does anything else.**

C-36 or otherwise, entering rooms is a method of policing spas. A required process or else we'd run a muck! It helps to keep the industry clean(er), law abiding, bylaw abiding, and the staff safe.**

They can do this in any business, building, commercial property, etc.**

And they should.**

**‎

Click to expand...

MPAsquared said:

True. But what does that mean? Nada. Entering a room doesn't prove criminal activity. Take street walkers...if I grab a guy & fuck him behind a club in an alley way, does that equate hooking? No. A crime must be witnessed for a cop to lay a charge or arrest. First off, bylaw don't lay charges so eliminate them from any c-36 talk as that is not their domain. Cops can walk into any room anywhere in the city, coitus doesn't equal crime. Nor does anything else.**

C-36 or otherwise, entering rooms is a method of policing spas. A required process or else we'd run a muck! It helps to keep the industry clean(er), law abiding, bylaw abiding, and the staff safe.**

They can do this in any business, building, commercial property, etc.**

And they should.**

**‎

Click to expand...

bobcat40 said:

This is kind of an overly simplistic example. Cops can't exactly just walk into any room anywhere in the city without violating the charter rights of unreasonable search and seizure. They can't just bang down the doors of your house or your hotel room without a search warrant, or exigent circumstances which compel them to stop a crime in progress. Bylaws however make it much easier for police to just enter a massage parlour because they have the power to do so at an time a massage parlour is open for business. The legal barrier for cops in this circumstance is pretty much non-existent.

I do find it interesting that you mention that you are bylaw abiding while clearly violating the requirement to close at 9pm and for attendants to be clothed and "professional" during all interactions with customers. If Toronto bylaws were followed in their entirety, C-36 wouldn't really even be an issue at all...

Click to expand...

MPAsquared said:

Homes & hotel rooms are private places. And without bylaw business codes to ensure crime isn't happening within it. That's the big difference. The simplicity comes when you remove private/residential.**

I'm glad you find that interesting. If you knew what BRP's are fighting in court right now, you'd find it much less interesting, I assure you lol.**

Any spa can choose to lock doors or hinder entrance. They can choose to break any bylaw really. But that is up to each spa to decide what's valuable to them or worth the risk.**

Bylaw & c-36 aren't related. ‎

Click to expand...

wanttodo said:

For the purposes of Bill C36, is a MP considered a public place?

There are many MPs that are next to parks, schools and religious institutions. Would these be hotspots for LE?

From section 286..."in the case where the offence is committed in a public place, or in any place open to public view, that is or is next to a park or the grounds of a school or religious institution or that is or is next to any other place where persons under the age of 18 can reasonably be expected to be present,"

Click to expand...

bobcat40 said:

Well you kind of just proved my point, spas aren't exactly "bylaw abiding". Bylaw and C-36 are actually quite related in that they are a framework trying to control and regulate the same thing. I'm aware of your spas attempt to somehow reverse the Ontario Court of Appeal loss on the hours of operation and have read cases involving attempts by Vaughan and Brampton. Undoubtedly the City will argue that their bylaws restricting the hours of operation and what the attendants may where or do are based on the suppression of crime. The specific crime they attempt to address or mitigate is bill C-36 or prostitution. This makes the bylaw a quasi-criminal type law and I would believe heavily tied to the underlying bill C-36. It's no surprise that bylaw and police work very closely in enforcing against the massage and strip club industry. There is no such partnership in any other kind of bylaw enforcement such as building and fire codes. On paper C-36 and Bylaw are separate because the law requires this, but in practical reality, these are very much related.

Click to expand...

TeasePlease said:

I would agree that licensed BRPs are not supposed to be near places where children would reasonably by expected to be. But if you take a look around, the reality is quite different....like BRPs close to children's activity centres, tutoring centres, churches, etc.

Click to expand...

TeasePlease said:

Lol. If a church or school is not registered (whatever that means?) then any children who may be in attendance don't really exist. I don't recall "registration" being part of the legislation, but I'm sure that will fly with a judge.

Click to expand...