criminal charges

[yycflyguy]

Did you read this thread?

Yup. Did you?

[snow-monkey]

I know an Inuit pilot who had two criminal charges, one of them being a DUI. Been flying steady, only had to take a brief break from flying one of our contracts. He just moved onto a 705 airline...

Where there is a will, there is a way. Of course the brown card might have helped out a lot in this particular case.

[Bede]

cncpc,

I don't think you know what you're talking about. Aeronautics is federally regulated therefore the BC Human Right Code does not apply; The Canadian Human Rights Act protects against discrimination against people with a conviction who have received a pardon only.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/r ... c-h-6.html
see section 2.

It's not the end of the world, but you need a pardon before you can get a job going to the US or need a RAIC.

[cncpc]

The BC Human Rights Code applies to every employer in BC.

[aviator2010]

so who does the canadian human rights tribunal cover if not federally regulated employers?

[cncpc]

it establishes a minimum standard of human rights for those employed in federally regulated agencies. It does not establish the dominant standard if a higher standard is mandated by provincial law.

It is absurd to think that a person working in macDonalds has greater protection against discrimination than a pilot simply because a fast food chain isn't federally regulated.

Some provinces do not have any mention of criminal conviction as a type of discrimination. In those provinces, the federal human rights provides the higher standard, and is the dominant law.

[KK7]

The BC Human Rights Code applies to every employer in BC.

No, it doesn't. The guide from the BC Human Rights website says so specifically, right on the first page"

http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/guides_and_infor ... 1_2005.pdf

Can the Tribunal Deal With All Types of Discrimination?

No. The tribunal can only deal with human rights complaints that arise in British Columbia and that are covered by the Code. The tribunal cannot deal with any other type of discrimination.

Note: The Code does not cover matters within federal jurisdiction. For example, banking is a matter of federal jurisdiction; so the tribunal cannot deal with a complaint against a bank.

[Wilbur]

Provincial Human Rights Codes do not apply to federally regulated industries, but, even if they did it doesn't matter. An employer refusing to hire because you can't get a red pass is not in violation. Having the red pass is a condition of employment and the employer does not control whether or not you are issued a pass. Therefore, the employer is not discriminating if you don't qualify for the pass on the basis of a criminal record.

Your friend's record will be a barrier to employment, but not one that is absolute. Just stay out of the US until several months after a pardon has been issued.

If I were him, I'd also consider telling a different story about how he aquired his record. The story you are telling now does more damage to his reputation than if he just admitted to selling some dope. According to you, he hangs around with drug dealers, and then walked into a courtroom and lied to a judge inorder to protect those drug dealers by wrongly taking the blame. If that story isn't the truth, he's a liar trying to minimize his drug dealing, if it is the truth, he's a liar and so incredibly stupid he is willing to risk his own future to protect a drug dealer. If he just admits he was selling drugs, got caught, took responsibility and will never do it again, at least he can still claim some integrity.

[Canuck223]

With respect, the question of "taking a charge" is sadly sometimes the expeditious way out. In general the police will lay a smorgastboard of charges against anyone in the proximity, and let the Crown Attorney deal with the fallout. Partly this is to CYA so they don't limit themselves by not charging someone with the right charge. Partly it's a cheap way to get results without a lot of burdensome investigation.

As an example, your kid comes home from college. On his first night home, an old high school buddy calls and they go out to the bar, crashing at your place afterwords, girlfriends in tow. The highschool buddy and his girlfriend go for a dip in the pool, and burn a joint while there, leaving the roach in the ashtray with your cigarette butts. Your lighter was left on the table.

After drying off, they get into a fight, start throwing punches, and the police are called. Your son takes a blow to the head in trying to break them up. When the sirens are heard, the punching bag girlfriend dumps thier dope in the toilet, but forgets to flush.

The cops arrive. The cuts and scrapes peg your son and the other couple as having been in a fight. The cops take statements and find the roach and the dope. The couple lie thier asses off, and you can only report on what you saw, starting when you came down the stairs when the shouting woke you up. The cops charge everyone with possession. Your self employed as an insurance broker. Your wife is a school teacher.


Your choices are mortgage the equity in your home to fight it, and risk losing, or cop to a reduced possession charge and your wife avoids court and losing her job.

What are you going to do? yourself letting your wife avoid c

[Wilbur]

To make a possession charge stick, the crown has to show you had both knowledge and control of the item/drugs. Possession of anything is often a hard charge to prove unless they find it on your person, witness you dumping it, or you admit it's yours. In your scenario Canuck, nobody would be charged with possession unless they admitted the dope was theirs, and even then, if it's just a small amount it isn't likely going anywhere. The mere fact it is in your house does not mean you know about it, or had control over it.

[aviator2010]

what's really important about this forum is I while am consistantly right. Was proven right in a very timley fashion and there for you all need to stand up take notice and just listen to what you are told.

[Slats]

Don't drink and post.

[The Old Fogducker]

Wilbur .... from my days when I used to fly the court party around, didn't the Crown also have to prove "manual handling" to make the charge stick?

I recall watching the proceeding of one fairly significant bust that had been made, and the alleged offender walked because the Crown Prosecutor failed to present evidence that clause of the statute had been met.

That was a long time ago, and the legislation may have been amended to exclude that stipulation.

The Old (this proceeding is closed) Fogducker

[Wilbur]

I'm not sure of the case law history involved, but I would guess "manual handling" evolved or broadened into "control." For example, the cops watch/video your drug dealer buddy showing you the kilo of cocaine in the gym bag, putting the bag in your car, and you driving off to make the delivery. To any clear thinking person, you are in possession of the coke although you never actually touched or "manually handled" it. Some high court judge somewhere probably came to recoginize this and re-defined manual handling to be control. As well, some things you can be charged for possessing can't be manually handled, child porn on your computer would be an obvious example.

[Canuck223]

To make a possession charge stick, the crown has to show you had both knowledge and control of the item/drugs. Possession of anything is often a hard charge to prove unless they find it on your person, witness you dumping it, or you admit it's yours. In your scenario Canuck, nobody would be charged with possession unless they admitted the dope was theirs, and even then, if it's just a small amount it isn't likely going anywhere. The mere fact it is in your house does not mean you know about it, or had control over it.

To a sane, sound minded person, you are correct.

Unfortunately, the police don't always play by that book. There are no repercussions possible against the police for laying a charge the Crown may chose not to pursue. How many times have you heard of a criminal proceeding being adjurned when the crown finally conceeds that there is no reasonable hope for a conviction.

What do you figure the defendants legal fees are by that point?

And before you ask, yes, I've seen it happen to a friend. It was not drugs, but a gun charge.
The readers digest version is a former room mate kept his legally registered restricted firearms in the safe. He'd moved but didn't have a safe, and never changed the registration certificates as it made more sense to leave then.

He then screwed the pooch big time, and got arrested. Knowing his guns would be confiscated, and not wanting his old room mate (my friend) to be hassled for them, he gave t my friend the arresting officers card and directed him to arrange turning them over. He called, and waited, and waited, and called again. A month later, the police called him at work to see if he might like to return to his residence, be arrested, and by the way, witness the search of his home.

He and his current room-mate were charged with a shopping list of offences. It took a year, and at least 3 pre-trial hearings, but all charges were dropped. As it happens, the pre-trail judge was a friend of mine.

[Wilbur]

In your account, your friend (the roomate) had possession of the guns. He had knowledge of them, and he had control over them. Ownership is not relevant. My bet is what got the charges dropped was his ability to show he had phoned the cops to come get them, and the cops dropped the ball.

[Canuck223]

In your account, your friend (the roomate) had possession of the guns. He had knowledge of them, and he had control over them. Ownership is not relevant. My bet is what got the charges dropped was his ability to show he had phoned the cops to come get them, and the cops dropped the ball.

The guns were registered. They were stored at the address where they were registered. They were trigger locked seperately, and stored in a seperate locked carry case, so while they were stored in a common safe, only the owner had control. The registration certificates were kept in an envelop with the guns.

The charges were dropped because after three court appearances, the Crown would not produce disclosure in the form of the information filed to obtain the search warrant. What was known is that in the month between the phone call and the arrival of the police, three applications for a search warrant had been denied.

Without disclosure, we'll never know the truth, but we have a suspicion or two.

Theory #1, the police used deception to get the warrant.
When the 911 system was roled out Ontario wide, my friends street was renumbered. He updated his registration certificates. His friend did not. We suspect the police having failed to get a warrant with the information they had, may have suggested that they knew the firearms had been moved, as they were registered at 123 Knoxx St. when the accused had stated they were currently at !!@# Knoxx St.

Theory #2 is an informant.
The former room mate had gotten in with a motorcycle gang, and we wonder if an informant lead police to suspect more was to be found at that address. The crown may have balked at disclosure to protect the informant.

[weelard]

what about drug non-convictions? how will a stay of proceedings record effect obtaining a RAIC or an airline job? i mean anybody can be charged right?
i have a friend who got charged with posessios for purpose of trafficking and the charges were later dropped. with a stay of proceedings. how will this affect him for employment and raic?

[Wilbur]

The "stay" will be on CPIC but shouldn't interfere with a basic security check. However, the mere suspicion of being involved in drug trafficking could be enough for the Americans to deny entry. They can deny entry to their country for any reason including the colour of your socks.

[trey kule]

OFF TOPIC WARNING
Doc..it is good to see your posts, and while I am not disputing your claim to participating in a lurkational nature, I fear you have slipped out of the loop. There is a terrible impending shortage of pilots.
Record numbers are retiring and there are few if any to replace them. I appreciate your telling the original poster that he has lots of time, but every one of the flights schools and colleges cant be wrong..can they?

[willing to fly]

I work up north. My company requires a RAIC. We also do sim training in the US. We also need a medevac license and they ask for a criminal background check and sexual abuse registry check.

Float flying may be the way to go. No RAIC, no sim training and no medevac licenses.

The other issue not mentioned might be insurance. I know that insurance companies require disclosure about DUI's (employers may not always remember ask but it is on the insurance forms) I don't know if insurance rates would be affected by a trafficking charge but they are with a DUI.