Vehicle Forfeiture in Canada – The Process of Taking

Vehicle Forfeiture in Canada – The Process of Taking

Thank You… and have a nice day eh!

Disclaimer: We are not Attorneys in Canada.  This is an article of information obtained from various sources and presented here. We can only assume they are accurate.  If you ever find a reason to go to Canada and need a lawyer…we wish you luck. Assume you do not have the rights a Canadian citizen would have and only be given basic human rights.

In Canada, vehicle forfeiture is a legal process that allows the government to permanently take possession of a vehicle. Let’s explore the reasons behind vehicle forfeiture and the steps involved.

Reasons for Vehicle Seizure:

Commission of a Crime:

  • Law enforcement agencies, such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), can seize a vehicle temporarily if it is being used in the commission of a crime or if it serves as evidence of a crime.
  • Additionally, vehicles may be seized if they are abandoned or driven by someone prohibited from driving.

Violation of Laws or Regulations:

  • Vehicles can be seized if their owners violate certain laws or regulations. Examples include driving without valid insurance or registration or possessing a learner’s permit without an appropriate accompanying driver.

Vehicle Forfeiture:

Permanent Taking:

  • Vehicle forfeiture occurs after a legal process, usually when the vehicle was used in a crime or represents proceeds of crime (e.g., drug trafficking, money laundering).
  • Unlike seizure, forfeiture results in the permanent loss of the vehicle to the government.

Notification and Claim Process:

  • When a vehicle is seized, the owner is notified of the seizure and provided with information about the reason.
  • If the vehicle is not needed as evidence, the owner can reclaim it by following these steps:
    1. Contact the agency that seized the vehicle for specific requirements.
    2. Prove ownership with documentation (e.g., vehicle registration, bill of sale).
    3. Pay any fines or fees associated with the seizure.
    4. Retrieve the vehicle.

APPEALS in STATE or FEDERAL COURT
When you need to appeal a decision you feel is wrong.
Call Komorn Law
 (248) 357-2550

Civil Forfeiture Laws:

  • Canada’s civil forfeiture laws allow provincial governments to seize property without compensation when it is suspected of being used to commit an illegal act or acquired through illegal means.

 

Conclusion:

Understanding the difference between vehicle seizure and forfeiture is crucial. If your vehicle is subject to forfeiture, seek legal representation to navigate the process and protect your rights.

For more detailed information, you can refer to the full article.

Please note that this summary provides an overview, and it is recommend you consult legal professionals for personalized advice. 

Does Canada follow the US Constitution?

The U.S. Constitution spells out the specific powers of Congress, leaving everything else to the states. The Canadian Constitution does the opposite.

Provinces are limited to the powers explicitly given them by the Canadian Constitution and everything else is under the purview of the federal Parliament.

Canadian Bill of Rights

The Canadian Encyclopedia
The Canadian Bill of Rights recognizes the rights of individuals to life, liberty, personal security, and enjoyment of property. (It does not recognize “possession” of property, …

Want to learn more about the Canadian Charter of “Rights and Freedoms”.
Go here —> Guide to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

In the FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM
When you need to go on the offense – to put the prosecution on defense
Komorn Law (248) 357-2550.

Boating in Michigan on Alcohol and Drugs – It’s Illegal

Boating in Michigan on Alcohol and Drugs – It’s Illegal

If it’s got a motor, it’s a BUI

We got lakes, we got boats, we got alcohol, we got cannabis all the fun you can possibly find on a holiday weekend in the summer. Just don’t combine them all or you’ll be calling us or your cousin Vinny. 

Operating a Boat Under the Influence (OUI)

Michigan law strictly prohibits operating a motorboat under the influence of alcohol or drugs, similar to driving under the influence (DUI) laws. This applies to all vessels with a motor, including personal watercraft (PWCs) [MCL 324.80176]. There are two main ways a boater can be considered OUI:

  • Blood Alcohol Content (BAC): A BAC of 0.08% or greater is considered operating under the influence. This is determined by a breath, blood, or urine test administered by a law enforcement officer.
  • Visible Impairment: Regardless of BAC, if an officer observes the boater’s ability to operate the vessel is visibly impaired by alcohol or drugs, they can be arrested for OUI.

Visible Impairment means anything they say it means!!

The consequences of a BUI conviction in Michigan can be severe. A first offense is typically a misdemeanor, punishable by fines, jail time, and the loss of boating privileges. Multiple convictions within ten years escalate the offense to a felony, carrying harsher penalties. Additionally, causing serious injury or death while boating under the influence can result in felony charges with significant prison sentences.

324.80176 Operation of or authorizing operation of motorboat while under influence of alcoholic liquor or controlled substance prohibited; visible impairment; violation as felony; penalty; “serious impairment of a body function” defined; operation by person less than 21 years of age; “any bodily alcohol content” defined; requirements; “operate” defined.

Sec. 80176.

    (1) A person shall not operate a motorboat on the waters of this state if any of the following apply:
    (a) The person is under the influence of alcoholic liquor or a controlled substance, or both.
    (b) The person has a blood alcohol content of 0.08 grams or more per 100 milliliters of blood, per 210 liters of breath, or per 67 milliliters of urine.
    (c) The person has in his or her body any amount of a controlled substance listed in schedule 1 under section 7212 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7212, or a rule promulgated under that section, or of a controlled substance described in section 7214(a)(iv) of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7214.

Passengers and Alcohol Consumption

While there is no specific law prohibiting passengers from drinking alcohol on a boat in Michigan, it’s important to be aware of the potential dangers. Excessive alcohol consumption can impair judgment and coordination, increasing the risk of accidents or falls overboard. Passengers who are intoxicated may also become loud or disruptive, distracting the operator and jeopardizing the safety of everyone on board.

Here are some safety tips for passengers:

  • Drink responsibly and in moderation.
  • Be aware of your surroundings and potential hazards.
  • Remain seated while the boat is in motion.
  • Wear a life jacket at all times.

Additional Safety Considerations

Boating safety goes beyond just avoiding alcohol. Here are some other crucial aspects to remember:

  • Boating education: Taking a boating safety course can equip you with the knowledge and skills to navigate safely. Michigan requires boaters born after June 30, 1996, to complete a boating safety course to operate a motorboat or PWC https://www.michigan.gov/dnr/things-to-do/boating/safety-certificate.
  • Life jackets: Ensure everyone on board has a properly fitting life jacket readily available and consider wearing them at all times.
  • Boating equipment: Have all necessary safety equipment on board, including fire extinguishers, flares, and signaling devices.
  • Weather conditions: Always check the weather forecast before heading out and be prepared for sudden changes.
  • Local regulations: Be aware of any specific boating regulations or restrictions that may apply to the water body you’re on.

Law Firm VIctories

Your Rights

DUI

Alcohol, Drugs, Kayaking – It could be a problem

Alcohol, Drugs, Kayaking – It could be a problem

Can I drink alcohol and smoke cannabis if I’m canoeing or kayaking or tubing or paddleboarding or just floating around?

While Michigan law doesn’t explicitly forbid consuming alcohol on non-motorized vessels like canoes or kayaks, it’s strongly discouraged for safety reasons. Here’s why:

  • Impaired judgment: Alcohol affects your balance, coordination, and decision-making abilities. Even a small amount can significantly increase your risk of tipping over or making poor choices on the water.

  • Hypothermia risk: Alcohol can interfere with your body’s ability to regulate temperature. Falling into cold water while under the influence can lead to hypothermia much faster.

  • Drowning risk: Impaired judgment and slowed reflexes can make it difficult to react quickly in an emergency situation.

  • Legal consequences: Public intoxication laws might apply if your behavior becomes disruptive or unsafe due to alcohol.

…and public consumption of cannabis is not allowed.

Public consumption is not permitted. Driving under the influence of marijuana is not permitted. Individuals cannot cross state lines with marijuana.

Marijuana in Michigan: What You Need to Know

Law Firm VIctories

Your Rights

DUI

Michigan Workers Right to Protest – Can They Force a Change in Business Strategy?

Michigan Workers Right to Protest – Can They Force a Change in Business Strategy?

Michigan Workers and the Right to Protest: Can They Force a Change in Business Strategy?

The ever-evolving economic landscape can create friction between Michigan workers and their employers. Workers may find themselves at odds with company strategies or investments, leading to protests aimed at forcing a change. But what legal rights do these workers have, and can they truly compel an alteration in business direction?

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) Framework

The foundation for worker protest rights in Michigan lies in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935. This federal law guarantees workers the right to engage in “concerted activities” for the purpose of “collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” However, the NLRA doesn’t grant a blank check for protest.

The key lies in the distinction between protected and unprotected activities.

Protected Protests: When Workers Have a Voice

Protected protests focus on issues directly related to the terms and conditions of employment, which are core subjects of collective bargaining. Examples include strikes or rallies over:

Wages and Benefits: Negotiations for fairer pay, improved health insurance plans, or additional paid time off fall under this category.

Job Security: Protests against layoffs, plant closures, or outsourcing of jobs directly impact job security, a core bargaining right. The seminal case, NLRB v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. (1938) [URL nlrb v mackay radio & telegraph co 1938 ON Cornell University law.cornell.edu], established the right to strike over unfair labor practices that threaten job security.

Working Conditions: Protests concerning safety standards, excessive overtime, or unfair disciplinary actions are protected activities.

APPEALS in STATE or FEDERAL COURT
When you need to appeal a decision you feel is wrong.
Call Komorn Law
 (248) 357-2550

Unprotected Protests: When Business Decisions Hold Sway

Protests targeting broader business decisions, such as:

Plant Closures or Relocations: These decisions often involve complex economic factors beyond just labor costs. The NLRB v. Babcock & Wilcox Co. (1956) case exemplifies this.

Here, the closure was deemed outside the scope of mandatory bargaining as it wasn’t solely motivated by labor costs.

Product Development: Worker protests against specific product lines or company investments fall outside the scope of core bargaining rights.

Strategies for Effective Protests, Even When Business Strategy Reigns Supreme

While forcing a change in business strategy might be challenging, effective worker protests can still achieve significant results:

Focus on Core Bargaining Rights: Frame protests around the impact of the business decision on wages, benefits, or job security.

Negotiate with Management: Open communication with management can unearth underlying reasons for the decision and explore possible alternatives.

Union Strength: Unionized workers have greater leverage in negotiations and may have more protected activity under collective bargaining agreements.

Public Pressure: Utilize media outreach to raise awareness about the impact of the decision on workers and the local economy.

Political Advocacy: Lobby representatives to push for policies that protect worker interests in plant closures or relocations.

or just quit and go work at the record store.

Here are some of the laws in Michigan regarding employment relations…enjoy.

MCL – Act 176 of 1939

EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
Act 176 of 1939
AN ACT to create a commission relative to labor disputes, and to prescribe its powers and duties; to provide for the mediation and arbitration of labor disputes, and the holding of elections thereon; to regulate the conduct of parties to labor disputes and to require the parties to follow certain procedures; to regulate and limit the right to strike and picket; to protect the rights and privileges of employees, including the right to organize and engage in lawful concerted activities; to protect the rights and privileges of employers; to make certain acts unlawful; to make appropriations; and to prescribe means of enforcement and penalties for violations of this act.
The “People” of the State of Michigan enact:
Document Type Description
Section 423.1 Section Declaration of public policy.
Section 423.2 Section Definitions.
Section 423.3 Section Employment relations commission; creation; appointment, qualifications, and terms of commissioners.
Section 423.4 Section Employment relations commission; oath of commissioners; vacancies; chairman; removal; quorum; seal.
Section 423.5 Section Employment relations commission; compensation and expenses of commissioners and employees.
Section 423.6 Section Repealed. 1978, Act 250, Imd. Eff. June 20, 1978.
Section 423.7 Section Employment relations commission; principal office; office space; rules.
Section 423.7a Section Employment relations commission; conducting business at public meeting; notice of meeting; availability of certain writings to public.
Section 423.8 Section Employees; rights.
Section 423.9 Section Prerequisites for strike or lockout; notice of dispute and statement of issues; mediation.
Section 423.9a Section Election in case of impending strike; conduct and supervision; time; persons entitled to vote; secret ballot; place; rules; absentee voting; hearing on eligibility to vote; determination.
Section 423.9b, 423.9c Section Repealed. 1978, Act 250, Imd. Eff. June 20, 1978.
Section 423.9d Section Voluntary arbitration; existing collective agreement as binding on parties; agreement to arbitrate; designation of arbitrator; expense of arbitration; enforcement of agreement; hearings; notice; procedure; transcript; findings; opinion and award; enforcement of award.
Section 423.9e Section Bargaining unit.
Section 423.9f Section Mass picketing; threats or force, picketing private residence, misdemeanor.
Section 423.9g Section Copy or statement of most recent offer submitted by employer to bargaining unit.
Section 423.10 Section Steps by commission to effect settlement.
Section 423.11 Section Hearings; witnesses; oaths; evidence; subpoena; order requiring appearance; contempt; service of process or papers; proof of service.
Section 423.12 Section Disqualification of commissioner.
Section 423.13-423.13g Section Repealed. 1978, Act 250, Imd. Eff. June 20, 1978.
Section 423.14 Section Collective bargaining agreement between employer and labor organization; sharing of financial support of labor organization; payment of dues; condition of employment; appropriation.
Section 423.15 Section Unlawful possession of property; penalty.
Section 423.16 Section Company unions; interference with unions and discrimination prohibited.
Section 423.17 Section Prohibited conduct; violation; civil fine.
Section 423.17a Section Unlawful picketing to force recognition or bargain with labor organization.
Section 423.19 Section Liberal construction of act; police powers.
Section 423.20 Section Expenses paid from legislated appropriations.
Section 423.22 Section Unlawful acts; legal or equitable remedy.
Section 423.22a Section Repealed. 1949, Act 230, Imd. Eff. May 31, 1949.
Section 423.23 Section Review of rulings or orders by supreme court; exceptions; violations of certain provisions as unfair labor practices; remedies; procedures.
Section 423.24 Section Conspiracy; penalty.
Section 423.25 Section Written findings as to matters in disagreement; availability of writings to public.
Section 423.25a Section Confidential information.
Section 423.26 Section Collective bargaining representatives; duties; grievances by individual employee; adjustment.
Section 423.27 Section Petition as to representation; investigation; hearing; election.
Section 423.28 Section Determination of appropriate unit for collective bargaining.
Section 423.29 Section Directing election in bargaining unit; eligibility to vote; rules; rerun and runoff elections; election on petition of persons not parties to collective bargaining agreement.
Section 423.30 Section Duty to bargain; collective bargaining, definition.

Conclusion

While Michigan law protects worker protest rights, there’s a fine line between influencing company strategy and exceeding the boundaries of protected activity. By focusing on core bargaining rights, employing strategic protest tactics, and understanding the legal framework, Michigan workers can effectively advocate for their interests. But can also hear the words… You’re fired. We are moving overseas.

Consulting with legal counsel specializing in labor law is crucial when navigating the complexities of protest rights and business decision-making.

In the FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM
When you need to go on the offense – to put the prosecution on defense
Komorn Law (248) 357-2550.

Carjacking is a Federal Offense

Carjacking is a Federal Offense

Carjacking is a Federal Offense

Carjacking, the act of forcibly stealing an occupied vehicle, has long been a concern for public safety. It was a local and state issue until a series of violent incidents in the early 1990s that carjacking became a federal offense. 

Background of the Law

The term “carjacking” entered the American lexicon in the late 20th century, but the act itself is as old as automobiles. It wasn’t until the Federal Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992 (FACTA) that carjacking was recognized as a distinct federal crime. The law was enacted in response to a spate of violent carjackings, some of which resulted in the deaths of victims. Congress aimed to address this violent crime that often crossed state lines, making it a matter of federal concern.

APPEALS in STATE or FEDERAL COURT
When you need to appeal a decision you feel is wrong.
Call Komorn Law
 (248) 357-2550

Current Law

The current federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2119, defines carjacking as the taking of a motor vehicle from another person “by force and violence or by intimidation” with the vehicle having been transported in interstate or foreign commerce. 

The law has been amended since its inception to include provisions for cases where serious bodily injury or death results from the carjacking, with penalties ranging from fines to life imprisonment, or even the death penalty in the most severe cases.

The carjacking statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2119, which originally became effective on October 25, 1992, provided in relevant part:

Whoever, possessing a firearm … takes a motor vehicle that has been transported, shipped, or received in interstate or foreign commerce from the person or presence of another by force and violence or by intimidation, or attempts to do so, shall þ (1) be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years or both; (2) if serious bodily injury results, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 25 years, or both; and (3) if death results, be fined under this title or imprisoned for any number of years up to life, or both.

    On September 13, 1994, § 2119 was amended to read as follows:

    Whoever, with intent to cause death or serious bodily harm takes a motor vehicle that has been transported, shipped, or received in interstate or foreign commerce from the person or presence of another by force and violence or by intimidation, or attempts to do so, shall (1) be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years or both, (2) if serious bodily injury results, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 25 years, or both, and (3) if death results, be fined under this title or imprisoned for any number of years up to life, or both or sentenced to death (emphasis added to highlight the 1994 changes to the statute).

     

    Prosecutorial Trends

    Despite the stringent laws, there has been a noticeable decline in the number of carjacking cases prosecuted at the federal level in recent years. Several factors contribute to this trend. One significant hurdle is the requirement for prosecutors to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to cause serious bodily harm or death. This intent requirement sets a high bar for federal charges and is not a prerequisite at the state level, where most carjacking cases are prosecuted.

    Conclusion

    In summary, while carjacking remains a serious offense under federal law, the challenges of proving intent and the intricacies of prosecutorial decision-making have led to fewer federal charges in recent years. The focus has shifted towards state-level prosecutions, where the legal requirements may be less stringent, and the practicalities of bringing a case to trial are more manageable. The evolution of carjacking laws reflects a balance between the need for harsh penalties for violent crimes and the realities of legal practice.

    In the FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM
    When you need to go on the offense – to put the prosecution on defense
    Komorn Law (248) 357-2550.