Need info on "Private or Contract" Bailiffs in Ontario

General Law Enforcement discussion which does not fit into other channels. Post your thoughts and feelings about anything you want (LE related), or just vent those fumes about whatever is on your chest.
mt2cents
Rookie Member
Posts: 0
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Need info on "Private or Contract" Bailiffs in Ontario

Postby mt2cents » Mon Feb 27, 2012 5:48 pm

[quote="Angerman
At issue was a group claiming (incorrectly) to hold peace officer status, carrying badges with unauthorized markings and dressing up like law enforcement
.

That has yet to be determined as there has been no real evidence of any wrong doing, what was the outcome of the "pending investigation"?

User avatar
Homer
Rookie Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 9:51 am
Location: Oshawa, Ontario
Contact:

Re: Need info on "Private or Contract" Bailiffs in Ontario

Postby Homer » Mon Feb 27, 2012 10:25 pm

mt2cents wrote:... So I ask what then, Regulate it? Make it a government job? Yeah than say goodbye to your rights people, Give a government agency the ability to enter a home with no warrant just to repo a TV? Maybe break into your garage to snag that quad you have not paid for. Or better yet, let the courts deal with it, Yeah that would be great for the already backlogged and overburdened justice system, Think of that, you arrest some pedophile, but his case gets dismissed because the courts are dealing with the backlog of vehicle owners that were behind on their payments!!! Not very just if you ask me!

Uhh - pardon me?

First, various government officials do currently have the authority to enter your home without a warrant. Some may seize property at the same time. As far as seizure of goods, if they are subject to a judge/JoP ruling (you know - a civil court order), that would take care of your warrant issue, would it not?

Second, and more to the point - who authorizes you to break into a private dwelling to repossess goods? I believe that is known as "break and enter" and "burglary". Sounds like regulation of the repo industry is desperately required if that's the way you are operating now.

Oh, and third - I doubt we would drop a child abuse case because someone is fighting a repo order. :crazy:
"They have the Internet on computers now!"

User avatar
Punisher-One
Poobah Overlord
Posts: 3773
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 12:59 am
Location: Redacted
Contact:

Re: Need info on "Private or Contract" Bailiffs in Ontario

Postby Punisher-One » Tue Feb 28, 2012 4:05 am

Angerman wrote:
mt2cents wrote:I do realize that there are a few jerk offs operating as wanabe bailiffs, and there are another few that Look more like a cop than they should, But that is just the few, Don't paint them all with the same brush, As I’m sure you would appreciate the same courtesy!


And which do you represent?


I think we all know the answer to that on don't we.......

So "mt2cents" where did you buy you fake badge, white Impala with amber light-bar, and bailiff shoulder-flashes?

User avatar
Punisher-One
Poobah Overlord
Posts: 3773
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 12:59 am
Location: Redacted
Contact:

Re: Need info on "Private or Contract" Bailiffs in Ontario

Postby Punisher-One » Tue Feb 28, 2012 4:16 am

mt2cents wrote:As for the whole badge issue??? really, Badges were one of the first forms of identifying oneself, and we as a society have come to recognize a badge as a form identify and/or authority, Brinks, Firefighters, EMS, and everyone else that carries a badge does so due to regulations, further to honor a long standing tradition!, just as the police do. As for bailiff's, maybe and maybe not, But those who do carry one do at their discretion, There should be no issue with it, just as long as they Do not misrepresent themselves, If there were a badge mandated by the provincial government for all private bailiff's would you than accept it?


The point is there is no badge mandated. They are not issued a badge. They have no authority to use a badge. To do so is to trick people into thinking that the person has some sort of authority.
I carry a badge. I also carry a designation "warrant" card. My badge and designation card are issued by the Federal Government which has the authority to grant me certain powers. Those powers are written on the back of my designation "warrant" card.
Guess what...your pretend "baliff" badge is NOT issued. You purchased it from a store. Nobody issued it to you and no government granted you any authority. The badge represents nothing and has no authority attached to it via any legislative powers.

User avatar
gotchya
Rookie Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 3:37 pm
Location: 10-20
Contact:

Re: Need info on "Private or Contract" Bailiffs in Ontario

Postby gotchya » Tue Feb 28, 2012 6:57 am

mt2cents wrote:That has yet to be determined as there has been no real evidence of any wrong doing, what was the outcome of the "pending investigation"?


R. v. Burns, 2002 MBCA 161 (CanLII)
http://canlii.ca/t/5fvs
This appeal comes to us with leave from the confirmation by a summary conviction appeal court of the accused’s conviction on a charge of falsely representing himself to be a peace officer, contrary to s. 130(a) of the Criminal Code. The narrow issue is whether the accused, as a private bailiff appointed by a leasing company to repossess a vehicle in default of payment, was a “bailiff” within the meaning of that word as used in the Criminal Code.

2 By a written document dated July 12, 2000, the Ford Motor Credit Company of Canada Limited appointed Action Bailiffs Inc. to be its bailiff to retake possession of a motor vehicle leased to a third party unless the monies then due under a lease of the vehicle were paid. The accused, an employee of Action Bailiffs Inc., was assigned to the task of retaking possession of the vehicle.

3 The accused attended at the lessee’s place of employment with the intention of retaking possession of the leased vehicle. The lessee’s employer questioned the accused as to who he was. The accused represented himself to be employed by the sheriff’s department and signed the premises’ access book as being employed by Manitoba. He was, in fact, neither a member of the sheriff’s department nor employed by Manitoba. He was duly charged with falsely representing himself to be a peace officer, to wit a sheriff’s officer.

4 The defence was that, as a “bailiff,” the accused was a peace officer and that it was not an offence for one kind of peace officer (a bailiff) to represent himself to be another kind of peace officer (a sheriff’s officer).

5 At the hearing of this appeal, defence counsel acknowledged that if, in law, the accused was not a peace officer, the appeal must fail. We are all of the view that this is the only issue which need be decided.

6 A “peace officer” is defined in s. 2 of the Criminal Code. Although it is a lengthy definition, I think it helpful if it is reproduced in full:

“peace officer” includes

(a) a mayor, warden, reeve, sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff’s officer and justice of the peace,

(b) a member of the Correctional Service of Canada who is designated as a peace officer pursuant to Part I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and a warden, deputy warden, instructor, keeper, jailer, guard and any other officer or permanent employee of a prison other than a penitentiary as defined in Part I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act,

(c) a police officer, police constable, bailiff, constable, or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace or for the service or execution of civil process,

(d) an officer or person having the powers of a customs or excise officer when performing any duty in the administration of the Customs Act, or the Excise Act,

(e) a person designated as a fishery guardian under the Fisheries Act when performing any duties or functions under that Act and a person designated as a fishery officer under the Fisheries Act when performing any duties or functions under that Act or the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act,

(f) the pilot in command of an aircraft

(i) registered in Canada under regulations made under the Aeronautics Act, or

(ii) leased without crew and operated by a person who is qualified under regulations made under the Aeronautics Act to be registered as owner of an aircraft registered in Canada under those regulations,

while the aircraft is in flight, and

(g) officers and non-commissioned members of the Canadian Forces who are

(i) appointed for the purposes of section 156 of the National Defence Act, or

(ii) employed on duties that the Governor in Council, in regulations made under the National Defence Act for the purposes of this paragraph, has prescribed to be of such a kind as to necessitate that the officers and non-commissioned members performing them have the powers of peace officers.



7 The accused’s position is that he was a “bailiff” under para. (c) of the definition. We are all of the view, however, that the word “bailiff” in para. (c) must be given a more restrictive meaning than that urged upon us by defence counsel.

8 As used today, the word “bailiff” has two meanings. In the first meaning, it refers to a person employed in an official capacity to serve a Crown-appointed officer (such as a sheriff) or a court. In the second meaning, it refers to an agent of a private person who collects rents or manages real estate.

9 The accused was clearly not a “bailiff” within the first meaning. Although I have some doubt about his status as a “bailiff” under the second meaning, I will assume, for the purpose of this decision, that he was acting as a “bailiff” within the second meaning.

10 Which meaning was intended by Parliament in defining “peace officer”? Or did Parliament intend to encompass both? I do not think there is any doubt that Parliament used the word solely in its first meaning. Everyone referred to in the definition section, other than a “bailiff,” is patently a public or statutory officer performing public duties. There is no reason to believe that Parliament intended to include, as a peace officer, a person who was a private appointee performing non-public duties. This view is consistent with those expressed in R. v. Lipman (1935), 63 C.C.C. 148 (Ont. Co. Ct.); R. v. Wallace et al. (1959), 125 C.C.C. 72 (Toronto Mag. Ct.); and R. v. Doucette et al. (1960), 129 C.C.C. 102 (Ont. C.A.).

11 There being no ambiguity, it is unnecessary to rely on other rules of construction. A private bailiff is not a person of the kind encompassed by the definition of peace officer.

12 For these reasons, the appeal was dismissed at the hearing.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."-Burke, Edmund
ImageImage

mt2cents
Rookie Member
Posts: 0
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Need info on "Private or Contract" Bailiffs in Ontario

Postby mt2cents » Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:41 am

Just to clarify a few things.

1, I do not carry a badge.
2, I do not drive a crappy impala.
3, I do not have shoulder patches.
4, I would in ANY capacity misrepresent myself.
5, Bailiffs are regulated by the provincial government, you must apply for a Bailiff's or an assistant Bailiff's "Ticket"

I have in the past worked in the industry, and all I carried was paper, Yes that’s all Paper, I was just making some valid points, but it seems typical "tunnel vision" seems to have set in, Yes there are government agencies that can enter a residence without a warrant. None of this I disagree with, and I have never made any Ill remarks toward anyone in this group.

My interest with this topic was the trademark infringements. As for the badge issue, I must reiterate my point, I DON'T CARE! I was merely giving my opinion, and asking a simple question.

Rest assured people, these guys are out there, and like it or not, at the end of the day, they have a job to do. I'm sure once again there will be multiple attacks from you, and for that all I can say is LOL.

As for the court decision, thank you for your time. But I still fail to see anywhere where the original poster's partner acted on Trademark infringement as was posted.

As for the dress, has any ever asked the question as to why some of these guys wear vests?? Maybe at some point they themselves have been shot at, hence the reason police officers wear them, personal safety, could you really begrudge a guy wearing a vest if he has been shot at? As most of you in the police field can agree people in general are becoming more aggressive and precautions are taken.

User avatar
gotchya
Rookie Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 3:37 pm
Location: 10-20
Contact:

Re: Need info on "Private or Contract" Bailiffs in Ontario

Postby gotchya » Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:59 am

mt2cents wrote:My interest with this topic was the trademark infringements. As for the badge issue, I must reiterate my point, I DON'T CARE! I was merely giving my opinion, and asking a simple question.

As for the court decision, thank you for your time. But I still fail to see anywhere where the original poster's partner acted on Trademark infringement as was posted.



B.C. v. Mihaljevic, 1986 CanLII 1036 (BC SC)
http://canlii.ca/t/216j4
[19] Cattanach J. had occasion to consider s. 9 of the Trade Marks Act and the significance of the public nature of an “official mark” in determining the exclusivity pertaining to its use in the case of I.C.B.C. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, [1980] 1 F.C. 669, 44 C.P.R. (2d) 1 at 13(T.D.):
As I have said the intention of the legislation is to be found in the language used in s. 9 of the Act.
Section 9 is a prohibition against the adoption in connection with a business, as a trade mark or otherwise, the list set forth in the section.
Basically they are the arms, crests, standards, flags, words, symbols, heraldic emblems, signs, badges and like indicia associated with Her Majesty, the Royal Family, the Governor-General, the Government of Canada, the Provinces of Canada and certain named public bodies, domestic and foreign. Section 11 prohibits the use of the devices which s. 9 prohibits the adoption of.
The logical consequence of the prohibition of the adoption and use of any mark as a trade mark or otherwise consisting of or resembling any of the devices mentioned in s. 9 is to reserve to the persons and bodies mentioned the exclusive user of those devices.
That is the basic scheme of the section to be derived from its language.
The same applies to the arms, crests or flag adopted or used by Canada, and any Province or municipality in Canada of which those authorities may have requested the Registrar to give notice. The purpose is to grant an exclusive use to these authorities. That is the logical converse of the prohibition.
The same, too, applies to any badge, crest, emblem or mark adopted and used by Her Majesty’s Forces, any university or by any public authority in Canada as an official mark for wares or services.
Clearly s. 9(1)(n)(iii) contemplates the use of an official mark which a public authority has seen fit to adopt to be a use exclusive to that authority. The purpose of the Registrar giving public notice of the adoption and use of an official mark is to alert the public to that adaption as an official mark by the public authority to prevent infringement of that official mark. It does not, in my view, for the reasons previously expressed bestow upon the Registrar any supervisory functions.


mt2cents wrote:As for the dress, has any ever asked the question as to why some of these guys wear vests?? Maybe at some point they themselves have been shot at, hence the reason police officers wear them, personal safety, could you really begrudge a guy wearing a vest if he has been shot at? As most of you in the police field can agree people in general are becoming more aggressive and precautions are taken.


As for wearing a vest, fine, but those who dress up like police on the basis that they don't want to get shot at or get more respect are idiots.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."-Burke, Edmund
ImageImage

A.T.R.
King Poobah
Posts: 2278
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 6:20 am
Contact:

Re: Need info on "Private or Contract" Bailiffs in Ontario

Postby A.T.R. » Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:59 pm

My offer still stands.

Unless you are sworn to PROTECT and INTERVENE during times of crisis and need, you have no business carrying a tin.

They are earned and not purchased.
If you do not have access to the private side please do not contact me. I do not give employment advice other than what is publicly posted.

User avatar
Homer
Rookie Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 9:51 am
Location: Oshawa, Ontario
Contact:

Re: Need info on "Private or Contract" Bailiffs in Ontario

Postby Homer » Tue Feb 28, 2012 6:35 pm

mt2cents wrote:Just to clarify a few things.

1, I do not carry a badge.
2, I do not drive a crappy impala.
3, I do not have shoulder patches.
4, I would in ANY capacity misrepresent myself.
5, Bailiffs are regulated by the provincial government, you must apply for a Bailiff's or an assistant Bailiff's "Ticket"

I have in the past worked in the industry, and all I carried was paper, Yes that’s all Paper, I was just making some valid points, but it seems typical "tunnel vision" seems to have set in, Yes there are government agencies that can enter a residence without a warrant. None of this I disagree with, and I have never made any Ill remarks toward anyone in this group.

My interest with this topic was the trademark infringements. As for the badge issue, I must reiterate my point, I DON'T CARE! I was merely giving my opinion, and asking a simple question.

Rest assured people, these guys are out there, and like it or not, at the end of the day, they have a job to do. I'm sure once again there will be multiple attacks from you, and for that all I can say is LOL.

As for the court decision, thank you for your time. But I still fail to see anywhere where the original poster's partner acted on Trademark infringement as was posted.

As for the dress, has any ever asked the question as to why some of these guys wear vests?? Maybe at some point they themselves have been shot at, hence the reason police officers wear them, personal safety, could you really begrudge a guy wearing a vest if he has been shot at? As most of you in the police field can agree people in general are becoming more aggressive and precautions are taken.

You brought up Gov't agents entering a home without warrants. Personally, I would rather a federal officer with government checks in place be authorized to enter my home as you described than a privately operated organization with little or no method of recourse.

You asked if private baliffs should be regulated - and then gave some pretty good reasons why they should, IMHO. Now you are saying that they already are regulated (at least in ON). If so, maybe the regulation needs to be tightened up a bit.

Nothing inherently wrong with a private baliff system. But it has to be tightly controlled - much more than the private security field. And there needs to be clear differentiation between them and public officers.
"They have the Internet on computers now!"

User avatar
Punisher-One
Poobah Overlord
Posts: 3773
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 12:59 am
Location: Redacted
Contact:

Re: Need info on "Private or Contract" Bailiffs in Ontario

Postby Punisher-One » Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:12 pm

What mt2cents thinks he does:
Image

What mt2cents really does:
Image

User avatar
Apollo
Lord of the Poobahs
Posts: 1260
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 4:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Need info on "Private or Contract" Bailiffs in Ontario

Postby Apollo » Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:14 pm

Lol

mt2cents
Rookie Member
Posts: 0
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Need info on "Private or Contract" Bailiffs in Ontario

Postby mt2cents » Wed Feb 29, 2012 1:25 pm

:stupid:

So many problems with that post, where do I start.
First of all READ what has been put in front of you, The title of this post refers to "Bailiff's in ONTARIO" and has made reference to Trademark infringements.

Let’s start with the first pic shall we, Absolutely nothing to do with anything in ONTARIO, as they "officers" in the photo are clearly marked SHERIFF, from the U.S And I'm sure you know Ontario sheriff's do not wear body armor and carry fully automatic weapons!. So if you want to make some derogatory picture remark as to what you assume I do, then please, take the time to post something relevant!

As for the second one, As trademark infringements was one of the original posters partners reasons for seizing said Badge, I find it funny that you would post a copyrighted, and trademarked photo of yet ANOTHER U.S based Theme, And then using Said photo to once again Depict in your opinion, what I do, Hmmm maybe there is theme here, I guess in comparison, that would like comparing you to any one of the completely moronic U.S based "police" shows.

I find it funny that there so many "officers of the law" on this site, all following the "mob" mentality, The original poster, and I quote, "NEED INFO ON PRIVATE CONTRACT BAILIFFS IN ONTARIO" and that is exactly what he/she got, INFO!! fact or fiction info is what has been posted, I am curious, To read a simple post, with opinions of an individual and come to some conclusion that does no more than feed the ego, Is this how you conduct yourself when in the field?, Or is this merely some medium for you to badger someone because of his/her career, I have read other posts regarding security guards, and armored car drivers, and there seems to be a trend, you think they are Lower class then yourself, Well then you do the job!!

User avatar
Apollo
Lord of the Poobahs
Posts: 1260
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 4:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Need info on "Private or Contract" Bailiffs in Ontario

Postby Apollo » Wed Feb 29, 2012 3:49 pm

"Lol"

User avatar
SupahDuck
King Poobah
Posts: 1826
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:44 pm
Location: Kingston, Ontario

Re: Need info on "Private or Contract" Bailiffs in Ontario

Postby SupahDuck » Wed Feb 29, 2012 4:48 pm

mt2cents wrote::stupid:

So many problems with that post, where do I start.
First of all READ what has been put in front of you, The title of this post refers to "Bailiff's in ONTARIO" and has made reference to Trademark infringements.

Let’s start with the first pic shall we, Absolutely nothing to do with anything in ONTARIO, as they "officers" in the photo are clearly marked SHERIFF, from the U.S And I'm sure you know Ontario sheriff's do not wear body armor and carry fully automatic weapons!. So if you want to make some derogatory picture remark as to what you assume I do, then please, take the time to post something relevant!

As for the second one, As trademark infringements was one of the original posters partners reasons for seizing said Badge, I find it funny that you would post a copyrighted, and trademarked photo of yet ANOTHER U.S based Theme, And then using Said photo to once again Depict in your opinion, what I do, Hmmm maybe there is theme here, I guess in comparison, that would like comparing you to any one of the completely moronic U.S based "police" shows.

I find it funny that there so many "officers of the law" on this site, all following the "mob" mentality, The original poster, and I quote, "NEED INFO ON PRIVATE CONTRACT BAILIFFS IN ONTARIO" and that is exactly what he/she got, INFO!! fact or fiction info is what has been posted, I am curious, To read a simple post, with opinions of an individual and come to some conclusion that does no more than feed the ego, Is this how you conduct yourself when in the field?, Or is this merely some medium for you to badger someone because of his/her career, I have read other posts regarding security guards, and armored car drivers, and there seems to be a trend, you think they are Lower class then yourself, Well then you do the job!!


Image
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future.

"The key problem is those people who take it personal. Never take shit personal in the enforcement business." - Toonces, Blueline Super-Ultra-Mega Poobah


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: SemrushBot and 2 guests