Facts
This is a case about operating a canoe while under the influence of alcohol. On May 1, 2017, 25-year-old Lawrence Andaggio attended a family reunion at a cottage on Lake Rourke near Algonquin Park, Ontario. At about 7 p.m., the family members returned to the cottage’s other side. Laurence and his nephew Gideon (10 years old) went out to put away the canoe.
Although Laurence had drunk two vodka coolers in the previous two hours, he chose to go out with Gideon, who had only been in a canoe twice. Strong winds and tides came and found them in the water. This caused the canoe to tip, resulting in its capsizing. Gideon drowned despite the efforts of Lawrence to save him. Lawrence went ashore, where he recorded the statement to the police but did not reveal any defense information. The police then subjected him to a breathalyzer, where he was found to have taken alcohol above the legal limit. He was criminally charged.
Issue for Analysis
Is a canoe a vessel under the Canadian Criminal Code?
Brief Answer
The above issue is a matter of a legal nature. However, a canoe is a vessel. This is because a vessel includes ships and watercraft used for transportation on water. Because Lawrence Andaggio used the canoe specifically for transportation on water, his canoe was a vessel.
Legal Analysis
Citing my answer to the judicial precedent already set by the courts (both original and appellate), a canoe can be settled on as a vessel. The snapshot is that a similar issue had been of great jurisprudential dispensation in the courts. The two landmark rulings clarified whether a canoe is a vessel.
To corroborate the holdings, this memorandum dissects the ratio decidendi and relies on relevant enabling law provisions. Such laws are not limited to the Criminal Code of 1892, the Interpretation Act, the Canada Shipping Act of 2001, the Navigation Protection Act, RSC 1985, and the Case Law designated as R. v. Sillars, 2018 ONCA 816, which will serve as the leading case among others.
Application of Law to the Facts
As stated above, many laws apply to the facts at hand. In summary, Lawrence Andaggio operated a canoe under the influence of excess alcohol. In so doing, his nephew, Gideon, died after the canoe capsized. According to the Blacks Law Dictionary (1990), a vessel means “a ship, brig, sloop, or other craft used in navigation.” Similarly, Duahime’s Legal Dictionary (2000) defines a vessel as “Watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water.”
Best Legal Arguments by the Crown Attorney
In advancing the prosecution, the Crown Attorney would offer an array of relevant sections of Canadian laws and judicial precedents.
Section 4(4) of the Criminal Code
Section 4(4) of the code provides thus: “Where an offense 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 concerning that offense have, subject to this Act, the meaning assigned to them in that other Act.” The Crown Attorney can use the section in its favor to interpret the meaning of vessel to include a canoe. This is because the preceding section can be inferred to have a similar purpose as the other interpretation of vessels in other Acts and sets of laws.
Section 15 (b) of the Interpretation Act RSC 1985 C 1-21
15(2)(b) of the Interpretation Act provides: “Where an enactment contains an interpretation section or provision, it shall be read and construed (b) as applying to all other enactments relating to the same subject matter unless a contrary intention appears.” The Crown Attorney can, therefore, consolidate the meaning under this provision to read as Section 4(4) of the Criminal Code.
Harbour Commissions Act R.S.C 1985 C. H-1
Section 2 of the Act defines a vessel as “any ship, boat, barge, raft, dredge, floating elevator, scow, seaplane, or other floating craft.” The Crown Attorney can still rely on the section, as read with Section 4(4) of the Code, to settle on the canoe as a vessel.
Canada Shipping Act, 2001
According to the Act, “a vessel means a boat, ship or craft designed, used or capable of being used solely or partly for navigation in, on, through or immediately above water, without regard to method or lack of propulsion, and includes such a vessel that is under construction. It does not include a floating object of a prescribed class.”
The Criminal Code R.S.C 1985, C-46
Section 253 (1) of the code provides that “Everyone commits an offense who operates a motor vehicle or vessel or operates or assists in the operation of an aircraft or railway equipment or has the care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment, whether it is in motion or not,
- while the person’s ability to operate the vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or railway equipment is impaired by alcohol or a drug; or
- having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the concentration in the person’s blood exceeds eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred milliliters of blood.”
This provision of the law is the mother of the charges upon which Lawrence Andaggio is charged. It is apparent as to the nature of the offense lodged against him. Lawrence was intoxicated at the time they went to bring the canoe. Furthermore, Lawrence was criminally negligent, as he observed that Gideon failed to fasten the front part of his life jacket.
R. v. Sillars, 2018 ONCJ 816
David Sillars faced charges about the operation of a vessel while exceeding the legal limit of 80 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood and engaging in the unsafe operation of such a craft. Additionally, he faced charges of criminal negligence, resulting in a fatality. Justice Peter C. West convicted him of the offense. In his reasoning, the learned judge opined that the Canadian Parliament intended to include a canoe as a vessel.
R. v. Sillars, 2022 ONCA 510
The judgment emanated from an R. v. Sillars, 2018 ONCJ 816 appeal. His basis of appeal was that a canoe is not a vessel. The learned judge dismissed the appeal as to conviction and sentencing.
Best Legal Arguments by the Defense Attorney
The Criminal Code R.S.C 1985, C-46
The defense attorney can rely on Section 253(1) (a) and advance an argument that Lawrence Andaggio’s judgment was not impaired to the detriment of operating the canoe even though he took two vodka coolers. He was an experienced canoeist who valiantly tried to stabilize the canoe before losing control due to high winds and waves. Further, the defense attorney can also say that Lawrence was not criminally negligent. This is per Section 219(1) and (2) of the Code. The deceased victim had even put on a life Jacket. Strong winds also inevitably capsized the canoe.
R. v. McIntosh, 1995 CanLII 124 (SCC), [1995] 1 SCR 686
In this case, it was held that “It is the principle of statutory interpretation that where two interpretations of a provision which affects the liberty of a subject are available, one of which is more favorable to an accused, then the court should adopt this favorable interpretation,” the defense attorney can rely on this case law to advance their arguments to the extent that ‘canoe’ has not explicitly been included as a vessel under section 253(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada earlier referenced.
Conclusion
Considering both arguments likely to be advanced by the Canadian Criminal Code, Judicial precedents, together with the applicable arguments likely to be advanced by the defense attorney, the court is expected to rely on and adopt the position of the Crown attorney in its ruling.
References
Black HC and Nolan JR, Black’s Law Dictionary: Definitions of the Terms and Phrases of American and English Jurisprudence, Ancient and Modern (6th ed, West Pub Co 1990).
Branch LS, ‘Consolidated Federal Laws of Canada, Harbour Commissions Act’ (2011).
Canada Shipping Act, 2001 (2023).
Duhaime L, Duhaime’s Law Dictionary (Lloyd Duhaime 2000).
Government of Canada D of J, ‘The Criminal Code of Canada’ (2021).
Interpretation Act (2021).
R. v. McIntosh, 1995 CanLII 124 (SCC), 1 SCR 686.
R. v. Sillars, 2018 ONCJ 816.
R. v. Sillars, 2022 ONCA 510.
The Criminal Code R.S.C 1985, C-46.