R v. Sillars - Admiralty Law
admiraltylaw.com
Précis: The Ontario Court of Justice held that the definition of "vessel" when used in ss. 253(1)(a), 253(1)(b) and 249(1)(b) of the Criminal Code is inclusive of a canoe.

Also, the defence argued that impaired persons operating vessels “propelled by muscle power” are somehow not morally culpable. Like, because, why?

  • Grimpen
    1·
    1 year ago

    Different countries, different precedent, but I think the Canadian case hinged on the vessel being powered. Even if it’s a paddle, it’s muscle powered.

    I know there are different standards for barges under tow than for the tugs doing the towing. If the courts are extrapolating these rules to the smaller end, than a float might be okay. You’re just cast adrift, usually with alcohol.