Northern Ont. man fined $1,001 for dumping a bag of garbage
2021: Cracking down on illegal dumping in Timmins
A Cochrane, Ont., man was fined $1,001 for dumping a single bag of garbage on public land.
John Sullivan pleaded guilty to the offence, which is a violation under the Public Lands Act.
In a news release Friday, the Ministry of Natural Resources said the incident took place Oct. 8, 2023, in Hanna Township, south of Cochrane.
'The officers discovered that garbage had been deposited on public lands at the Little Lake access point parking lot,' the release said.
'The investigation led conservation officers to Sullivan who admitted to the offence.'
Justice of the Peace Estelle Bérubé heard the case in the Ontario Court of Justice in Cochrane on Dec. 3, 2024.
To report a natural resource problem or provide information about an unsolved case, members of the public can call the ministry TIPS line toll-free at 1-877-847-7667.
To remain anonymous, call Crime Stoppers at 1-800-222-TIPS. For more information about unsolved cases, click here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
26 minutes ago
- CTV News
Morning Update: Canada intends to recognize Palestinian state
Ottawa Watch CTV Morning Live Hosts Will Aiello and Melissa Lamb have your Thursday morning headlines.
National Post
an hour ago
- National Post
Jamie Sarkonak: It shouldn't take 16 years to deport a foreign criminal
Article content He also feared that India wouldn't issue him a passport to allow him to see his children. Finally, he made the thin suggestion that he might face harassment in India for claiming asylum abroad — there was no 'assurance' that he would not be persecuted there, he claimed. Article content Try as he did, none of his concerns met the legal test to halt his imminent deportation, and Judge Phuong Ngo — who came to Canada as a legitimate refugee when she was a child — ordered him deported. Whether he's actually in India, we don't know. The CBSA won't comment on individual cases. Article content It's possible that he's still here: aside from uncooperative foreign countries and individuals, the CBSA told the Post that other 'impediments to removal' exist, such as 'the inability to use commercial airlines due to their lack of flights to certain destinations, their limits on the number of deportees per flight or refusal to transport foreign nationals with criminality.' Article content Uncooperative foreign governments are a recurring problem. Right now, probably still locked up in a CBSA detention facility is Somali national Lahi Abdi, who came to Canada in 2003 and has committed many serious crimes here since, including assault with a weapon, robbery, gun offences, drug offences and, of course, court-order breaches. Deportation proceedings finally commenced in 2017, and he was ordered deported in 2020. He wasn't removed from the country, however, and went on to commit more gun crimes in 2021. He was finally jailed by the CBSA in 2022. Article content Article content Abdi tried to have the Federal Court release him in 2024, but was denied. The decision rejecting his bid notes that CBSA officials have tried since 2023 to have Somali officials provide the appropriate travel documents, to no avail. Thus, his care was left to Canadian taxpayers. Article content Ankit Kundu, a work- and study-permit holder from India, got here in 2016 and, by 2019, was convicted of sexual interference against an underage girl. He was ordered deported that year, but he continued to live in Canada, using administrative levers to stall his removal. 'Between 2021 and 2023, the CBSA was unable to remove the applicant due to a lack of proper travel documentation,' notes a Federal Court decision that green-lit his scheduled January 2024 deportation. It's not clear whether Kundu was the uncooperative party in this case, or India. Article content This is the Canadian system working on autopilot. An endless series of processes set out by careless legislators allows convicted criminals repeated kicks at the can, and when foreign countries refuse to co-operate with our border officials, we sit back and let it happen. Article content Article content It doesn't have to be this way. If countries refuse to co-operate when we exercise our sovereign rights, they should face consequences. If, say, Pakistan is causing problems in this regard, Canada should refuse to issue visas to its travellers until it can cough up the travel documents we need. Public statements should be made by the public safety minister (hopefully a future, competent one who hasn't tried to help an admitted terrorist immigrate to Canada). Article content We could use some transparency, too: the CBSA should have an outstanding-travel-document dashboard on its website for all to see. It should also be obligated to confirm whether a particular deportee has actually been sent home. Article content The CBSA could be staffed to the brim with the greatest officers in the country, but it wouldn't change the high-level issue here: the agency is constrained by the meekness of its minister, and by Parliament via Canadian immigration laws — laws that support endless 'due process' for foreign criminals at the expense of public safety. Article content
National Post
an hour ago
- National Post
Ontario court upholds sex assault sentence for man who removed condom
Article content The trial judge found that M.F. had not heard Ranatunga say he was removing the condom and that there was no ambient noise in the bedroom that would have impaired her hearing. The trial judge also rejected Ranatunga's argument that he had an 'honest but mistaken' belief that M.F. had consented to unprotected sex. Article content At the sentencing hearing, the Crown sought a three-year penitentiary sentence, and the defence submitted that a conditional sentence of 18 months to two years less a day was appropriate or a sentence of imprisonment between 12 and 18 months to be served in a reformatory. Article content In the end, the trail judge sentenced the respondent to a conditional sentence of two years less a day, finding that he was a first-time offender with good rehabilitative prospects. Article content The trial judge found that removing a condom without consent is a 'form of violence' and an 'extremely serious violation,' but found that removing a condom is 'qualitatively different in nature than a sexual assault which involves physically holding a person down against their will and penetrating them or penetrating them when they are in a state where they could not resist; for example, sleeping or intoxicated'. Article content The Crown appealed the case, arguing that the sentence was unfit and that the judge did not appropriately consider the violent nature of the offence. Article content Gillese objected strongly to the trial judge's reasoning. 'There is no principled basis to distinguish penetration following non-consensual condom removal from other forms of penetrative sexual assault nor is there any principled basis for creating a much lower sentencing range for non-consensual condom removal sexual assault than that for other forms of penetrative sexual assault,' she wrote. Article content She argued that forced penetrative sexual assault typically calls for three to five years behind bars. Article content However, the other two justices disagreed, saying the trial judge had intended to contrast sexual assault cases with overt force or incapacitation and that the trial judge was owed deference in her decision within the changing legal landscape of these sorts of sexual assault cases. Article content The decision builds on the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling in R. v. Kirkpatrick, which clarified how condom use factors into sexual consent under Canadian law. In that case, the court found that a person can place conditions on their consent, and if those conditions aren't met, the sexual activity becomes non-consensual. Article content
