Whitehorse Daily Star

Image title

Photo by Vince Fedoroff

TALKING SOUND SECURITY – Sirius Security owner Sonny Gray (right) addresses delegates this morning at the Whitehorse Business Connect event being held at the Coast High Country Inn Convention Centre. Whitehorse RCMP Const. Michelle Faulkner is on the left, while Gerrard Fleming, the owner of Fleming Protection & Security, is between the two. Inset Rick Karp

Lack of trespass legislation a woe for businesses

An absence of trespass legislation in the territory means there is nothing stopping repeat offenders who may have stolen from a store in the past from going into the business again and again.

By Stephanie Waddell on March 25, 2015

An absence of trespass legislation in the territory means there is nothing stopping repeat offenders who may have stolen from a store in the past from going into the business again and again.

Technically, businesses cannot ban individuals from their premises, it was noted this morning during a discussion about security at the Whitehorse Business Connect event happening today and Thursday.

The two-day business conference is being hosted by the Whitehorse Chamber of Commerce.

This morning’s presentation on security featured Whitehorse RCMP Const. Michelle Faulkner, Sirius Security owner Sonny Gray, and Gerrard Fleming, the owner of Fleming Protection & Security.

It was Gray who pointed to the lack of trespassing legislation in the territory, legislation he argued is standard elsewhere in the country.

“We don’t have that legislation in place,” he said, noting work is being done with the chamber to look at the issue.

Chamber president Rick Karp noted it was about eight months ago the organization met with Justice officials on the issue.

At that time, it had been noted that while there is no trespass act per se, there are elements of such legislation in other territorial acts.

“You’re not reinventing the wheel,” Gray said, adding his sense that the government doesn’t have an “appetite” for such legislation right now.

Elements around trespassing are covered off in various acts, for example, that deal with entering schools and such, Karp said.

He said the chamber had asked at their last meeting with the territory for all the legislation related to trespassing to be put together in one document for the chamber to review.

Karp, Gray, Fleming and Faulkner all noted work has to be done in other areas as well to deal with security for businesses.

As Karp pointed out, the social issues that lead to the $4.2 million Whitehorse businesses lose to shoplifting in a year also have to be dealt with.

He said the chamber has been working with a variety of groups like the Victoria Faulkner Women’s Centre, Blood Ties Four Directions and a long list of others to deal with social issues that impact on crime, such as substance abuse.

“We’re working on two fronts,” he said.

In an interview following the session, NDP Leader Liz Hanson agreed it will take more than the “hammer” of legislation to address the issues.

While she did not comment extensively on the trespass legislation, she stressed the need for a housing first model to help address social issues. Under that model, housing is first provided to those in need; then the underlying social issues are dealt with.

Hanson argued the housing initiative, which will see a transitional home opened for five to 10 residents in May, is a “sham,” and does not represent the housing-first model groups have been calling for for years.

The long list of requirements potential residents must meet to live there leave out a large segment of the population who need housing first, she said.

They must be diagnosed with a persistent mental health condition or serious mental illness; be in unstable housing situations or homeless; have no significant cognitive deficit, though they may have substance abuse disorders; require transitional housing to stabilize and secure long-term private housing; be willing to be compliant with treatment plans; and not be a Yukon Review Board client or under a court order.

Hanson added she’s glad to see the chamber looking at crime from a more holistic approach.

While the lack of a trespass act was highlighted, so too were strategies businesses can use to prevent property crime and theft.

In his 10 years since starting Sirius, Gray said, he’s noticed most calls to his company come after a crime such as a break in or robbery.

“It’s reactive rather than proactive,” he said.

There are a number of actions businesses can take down to the store’s layout, hiring practices and more to prevent property crimes.

It was suggested businesses review the chamber’s booklet on security for preventative measures.

Fleming too noted the need to carefully look at who is being hired, noting psychological testing, drug and alcohol testing and other services his business offers to employers.

“We want to promote the idea of protecting the environment around you,” he said.

Gray, meanwhile, noted layout can often play a role.

He suggested there’s likely more theft from stores where it’s easy for people to come and go from the store than shops where shoppers have to go through cash tills to leave.

He encouraged business owners to “think like a criminal” when setting up their shops and take preventative action ahead of time.

In addition to noting the chamber’s booklet, Faulkner shared her own experience of theft.

As she recalled, her husband left moose meat he had hunted and was curing outside in an area he was sure no one would get to.

The day after he had put it out there, the couple discovered there was one of four bags missing; the next day, another went missing.

“The reality is even bears will take advantage of a freebie,” she said, before going on to recommend business owners make sure they have high-quality surveillance equipment in place which can help identify shoplifters and others.

“It really pays to have the quality from the get-go,” she said.

See more conference coverage in Thursday’s edition.

Comments (18)

Up 0 Down 0

Thoughts2015 on Apr 1, 2015 at 3:05 pm

@Rorex1983:
In answer to your question, no, I am not a lawyer. However, I did take a number of law courses in university, and have a long background in the private security field, so I'm familiar with these issues.

Personally, I think that having a trespassing statute isn't a bad idea. It gives more tools to law enforcement to use. However, I wanted to point out that it is a false assertion to say you can't kick trespassers off your property without a trespassing statute - you can. You can sue them and/or physically remove them, even without a trespassing statute in your jurisdiction; though again, I point out it is usually better to let police or a trained security professional handle the removal part.

The thing that a trespassing statute would add would be two things: 1) it would allow for an arrest as opposed to just a mere removal - so instead of just hauling them off the land, you could take them to a cell and keep them there; 2) it would allow for police to lay charges for trespassing so they could, most likely, receive a fine - thus the government would bear the cost of prosecuting them instead of the individual landowner having to pay for a lawsuit.

As well, in regards to your comment about lawsuits overburdening the system, I would just point out two things: A) if a trespassing statute is put into place and police begin charging people under it, the system's load will be increased as well; and B) if the trespassers can't afford to pay damages in a lawsuit, then they probably won't be able to afford to pay the fines they'd receive under a trespassing statute.

Up 1 Down 0

Rorex1983 on Mar 31, 2015 at 3:52 pm

The housing first initiative is the biggest sham I have ever heard of. Residents only pay 30% of their income for rent which means of course that if you're not working you pay nothing and if your working part time making minimum wage you pay next to nothing. This will surely provide incentives for people to better themselves!

How many non-homeless citizens spend more than 30% of their wage on housing? Undoubtedly that's a majority of people. So while the majority of us pay for this minority who undoubtedly made bad choices to live the high life, whose looking out for us?

I have absolutely no problem with helping the homeless but if it's going to be forced by the government rather than private charity, then the government better be creating requirements. You're required to take some sort of employment training, you're required to get counseling if deemed necessary, you're required to work. Not this we will house you no matter what type scenario.

Hell, if you want a simple solution to this issue, gather up all the homeless, hire a contractor to advise and oversee, provide the raw materials and have them build their own houses. You provided them with a skill set, responsibility and housing.

Up 1 Down 0

Rorex1983 on Mar 31, 2015 at 3:23 pm

@Thoughts2015

"Even without a trespassing statute, there still is the common law. It has existed for centuries and has always held that property owners can order people off their property. If the person refuses to go, you can sue them."
Great so we can all spend money suing people, who likely have none, and as a result not only will this person have trespassed but also robbed us.

Your a genius (sarcasm). Are you a lawyer trying to drum up business? Cause personally I think enough money is being spent on our already congested courts, and perhaps we should have more streamlined way of charging trespassers then individuals suing trespassers in civil court.

Up 1 Down 0

Rorex1983 on Mar 31, 2015 at 3:11 pm

@Max Mack

"Besides, persons who are barred from entering a business and who refuse to leave can be charged with disturbing the peace. Effectively, this is a criminal remedy"

First off this issue extends past businesses, to private property in which public disturbance can't be used.

About 3 years ago a drunk guy walked into my house and I got the pleasure of spending the next 45 mins dealing with him while waiting for the RCMP, apparently he thought he was in his house, though he wasn't from Whitehorse. When the RCMP showed up I was promptly informed that the most this guy could be charged with is mischief. That proving this in court would be very difficult and would require my testimony.

Here is what you need to prove mischief:
(a) destroys or damages property;
(b) renders property dangerous, useless, inoperative or ineffective;
(c) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property; or
(d) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with any person in the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property.

So basically to bring this guy up on charges I am going to have to prove he interrupted the enjoyment of my property. Which of course means testifying. In contrast under trespassing the onus would be on the perpetrator to prove he had a lawful excuse for being their.

So trespassing laws need to exist, anyone who doesn't think so feel free to leave your address and I will be sure to stop by.

Up 1 Down 0

Rorex1983 on Mar 31, 2015 at 2:53 pm

@Josey Wales

"We seem to be devolving into a northern Detroit, big urban slum ripe with recidivism. In many cases enabled by the PC Crusaders and our "legal system"

Actually we have very low recidivism rates compared to other jurisdictions. A good example of this is the community wellness court. The only thing that needs to change is our Judges who are overly lenient. Hell just the other day someone got 7 months for 3 counts for dealing crack.

Up 11 Down 4

fed up Yukoner on Mar 30, 2015 at 2:30 pm

just Say'in I stand corrected! I assumed there were 37,000 folks in the Yukon and came up with $113.50 per person, I was a tad careless with my comma's and period's. I will sleep much better now that I have corrected that horrible faux pas and will proof read every word and figure I write from now on.

Up 13 Down 1

ProScience Greenie on Mar 30, 2015 at 9:46 am

To paraphrase - "He who is without 'arithmetic error' among you, let him be the first to throw a stone." - We all make mistakes in spelling, grammar or math now and then. Nobody is perfect.

Number crunching aside, Fed up Yukoner is right to question the Chamber's $4.2 million dollar figure. Does that include internal theft? Management mix ups? I wouldn't put it past a few in the Chamber to spin or exaggerate as they are lobbyists after all.

Still it's a big problem and these thieves costs us consumers money and take away time and resources from the police and justice system. It needs to be brought under control and not just with hugs.

Up 12 Down 1

Thoughts2015 on Mar 29, 2015 at 6:58 pm

The statement that you can't ban someone from your property is completely inaccurate. Even without a trespassing statute, there still is the common law. It has existed for centuries and has always held that property owners can order people off their property. If the person refuses to go, you can sue them. You are even entitled to physically remove them, as per s. 35 of the Criminal Code - although it is often better left for the police to do this, for the safety of all involved.

Up 11 Down 5

Just Say'in on Mar 29, 2015 at 1:20 am

I can't believe all the thumbs up on that one either. More proof Yukon education is lacking. Really people. Simple math.

Up 15 Down 5

just Say'in on Mar 29, 2015 at 1:17 am

@Fed up Yukon'er…… I can only accept the numbers put forward in the article over yours because you obviously don't own a calculator. $4.2 Million divided by 35 thousand = 120 dollars. You must have went to school post math. Like the kids that try and run a till and can't give you change if the power isn't on. What a world we live in. Better to remain silent and look a fool, then open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Up 23 Down 2

Groucho d'North on Mar 28, 2015 at 9:43 am

As I have advocated previously in relation to impaired driving offenders: Identify these people to the community! Back in the old less politically-correct days, if you passed an NSF cheque it was on display on a place of honor in a store for all to see and admire.
Shoplifter pictures posted in the shops would help with this problem a great deal I think.
Too many criminals are hiding in plain sight within our community - why are they being given this anonymity? What purpose does it serve?

Up 17 Down 11

Fed up Yukoner on Mar 27, 2015 at 5:38 pm

Am I the only one that reads the figures here, at $4.2 million in shoplifting that means every person in the Yukon stole $11,350 worth of stuff from our stores and other businesses, I call bull s--t! or do you figure the salaries of the cops, judges and every piece of paper produced by government and other agencies part of this ridiculous figure. Chamber of Commerce just pulls figures out of thin air, methinks.

Up 28 Down 6

Max Mack on Mar 27, 2015 at 12:08 am

Businesses have no right to ban certain individuals from their premises? That's utter nonsense. There are existing tools that businesses can use to deny entry to problem persons -- no need for "trespassing" legislation whatsoever. Business owners have existing civil remedies available to them.

Besides, persons who are barred from entering a business and who refuse to leave can be charged with disturbing the peace. Effectively, this is a criminal remedy. Believe me, the RCMP have no problem threatening to charge drivers with "disturbing the peace" for failure to comply with their directions -- even though THAT threat is illegal in many cases. So, what is the issue here?

Up 39 Down 7

ProScience Greenie on Mar 26, 2015 at 11:46 am

No doubt something has to be done about shoplifting including allowing a business to ban a known shoplifter from entering the business. Dealing with the major crack cocaine and prescription drug problems would be a big help.

That said, be very careful of what might be proposed by Karp and a few others at the Chamber that would have no problem with our rights and privacy eroded if it means higher profits. They're not in it for us. We can't forget that these are the people that strongly oppose any minimum wage raise and were the ones that pushed for the TFW-type programs because apparently we're all too lazy to hold a job including our children.

And beware the drug testing companies which are all about the money and little to do with safety or security. What we as workers do on our own time is our business as long as we show up to work sober and rested.

Up 32 Down 6

June Jackson on Mar 26, 2015 at 4:39 am

How did this conversation go from theft and shoplifting to giving societies undesirables housing? From employee theft to bears stealing meat..although the analogy of them being nothing but animals is not lost on me..but, because someone has a roof doesn't mean they are honest..how many teenage girls from good homes are stuffing their cute little backpacks with loot from local stores? Not every street person is a thief. But they do all have one thing in common..the courts don't care. How many shoplifters are even charged in a year? There is absolutely no incentives to discourage theft. Shoplifting may even be below the RCMP interest level leaving the proprietor responsible for a criminal catch and release program..it becomes a self perpetuating circle of steal, caught, thrown out, back in the store, steal, caught, thrown out...rinse and repeat. Stealing staff, hired, caught, dismissed..give a good reference so that the proprietor doesn't end up charged with some kind of human rights or labour board violation and said employee can work and steal their way right through town..my opinion? Lack of any legal enforcement avenues in society at all will eventually lead to some vigilante justice.

Up 25 Down 22

Josey Wales on Mar 25, 2015 at 11:02 pm

Hmmm..."Technically, businesses cannot ban individuals from their premises" - absolute rubbish!
If I toss a thief/scumbag out...they are staying out...PERIOD!
Drunks hanging around like hosed pigeons? Out come the 2X8 and spikes maybe a sprinkler or ten.

Anyone peruse crime stoppers site on the mere "reported" crime in our new sty?
Never mind trespassing laws, seems conceal/carry is more relevant?
We seem to be devolving into a northern Detroit, big urban slum ripe with recidivism. In many cases enabled by the PC Crusaders and our "legal system".

Thanks Pierre...for the mess, your son will finish your job for you.
Of destroying our country via "hug a thug" and classifying us lowly subjects based on our race.
Believe me folks it all plays a role in what we deal with EVERYDAY in this town....

Up 48 Down 0

Other ways on Mar 25, 2015 at 6:37 pm

I recently saw a list of names posted outside a store in big bold print that said something to effect of "If you come in here, we'll watch you every minute", thought that was a good way to discourage undesirables or people who had been caught shoplifting

Up 16 Down 18

nope on Mar 25, 2015 at 4:12 pm

Fleming too noted the need to carefully look at who is being hired, noting psychological testing, drug and alcohol testing and other services his business offers to employers.

Who says that? Offering drug tests? Psychological testing? Do you force employees to do those things? Maybe managers and owners should be put through the same type of testing. What are you scared of? What's good for the goose. Yadda yadda.

Add your comments or reply via Twitter @whitehorsestar

In order to encourage thoughtful and responsible discussion, website comments will not be visible until a moderator approves them. Please add comments judiciously and refrain from maligning any individual or institution. Read about our user comment and privacy policies.

Your name and email address are required before your comment is posted. Otherwise, your comment will not be posted.