I am always wary of taking non-official "regulations" as gospel. The FOP text includes some interpretation of the regulations.The regulations don't mention utensils. The fact that metal foil, medicine bottles, etc are permitted is not because the regs say so, but would probably be that they aren't food or beverage containers.

You can't have a glass jar of spaghetti sauce, or a glass coke bottle.
You can't have a can of beer or a can of sardines.
You might be able to have a glass jar full of sanka (dehydrated coffee) (probably not what they were thinking)
You could have a heavy metal pouch of dried something to be reconstituted. (possibly what they were thinking)
You can have a plastic food or beverage container because they burns (though maybe they prefer you pack it out.)
You can have a metal thermal flask (intended for repeated use)
Is a paper/foil pouch for hot chocolate "burnable"?

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/070347
Keeping park clean
4 (5) No person shall possess any non-burnable food or beverage containers in any part of Kawartha Highlands Signature Site Park other than containers,
(a) that are specifically designed and intended for repeated use and for which no deposit is charged; or
(b) that are specifically designed for dehydrated food.  O. Reg. 22/11, s. 2 (2).

Last edited by backatit (10/18/2022 3:27 pm)

tentsterforever wrote:

We were asked to open our packs at the permit office before we got our permit. This was at the Kearney permit office. As we had a seperate pack for food. It didn’t bother us, it didn’t take long.

I was questioned about my food items at the Kearney office once about 8 or 9 years ago as well.  They didn't ask us to open any bags though, I guess we convinced them we weren't packing in anything illicit. 

Swift Fifteen wrote:

Jdbonney wrote:

Absolutely not. Section 8 of the charter protects us against unlawful search and seizure. The powers of search and seizure granted by section 487 of the criminal code are subject to reasonable grounds to believe and unless the warden had found an egregious offender worthy of search they would be wise to never force the issue as they would almost certainly lose a court case where evidence was gathered as a result of any search and then lose the authority all together.

This is a high standard. Akin to catching the person in the act. Arriving to check in for a permit at Algonquin provides 0 grounds to even suspect a person of wrongdoing let along a belief they will commit wrong doing.

You couldn't be more wrong about the search and seize powers of a Wildlife Officer.  By now you've likely searched this and discovered the complete opposite is true. But in case you haven't, know that these LEO's do not require any "probable cause" to search any vehicle, container, pack, cooler, receptacle..ect to determine a contravention of any wildlife ACT or CC violation that they have been charged to enforce, uphold, and protect. Zero probable cause required.

An example of this is; have you ever been stopped in your vehicle by a CO during the fall hunting season?  Do you think you can simply tell them to rub salt and be on your way?  Of course not.  They can stop you, search your vehicle (and demand documentation if you're carrying a 4 wheeler,side by side, including trailer..ect) for no reason whatsoever than to simply "check" you.  And get his, while your head may still be spinning from all this, know that all MTO Enforcement Officers have the same search and seizure authority. MTO can pull you over ANYWHERE on any road in Ontario to simply check your vehicle. The only "Section 8" that will protect you here is if you're in the army, ask Corporal Klinger
 

 
Can you provide Case law to back this up?

There is none. Warrantless searches by any LEO without reasonable grounds to believe are tossed by the crown as fast as they read the notes. They don’t even make it to trial.

And I’m in no way suggesting anyone here should refuse to show their stove if there is a fire ban or refuse to open their cooler if a warden or co asks to verify your things but consenting to a search or complying with a request to see what’s in your cooler is a long way off from demanding a search of your car or even tent/trailer.

Consent to search is always sought because demanding a search can lead to bad case law.

An example of this came by way of customs inspectors who for many many years used their powers of search upon entry to Canada to open people’s laptops and smartphones even demanding passwords for locked devices. It became part of a routine customs inspection. This was, on its face, legal by the written law. But eventually it ended up in court and a judge decided this went beyond a routine inspection and laid out some rules for when electronic devices could be searched. I don’t recall the exact circumstances of the case but a “routine” search was no longer “routine”

In a trial the judge would ask if the routine searching of a cooler, tent, RV, boat etc…is reasonable given the total lack of grounds to conduct the search.

Provinces can write whatever law they want giving authorities to wardens, CO’s, police etc…but ultimately if these laws are challenged it would come down to the reasonableness of the demand made by law enforcement. And, in my opinion, it’s completely unreasonable but generally it’s just easier to comply than to be arrested, go to court etc. you have to decide for yourself where the line is between convenience and privacy.