Does entering Peace Arch Provincial Park count as physical presence in Canada? With travel across the US-Canada border being highly restricted (even citizens/PRs need to quarantine for two weeks on arrival), many Canadian permanent residents living and working in the US near the Canadian border may have difficulty meeting the residency requirements of being in Canada for 730 days in a five year period. (Being in Canada for any part of a day counts as a whole day in Canada) One can enter some (very limited) parts of Canada legally though. For example, one can enjoy 9 hectares of Canada by entering Peace Arch Provincial Park, which just reopened today, and many married couples separated by the border got to see and hug each other. Would someone living near such parks be able to meet the Canadian permanent residency requirements by going to such parks every day? Assume that one can provide evidence e.g. photographs with timestamps, and social media checkins. Assume that one is also be willing to mount a legal challenge should the Canadian authorities deny that entering the park counts as physical presence in Canada.
Exact wording might matter here, so I looked up the law. It says "a permanent resident complies with the residency obligation with respect to a five-year period if, on each of a total of at least 730 days in that five-year period, they are physically present in Canada". Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, 28(2)(a). If you visit the Canadian side of the park, you're "physically present in Canada". It would therefore appear that this would meet the requirement. I am by no means an expert in Canadian immigration law, though.
Should this be taken to mean that a physical barrier (with out signage) does not deny entry? It seems that a physical barrier alone does not deny entry under subsection (b)(1). This entire section is defining when a person has committed criminal trespass. Apparently breaking through a fence with no sign does not constitute criminal trespass, unless one of the other sub-sections applies. But it may constitute simple trespass, and it may constitute some other offense, such as breaking and entering. Note also that subsection (b)(4) adss a person who: knowingly or intentionally interferes with the possession or use of the property of another person without the person's consent; to the list of those who commit criminal trespass. That might apply to a person who enters by damaging a fence. Also as a second question how does no trespass signage affect delivery people Section 2(g)(6)(B) exempts the owner's: (i) family member; (ii) invitee; (iii) employee; (iv) agent; or (v) independent contractor; I would think that a delivery person would be either an invitee or an independent contractor. Or perhaps some other provision applies. As for nearby provisions in the code, Section 35-43-2-1 defines &quot;Burglary&quot; in terms of breaking and entering with intent to commit theft or felony. Section 35-43-2-1.1.5 defines &quot;residential entry&quot; in terms of breaking and entering a dwelling. Section 35-43-2-1.3 deals with unauthorized computer access.
Utah has a lot of public parks, so to point in the right direction, I will assume that this is a public park in Salt Lake City, it's just a plain old grassy field, and it's not during a special event. A person is suspected of some crime like selling drugs, not arrested, but told by a police officer to go away and never come back. This is way beyond the power of the police. After due legal process, a proven (not just suspected) public menace could be ordered by the court to stay away from the park. A police officer can, of course, order a person to leave a park when they violate a park rule, in fact rule number 1 is "It is unlawful for any person to do or to allow or permit any of the acts prohibited by this chapter in any park in Salt Lake City", so the police cannot legally turn a blind eye to rule violations. Violation of park rules is an infraction which can earn you a ticket of up to $299. However, the officer can tell you to go away, rather than giving you a ticket or arresting you. But an police order cannot issue a unilateral restraining order. Apart from city laws, there are general state laws regarding trespass and destruction of property. The state criminal trespass law says that A person is guilty of criminal trespass if...knowing the person's... entry or presence is unlawful, the person enters or remains on to which notice against entering is given by...personal communication to the person by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner In this case, the owner is the city, and the officer has apparent authority to act for that owner. In the case of private property, the owner or his agent has very broad authority to give notice requiring you to leave (e.g. if you don't like their politics or their shirt); but in the case of public property, the government has more narrowly circumscribed authority to kick you out.
Criminal Code 293 outlaws polygamy and bigamy, and identifies as an offender Every one who (a) practises or enters into or in any manner agrees or consents to practise or enter into (i) any form of polygamy, or (ii) any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time, whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage, or (b) celebrates, assists or is a party to a rite, ceremony, contract or consent that purports to sanction a relationship mentioned in subparagraph (a)(i) or (ii) In other words, it is against the law to go through the ceremony with multiple partners, and to "enter into a conjugal union", even if not solemnized in any particular fashion. "Common law marriage" is broadly recognized in Canada (except in Quebec), with specific details governed by the province. This too is a case where people who "act as if" married are treated as actually married, given certain circumstances (which exist in a polygamous marriage). The question of having children is not relevant to the law, indeed having sex is not a requirement for something to be deemed a polygamous marriage, and the law against polygamy also says nor is it necessary on the trial to prove that the persons who are alleged to have entered into the relationship had or intended to have sexual intercourse. In this particular case, we do not know the specific details, but it is reasonable to assume that there was no posturing or faking, and there were multiple solemnization ceremonies, so the polygamy is overt. The claim is that it is constitutionally protected.
Statelessness is a very serious condition. It is quite likely that a person such as you describe may be required to board an aeroplane to that country but will not be permitted to pass through immigration on arrival - Mehran Karimi Nasseri lived in Charles de Gaulle airport for 18 years in this condition. There are many people in the world who are stateless and this may or may not affect their lives. Citizenship is generally only an issue when crossing international borders or in employment situations, the latter is significant in advanced countries but less of an issue in countries with less-developed economies.
Will UKVI allow a concession for this specific situation? Only your wife's UKVI caseworker can definitely answer this with any certainty, but as you say CR2.3 (b) does seem quite compelling but (c) less so - unless the medical records support her condition was &quot;life-threatening&quot; ...any period spent outside the UK will not count towards the 180-day limit if the absence was for any of the following reasons: [...] (b) travel disruption due to natural disaster, military conflict or pandemic; or (c) compelling and compassionate personal circumstances, such as the life-threatening illness of the applicant, or life-threatening illness or death of a close family member; [...]
too long, didn't read: You would be liable for a claim for breach of contract. The self-isolation guidance is voluntary in this scenario and in any event the relevant legislation allows you to leave to &quot;fulfil a legal obligation&quot; such as completing a contract. Therefore, the court would probably give judgment for the claimant on the facts you've given us. Your requirement to self-isolate The Government guidance for self-isolating on suspicion of, or a positive test for, coronavirus is entirely voluntary. You are only subject to legal obligations to self-isolate, and the associated risk of a £1,000 fine, if you enter England from a non-exempt country under Clause 4 of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel) (England) Regulations 2020. Therefore, in the given situation, you would not be legally obliged to remain within the property for the entirely of the quarantine period. You would be able to seek alternative accommodation. Indeed, even if you were subject to Clause 4, subclause 9(c) explicitly states: (9) During the period of their self-isolation, P may not leave, or be outside of, the place where P is self-isolating except— (c) to fulfil a legal obligation, including attending court or satisfying bail conditions, or to participate in legal proceedings, Fulfilling the terms of the contract of sale would count as needing to &quot;fulfil a legal obligation&quot; so you would not be fined under the legislation and it would not be a defence to any lawsuit. The court's view Given that the self-isolation guidance is voluntary and, in any event, the relevant legislation has the &quot;legal obligation&quot; escape hatch, the court would likely treat this as a standard breach of contract and find that you had no exceptional circumstances that caused you to breach the contract by failing to vacate the property on the day of completion. Conclusion You would be open to a claim for breach of contract. Your defence would be unlikely to succeed on the merits and the court would likely side with the claimant.
This story is plausible but the technical legal details are probably wrong. It is completely illegal to transport a pistol in a car in New York State if you do not fall into the list of exceptions § 265.01-b: A person is guilty of criminal possession of a firearm when he or she: (1) possesses any firearm or; (2) lawfully possesses a firearm prior to the effective date of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this section subject to the registration requirements of subdivision sixteen-a of section 400.00 of this chapter and knowingly fails to register such firearm pursuant to such subdivision. Since the question mentions the firearm locked in a glovebox I'm assuming it is a pistol. Comments have suggested and certain exemptions in the law suggest that there isn't a licensure or registration requirement for manual action long guns, but I have not found the specific section exempting them from the possession law. There is a long list of exemptions to the possession law in § 265.20, but the only one that could be applicable to a person just travelling through the state might be section 13: 13. Possession of pistols and revolvers by a person who is a nonresident of this state while attending or traveling to or from, an organized competitive pistol match or league competition... Notably, for a regular citizen they must have a New York State carry permit to possess a handgun, and their long guns must be registered with the state: 3. Possession of a pistol or revolver by a person to whom a license therefor has been issued as provided under section 400.00 or 400.01 of this chapter or possession of a weapon as defined in paragraph (e) or (f) of subdivision twenty-two of section 265.00 of this article which is registered pursuant to paragraph (a) of subdivision sixteen-a of section 400.00 of this chapter or is included on an amended license issued pursuant to section 400.00 of this chapter. Neither applies to someone simply travelling through the state to another state who hasn't fulfilled the appropriate license or registry requirements. What may apply, however, is the federal Firearm Owners Protection Act, which in part codifies 18 U.S. Code § 926A: Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console. The notwithstanding in this case preempts state law and affirms that transporting a firearm between two states that allow the person to carry that firearm cannot be a crime assuming they meet the statutory requirements on carrying the firearm and ammunition. However, he failed to meet those requirements by keeping the firearm in the glove box, which the federal law specifically does not protect. Therefore, NY State law is allowed to apply and he can be charged with possession without a license under NY State law. The part about whether or not he stayed overnight being a distinction may be a retelling error or conflating this law with similar state laws that allow transporting firearms that are inaccessible in the vehicle as long as the vehicle doesn't stop in the state beyond minor pit stops (e.g. for gas).