OSHAWA — History was made in an Oshawa courtroom yesterday morning.

Judges, Crown attorneys and defence lawyers will now look to Justice Peter West’s ruling on a whether a canoe is a vessel in drinking and boating cases in the future. West ruled yesterday in the ongoing trial of David Sillars, 39, of Etobicoke, a canoe is a vessel, subsequently becoming the first case in Canadian history where the charges of impaired operation of a vessel causing death, operation of a vessel over 80 causing death and dangerous operation of a vessel causing death, have been upheld in court where the vessel in question is a canoe.

The Criminal Code of Canada has long been unclear about which water vessels are subject to impaired driving laws, while specifying it only applies to motorized vehicles on the road. Further, the definition of a vessel is not clearly defined in the Criminal Code.

In a 21-page ruling, West sided with Crown attorney Frank Giordano who argued on Nov. 6 that a canoe is a vessel under the Criminal Code, while defence counsel Jonathan Rosenthal and William Thompson argued the opposite. In his ruling, West addressed each submission and argument presented by both sides.

West said he rejected defence’s submission that he should not rely on Section 4, Subsection 4 of the Criminal Code or Section 15 Subsection 2b of the Interpretation Act, as outlined by the Crown, which deals with expressions taken from other acts relating to the same subject matter. This allows the court to import the meaning of vessel from another act, such as the Canada Shipping Act, which clearly defines a vessel, where it is undefined in the Criminal Code.

West ruled it was clear in the materials provided by the Crown that when vessel was added to a number of offences in the Criminal Code in 1961, including dangerous operation of a vessel, impaired operation of a vessel and operating a vessel with over 80, was as a result of the growing concern that members of the public were not taking the regulations set out in the Small Vessel Regulations under the Canada Shipping Act seriously. The motivation to include vessel in these offences was also fuelled by the increase in the number of pleasure craft being used on waterways throughout the country, wrote West.

West noted a number of MPs who spoke on the issue in 1961 felt the “need for a criminal stigma to attach to these offences involving ‘vessels’ to cause members of the public to take more seriously the safe operation of pleasure craft.”

“There can be no doubt that operating any kind of vessel on a lake or river or sea involves a degree of dangerousness,” ruled West. “Further, operating any type of vessel on a lake or river or sea requires some level of competency and knowledge as to the proper operation of the vessel and an awareness of the rules and regulations which govern safety on the water.”

West wrote he disagreed with defence that a person who is impaired should not be punished for their conduct because it lacks the moral culpability — or intent — to justify a criminal sanction, or penalty. West noted the same argument was made when impaired driving by alcohol was first introduced, but evidence to prove such offences have evolved over time, which now shows that “even slight impairment is sufficient to make out the offence of impaired driving.”

West wrote in his ruling that the danger of harm is equal whether one is operating a motor boat with a five horsepower motor, 150 horsepower motor or a canoe when their ability is impaired, even if only slightly. West ruled operating a canoe while impaired warrants the stigma of a criminal sanction.