Is Illegal Electrical Work Fine?

Is Illegal Electrical Work Fine?:wink:
In Mississauga, ON (July 27, 2017), the courts felt is was fine enough to fine.:slight_smile:

On July 24, 2017, in Mississauga, ON, a con/tractor was sentenced in a Burlington, Ontario court to five days in jail and was ordered to pay $40,000 in fines plus a 25 per cent ($10,000) victim fine surcharge for doing electrical work illegally.

No word on whether the installations were done incorrectly or that they were unsafe. :frowning:

Morning Michael.
The installations is not the argument in the case. The Ontario Electricity Act, 1998 regulates whom can perform electrical installations.

I personally applaud the court’s decision to litigate the individual. It is not unreasonable. From what I understand, a homeowners can do as he or she wishes. Anyone other than the homeowner should be prohibited from electrical installations, modifications or repairs.

Hopefully this action will send a message to unqualified trades.
It takes years to become a trades person. They have the right to earn an “expected income” without being undercut by non qualified workers.

Thank you for your input.

A cease and desist would have been sufficient.

The judge is out of control.

If all that people got for breaking the law was a cease and desist, there would be no motivation for abiding by it.

If no real harm was done, who cares?

The person who loses their home or family member in a fire caused by sloppy or illegal work done by a person who does not fear reprisal by the law for having done so.

You must determine real harm. No one did. I’m not supporting work without permits BUT I bet there are bigger fish to fry than someone installing pot lights.

did I mention I hate nanny state mentality?

Just as in home inspectors a license is NOT a guarantee of a job well done.

Michel, with all due respect, an electrical apprenticeship is 9000 hours (approximately five years) in Ontario and I suspect the same holds true in other provinces.
The harm, lowering accepted professional standards and wages for one.
Secondly, an accident has not occurred.
Call ESA and ask them your questions.


Let’s extend that failure to determine “real harm” argument a bit further.

Let’s say I drive through a school zone at 60 MPH just after students have gotten out and are on the sidewalk and crossing the street. Nobody got hurt.

Or maybe I managed to pass myself off as a surgeon, even though I have no medical training, and operated on several individuals. They’re OK, at least for now.

Or just decided one day I wanted to be a Home Inspector and started inspecting homes with no licensing or formal training. Nobody has complained, yet.

Following your logic (no one was harmed, so what’s the big deal), the judge would say, “Hey, cut that out” and let them go, right?

I detest the nanny state too, but laws are there to protect people and laws don’t have a deterrent effect if they are not backed up by consistent, significant punishment and the reasonable expectation thereof.

This should be self-evident to any critical thinker.

It is. No harm no foul.

Now of course I think the death penalty would be appropriate if actual harm was done. You in?

So, you support the practice of any profession by any person at any time under any circumstances?

Isn’t liberty and capitalism a wonderful thing?

I think Michael is confusing Capitalism with government regulations and Trades/trust laws.

Capitalism is an economic system based upon an ideology, based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.

Characteristics central to capitalism; private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets.

Labour law (also known as labor law or employment law) mediates the relationship between workers, employing entities, trade unions and the government. ALL responsible — employers, supervisors and workers — for preventing workplace illness and injury.

Trades law. Trade regulation is a field of law, often bracketed with antitrust (as in the phrase “antitrust and trade regulation law”), including government regulation of unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive business acts or practices.

I’m sorry you Socialists have no understanding of freedom and real capitalism.

NANNY staters you are.

I don’t think Michael is confused. He’s just a hypocrite. He enjoys all the protections of a civilized society with laws and regulations, but pretends that he would prefer an unregulated one. Unable to support his point of view with logic, he resorts to name-calling.

A thought occurred to me last night, which I wrote down:

“Trying to convince a fool that he is a fool is simply foolish”

I’m not going to waste any more time trying to engage Mr. Larson in a rational discussion. He is either not interested or not capable.

It’s not my fault you enjoy your nanny state.

Its rational to desire freedom.

I do.

If all you have is ad hominem you have already lost the argument fella.

Absolutely . It helps keep un in business…

Very Reasonable deduction.

1: He is interested, don’t let that fool you, but not in the subject at hand.:twisted:

2: As for capable? He can argue successfully, but hates being wrong.

Robert, you live in a nanny state and love it. Own it.