GC 2024, 111th Grey Cup Game

[WanderingBumbling]

What angers me about the Pavco action fine of $10K :

1. no right of appeal or a hearing as it's an admin sanction.

2. the fine is way too high for the harm it did and forms of deterrence like banning for life (over the top) should suffice

3. the police didn't I assume seek charges by Crown Counsel's office likely due to the entire episode including hospitalization of the person.

4. Had a charge of trespassing or mischief been laid by the Crown there is a very good chance of no criminal record via a Conditional Discharge which could have included an appropriate fine and community service (make her do volunteer work) .

I don't really see too much of a problem with the larger fine. It's up to $10k so not like everyone gets that punishment and needs to be there as a deterrent.

I remember the days before the larger fines and such and in my recollection it just happened a whole lot more than it currently does. Honestly though charges should have been laid and the fact they weren't I think justifies the actions more simply because there isn't any other punishment. There were a few kids were I was sitting and while some found it entertaining others actually seemed disturbed by it.

Not to mention all the added cost associated with having an intrusion on the field.

Think the bigger take away from all of this is the lack of security. Are we really living in a society where security guards aren't allowed to stop someone intruding onto the field?

The following happened:
1. She goes down to field level seating which had a railing installed for this game and she would have jumped the railing
2. Security guards were placed roughly at each section and the middle of each section, so no one noticed her climbing over it?
3. She would have been in a short no mans land area where she would have had to jump/climb over the advertisement boards.

It seemed the security was situated almost every 15 yards, and looking over at the security guard who she would have passed and the security guard looked like they were laughing or at least smiling at what happened.

Security is a joke if they cannot and will not intervene before events like this happen. It may be meant as a deterrent but it seems like a waste of money since they could just reduce the numbers down by half and still probably have the same effect then.

[Toppy Vann]

WanderingBumbleBee,

I've no idea why the streaker couldn't have been prevented but I'll settle for the odd incident over heavy handed unfriendly goons any day.

As a a general comment since I took early retirement it's been more noticeable how things are done adminstratively unfairly including:

* her $10K fine
* Parking lots with unfair fines over $80 dollars that run towing scams.

I'll just let AI ChatGPT outline my arguments better than I have time or ability to do. LOL


Deterrence is just one factor. For a person struggling to get by in tougher economic times a fine like that can be life ruining and that is not the purpose of sanctions that are fair.

We're becoming a nation of sheep who dont speak when things aren't right.

Natural justice refers to fundamental principles ensuring fairness in legal and administrative proceedings.

The key principles are:

The Right to a Fair Hearing:

Individuals must have the opportunity to present their case and respond to allegations.
Includes the right to be informed of the case against them.

The Rule Against Bias:

Decision-makers must be impartial and avoid conflicts of interest.
Natural justice underpins procedural fairness, ensuring decisions are made transparently, equitably, and justly.


These administrative penalties defy natural justice with no right of appeal and the fines far outweigh the offense when it's supposed to be ensuring accessible spaces for their businesses customers.

That woman in court would have been treated better with a conditional discharge versus an unreasonable penalty tha is disproportionate to what she did.
The police I don't think put this to Crown Counsel who may or may not have charged her and possibly that would be fairer over what she got.

Administrative Fines vs. Court Penalties


Administrative fines, such as the $10,000 penalty imposed by PAVCO (BC Pavilion Corporation) on the streaker, raise questions about fairness, proportionality, and access to justice. Key concerns include:

Lack of Judicial Oversight:

Administrative bodies can impose fines without judicial scrutiny, bypassing the traditional justice system.
This can result in harsher penalties than those typically imposed by courts.
No Right of Appeal:

Unlike court decisions, administrative fines often lack robust mechanisms for appeal, limiting recourse for individuals.
Disparity in Outcomes:

A court might have considered mitigating factors (e.g., remorse, lack of prior record) and imposed a lighter penalty, such as a conditional discharge.
Rationale for Allowing Administrative Fines:

Governments permit administrative fines to expedite processes, reduce court backlogs, and provide deterrents for specific conduct (e.g., disrupting public events).
Critics argue this approach may undermine natural justice by prioritizing efficiency over fairness.

[DanoT]

The amount of the fine is irrelevant because Pavco has no legal means of collecting it. If she refuses to pay the fine, then there are no consequences.

She might want to claim she was drunk out of her mind, then sue Pavco for $10k for over-serving her.

[Hambone]

From my experience watching many sporting events security to prevent people accessing the field is usually quite light until the very late stages of the game. Then you usually see security get beefed up as a preventive measure for the possibility of many trying to get on the field. A lot of security risk heavy lifting is now handled at point of stadium entry thanks to electronic screening and bag restrictions at BC Place. It really reduces the risk to an occasional lone wolf pisstank getting over the wall so to speak. Such instances have also become extremely rare. Like maybe it happens once every 3 or 4 years. A female streaker would be the absolute last thing security would expect.

As for why didn't they go after her more aggressively? I think a) they were caught totally by surprise and b) if they flew out there and tackled her hard like they might a man the possibility of a lawsuit over the aggression might swiftly follow with 52000 eye witnesses to call on.

Overall I think security was caught just as dumfounded as those of us in the stands. Right after she was taken away I was getting texts from buddies watching at home asking if there was a streaker. After saying yes SHE was next question was did you get it on video? No I was too stunned watching her cavort around to do that.

[Dusty]

Security is in a no-win situation. If they respond like they did years ago, the fan will try to avoid them and the security folks look stupid as they try to run around the field reaching for the streaker. Automatically, the beefy security become the enemy to the crowd and the boo's will rein down on them and cheers to the streaker as they pump their arms....
Better to slowly approach and let the fan give up as they did in the GC.

I don't think that the fine is enforceable, although I think they could attach an unpaid claim to the individual which may register on their credit rating.

[Toppy Vann]

PAVCO could make the person's life a living hell.

1. They can launch a civil suit against her

2. Get a collection agency haunting her but there are limits to that in cases like this - I think.

It's not likely that a court would find that PavCo acted without authority but the defendant could argue that $10,000 is unreasonable and the entire fine/banning lacks procedural fairness.

This would not likely lead to eliminating the full fine but the counter argument is that it's unreasonable and without due process could get it cut down. But if the were cut in half, her legal costs would not be a mere $5000 and she might still be nailed with some of PavCo's legal costs. That's why you must have means to launch or defend a civil action.

The court would likely have to find PavCo was within its legal authority to impose penalties.
It might find the penalty too high so PavCo doesn't actually lose.
The court might then ssue guideance on PavCo's processes to ensure that the principles of fairness are more aligned with the penalty.

If te woman was a person with means and wanted her day in court, she could immediately file for judicial review with the same likelihood as above - the fine gets cut in half maybe. But again risks some legal costs.


I just think that the public need better protection from institutional authority like that as no one near me was doing anything but laughing or like me catching it on film.

The fine was ridiculous and indefensible given no hearing.

The police it seems realized she was in need of medical attention and sent her to hospital.

[don corleone]

It would have to be well thought out prior to being implemented but dropping the streaker with a taser and carting him or her off would pretty well put an end to streakers imo. A $1000 fine along with getting tased would be reasonable further penalty.

[Hambone]

It would have to be well thought out prior to being implemented but dropping the streaker with a taser and carting him or her off would pretty well put an end to streakers imo. A $1000 fine along with getting tased would be reasonable further penalty.

Like that would end well in court for the security contractor. Tasering an obviously unarmed, naked woman?!?!? I suspect the only form of restraint field level security might have is a handful of zapstraps. Even police have to go thru extensive training re: deploying tasers including guidelines for the circumstances when deployment is justified. Stadium security is not the police.

[WanderingBumbling]

WanderingBumbleBee,

I've no idea why the streaker couldn't have been prevented but I'll settle for the odd incident over heavy handed unfriendly goons any day.

As a a general comment since I took early retirement it's been more noticeable how things are done adminstratively unfairly including:

* her $10K fine
* Parking lots with unfair fines over $80 dollars that run towing scams.

I'll just let AI ChatGPT outline my arguments better than I have time or ability to do. LOL


Deterrence is just one factor. For a person struggling to get by in tougher economic times a fine like that can be life ruining and that is not the purpose of sanctions that are fair.

We're becoming a nation of sheep who dont speak when things aren't right.


That woman in court would have been treated better with a conditional discharge versus an unreasonable penalty tha is disproportionate to what she did.
The police I don't think put this to Crown Counsel who may or may not have charged her and possibly that would be fairer over what she got.

I got parking $15. Yes there was insane pricing in places but if you didn't mind walking just a touch you could find plenty of reasonable parking pricing.

Her fine of $10,000 was I think justifiable. It's incidences like this which is why there are so many security guards in the first place, which means overall higher ticket prices which results in punishing everyone else for someone's indiscretion. It's not like a kid who runs out onto a field and doesn't know better. This is a grown woman who made the decision to jump onto the field and disrobe.

Making excuses like not being able to afford such a fine, well that is her decision and the massive warnings that were posted all around the field access points. Smaller fines don't work, they didn't work in the past.

The fact is the police didn't pursue chargers against her which speaks volumes to what we have currently in our society in that people like her without the civil penalty face no real-world repercussions for their actions. The simple fact is streaking if charges were press would result in a minimum 30 day sentence

As for why didn't they go after her more aggressively? I think a) they were caught totally by surprise and b) if they flew out there and tackled her hard like they might a man the possibility of a lawsuit over the aggression might swiftly follow with 52000 eye witnesses to call on.

Overall I think security was caught just as dumfounded as those of us in the stands. Right after she was taken away I was getting texts from buddies watching at home asking if there was a streaker. After saying yes SHE was next question was did you get it on video? No I was too stunned watching her cavort around to do that.

Once she was onto the field, I think it's acceptable to go slowly as it takes away the element of being chased which so many people did in the past. The bit that gets me though is that she managed to get to the field.

In this case the security should not be excused, they have a security person who is sitting facing up the staircase area. Along with ones in the middle of each section. That means she had to climb over the temporary railing, cross 10 yards of no mans land to get to where the security guard was sitting, and jump over the advertisement board all without being noticed/intercepted by security.

It's not like the days of old where someone can just hop a single railing and be off to the races. There is no purpose to have like 20 security guards guarding the field access when having just 10 would be just as effective

[Toppy Vann]

WanderingBumbling

I'm not referring to the price of parking. I'm referring to the administrative sanctions that parking operators are imposing for overparking.

If you want to live in an authoritarian society, yep $10,000 is a just a starter package.
Yeah give her 30 days too if punishment and determent are your only societal goals.
Bring in Singapore laws as well.

If that lady was rich, courts would overturn that fine with a judicial review and give guidance to re-structuring so it was fair and appealable. But the costs are too high as our courts are flooded civilly and criminally.

You've sort of not on the same wavelength that I am on.