http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/04/14/james-morton-trash-is-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder.aspx

The only real difference is that now we have binding authority from Canada’s top court.

Very unfortunate.

I can’t recall which municipality in this area (London, Ontario) had this battle a couple of years ago but let me describe the situation.

Some resourceful people were collecting aluminum cans from blue boxes when the price for aluminum was sky-rocketing.

The municipality stepped in to prevent this because they were relying on the revenue to cover costs. A person was made an example of and was charged with theft of city property.

If memory serves, the charges stuck and the punishment (a rather hefty fine) was widely proclaimed so as to act as a deterrent.

Wish I had a link, sorry.

But it seems to me that if the municipality owns the garbage once you put it out then we may have crossed this bridge long before the case under discussion today. We just didn’t realize it.

I agree there are some problems with this decision, but for different reasons.

I don’t think the interest in the garbage has been properly abandoned until it is actually picked up by the garbageperson. The garbage still remains on the owner’s property until that time, or on a curb owned by the municipality, indicating that it is intended for the agent of the City, the garbageperson.

When the garbageperson then takes it to the dump, it becomes comingled with the possessions of other people. At this point I would claim ownership clearly ceases. There’s no need for them to turn to dust, they would fall subject to the doctrine of accession.

Presumably ownership of the garbage is then with the City. If a law enforcement agent seeks to go through the City dump to find incriminating evidence, so be it, as long as they didn’t follow it from a person’s house. But to allow access simply because it is outside the four walls of a domicile without warrant or clear suspicion of criminal behaviour appears to be an unreasonable intrusion, especially given the policy reasons for encouraging people to dispose of waste properly. We could just end up like the problem Singapore had with gum before banning it,

People can lose respect for the institution of waste management and start dumping indiscriminately, simply because the right to have people not investigate the contents before being disposed properly has been interfered with.