Відео

Another great route is the Toronto loop. You can start at Sunnybrook park, Martin Goodman, Humber river and Finch hydro. Roughly about 80 kms total

@@canadatravelguide I do the Toronto loop every year. Another one is the Gatineau corridor that starts at Eglinton east just west of Victoria Park. If you're driving a good place to park is in the No Frills parking lot. Head north for about .5K and turn right. That will take you to Kennedy Road and the trail continues out to the zoo.

Glad you liked it! Thanks for watching.

Thank you! Glad you enjoyed the video.

See you next year!

Glad it was helpful!

Normally, it’s held on the 2nd Saturday of June.

You left out the part about it being done in a way as to cause offense. And the part where police officers can't lay a charge under 174 without permission from the Solicitor General.

I am an Ontario lawyer who has lectured on the Canadian law of nudity. Participants in the WNBR in Toronto did not violate section 174 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Your analysis is wrong because you failed to take into account binding case-law as well as the other provisions of section 174. In subsection 174(1), the potentially relevant portion is: "174 (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, (a) is nude in a public place ... is guilty of an offence." Authoritatively interpreting this provision, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that "nude" means "completely bare" rather than just "shockingly bare" or "offensively bare". In other words, even if all you're wearing is socks on your feet, the Supreme Court of Canada says that you are not automatically considered "nude" for purposes of the Criminal Code. Even the scantiest or most minuscule item of apparel, loosely worn, is sufficient to take the accused out of subsection 174(1), regardless of whether any particular body parts (such as genitals) are completely visible. [See authorities cited below in Endnote 1.] Because all of the participants in the WNBR in Toronto were at least wearing footwear, none of them were violating subsection 174(1). So our analysis must now turn to subsection 174(2): "For the purposes of this section, a person is nude who is so clad as to offend against public decency or order." The Supreme Court of Canada in Verrette explained that this provision may deem someone to be nude even if not absolutely bare. Canadian courts have held that offending against public order essentially means causing a riot. [See authorities cited below in Endnote 2.] The WNBR obviously didn't cause a riot in Toronto. But what about offending against public decency? The Supreme Court of Canada and the Ontario Court of Appeal have held that, to show indecency, the Crown [i.e. prosecution] would have to show a reasonable apprehension of an identifiable, "substantial risk of harm" to willing onlookers or to society, taking into account the relevant circumstances. They have further held that people being offended does not constitute legally cognizable "harm", nor does mere speculation prove a substantial risk of harm. Crucially, in a decision binding on all Ontario courts, and endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada in another case, the Ontario Court of Appeal has held that the sight of mere nudity in a non-commercial, non-sexualized context, is not indecent under these legal tests. Notably, nudity by WNBR participants takes place in a non-commercial, non-sexualized context. Additional factors legally relevant to the context are the lack of physical contact with spectators, the fact that Toronto police have tolerated similar events in the past (and even provided traffic-safety services for the WNBR along the route each year), and that no one who was offended was forced to continue looking. [See authorities cited below in Endnote 3.] In light of all the above, there would be "no reasonable prospect of conviction" if any of the WNBR participants in Toronto were charged under section 174. Accordingly, if a rogue cop nevertheless arrested a participant, the Regional Senior Crown Attorney (as delegate of the Attorney General of Ontario) would NOT consent to charging the participant under section 174. If a rogue cop purported to charge without such consent, that purported charge would be a nullity, per subsection 174(3), and the Crown Attorney's office would drop it. Endnote 1 -- (Cases with citations containing “CanLII”, “ONSC”, “ONCJ” or “ONCA” are viewable for free online at canlii.org). See: R. v. Verrette, 1978 CanLII 208, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 838 (S.C.C.); R. v. Khestlova-Hanko, 1987 CanLII 6856, 36 C.C.C. (3d) 97 (Ont. Dist. Ct.); R. v. Szunejko, 1981 CanLII 3287, 61 C.C.C (2d) 359 (Ont Prov. Ct.); R. v. Traynor, [1987] O.J. No. 1943 (Ont Prov. Ct). Szunejko and Traynor would be considered persuasive authority, albeit not binding; but the persuasive weight of Traynor is greatly enhanced by it having been approvingly quoted by Justice Cory, writing for the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Tremblay, 1993 CanLII 115, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 932 (S.C.C). More importantly, Khestlova-Hanko is an appellate decision binding on all Ontario trial courts. Even more importantly, Verrette is binding on all courts everywhere in Canada. Endnote 2 -- See, for example, R. v. Onigbinde-Bey, 2017 ONCJ 418 (Ont. C.J.); Saugeen First Nation v. A.G. (Can.), 2021 ONSC 4181 (Ont. Sup. Ct.). Endnote 3 -- See: Towne Cinema Theatres Ltd. v. R., 1985 CanLII 75, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 494 at p. 508; R. v. Butler, 1992 CanLII 124, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452 at p. 481; R. v. Tremblay, supra, at S.C.R. p. 960; R. v. Hawkins, 1993 CanLII 8587, 15 O.R. (3d) 549 (Ont. C.A.) at p. 566; R. v. Jacob, 1996 CanLII 1119, 31 O.R. (3d) 350 (Ont. C.A.) at p. 365; R. v. Mara, 1997 CanLII 363, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 63 (S.C.C.) at para. 31; R,. v. DiGiuseppe, 2002 CanLII 22075, 161 C.C.C. (3d) 424 (Ont. C.A.) at para. 13; Little Sisters Book & Art Emporium v. Can. (Min. of Justice), 2000 SCC 69, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1120, at paras. 50 & 61-62.

Yes they do ask for a passport.

@@canadatravelguide I can imagine they do. Canada has stricter border lines

There’s always next year! 😀 Thanks for watching.