Dui 6 months ago-can i get on celebrity solstice in a couple weeks-roundtrip seattle

[TC1957]

While as a TA your client may have the expectation that you are the "authority" on all the details of cruising, proper documentation, and ship and government policy, he cannot successfully hold you responsible for his past and any possible impact that can have on his ability to cruise. You in fact are not the authority, just the agent communicating what you have been told. As a professional, you have a responsibility to make this clear to him. You cannot guarantee his situation.

 

By contacting the people that you have in asking the question, you have the most authoritative answers already and adding to your client "and I also heard from posters on CC that it is OK" honestly adds no credible value. You have no direct knowledge who the posters are, the facts of their situation, or the accuracy of the information they provide. That provides no additional assurance as to what will happen with him.

 

My advice would be to simply discuss with your client the factual information you have gained from the official authorities and make it clear to him that you cannot personally guarantee the outcome with his individual situation. I would also tell him that if he is not comfortable or in agreement, that you will not take his booking. He and he alone is responsible for his situation and would have to undertake any risks associated with that on his own.

 

That IMO would be acting professionally on his - and your - behalf. Your single commission from his booking is not worth it or should not be potentially compromised by something you have no direct control over.

 

Fixed it for you. He can most certainly try. I would have never dream that a doofus could successfully hold McD responsible for injuries because he was too dense to drink his coffee one morning without spilling it...that doofus is now a millionaire.

 

And for the OP...just because the offender is family doesn't mean there is absolutely no chance of legal action. After all...one can already question their judgement, can they not?

Edited May 9, 2014 by TC1957

[momofmeg]

Fixed it for you. He can most certainly try. I would have never dream that a doofus could successfully hold McD responsible for injuries because he was too dense to drink his coffee one morning without spilling it...that doofus is now a millionaire.

 

And for the OP...just because the offender is family doesn't mean there is absolutely no chance of legal action. After all...one can already question their judgement, can they not?

 

 

 

That was an interesting story. MacDonald's should not have had their coffee that hot, but that woman was also an idiot for holding it between her legs where the pressure would pop the lid off and it could spill. I did that with coke as a kid before myself was in big trouble with my mom for that mess hence I would have never tried that with coffee! Lol! but perhaps that woman had never had that experience? hard to believe huh? Perhaps she did deserve something, her bills paid as she asked, but not what she got, however, if Mac Donald's had paid her bills which were only a couple of thousand, she would not have sued them. Perhaps the judge was sending them a message?

[RickT]

The problem with answering the OP's original question is you have to actually answer two questions.

 

CAN they and WILL they. I believe Canadian law allows them to refuse to allow you to board the ship. BUT they probably will not!. The problem with relying on anything that was told to the OP is many employees of the consulate and the cruise lines will answer the question with WILL they. Any reader of CC knows if you call any cruise line with an obscure question you will get 5 answers if you call five times.

 

Ask them to put it in writing and watch them backpedal.

 

Well said.

 

Below is a link to a Canadian Government web page discussing this issue. It is also important to know if they were charged or convicted. Being charged does not seem to have an impact on entry.

 

I know from personal experience that some of my US based co-workers have been refused entry into Canada due to a DUI. Usually they are turned back at the border or at Canadian Customs and Immigration when their plane lands.

 

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/inadmissibility/conviction.asp

Edited May 9, 2014 by RickT

[Aquahound]

If a pax does not enter Canada but stays on the ship, then from a practical standpoint Canada has no dog in the fight. If all pax must go through some sort of Canadian checkpoint (screen) when departing their ship, then Canada can always exclude those it doesn't want that way, and thus have no basis to exclude them from making the trip at all simply because it stops in Canada. If they don't screen pax departing the ship, then in theory in order to keep him out for sure they would have to tell the carrier not to carry him at all. But it seems a stretch that any country could, under international law, tell a transportation company not registered in that country with whom they can do business (carry). For example, could Canada tell a non-Canadian airline that is flying to the US from Europe with a stop in Canada that they could not carry a particular pax even if that person will not leave the plane in Canada? I'd be curious if anyone knows the law on such things and could comment.

 

A country most certainly does have this right. Whether getting off the ship or not, that ship is still in Canada. Under a term called "Innocent Passage," the ship could pass through Canadian waters with the felon on board if the ship had no intention of stopping, and this would be an exemption to their law but like I said, if the ship is mooring in Canada, they are obligated to comply with Canadian law. Ever notice a cruise ship flies the flag of the crounty in which they are visiting? That does mean something.

 

While I agree that the government of Canada probably has the right to disallow boarding, I think the main question is time. Nothing is processed to any government agency, US or Canadian, until the passenger manifest is completed, 90 minutes prior to departure. I don't believe there is any official government "pre-screening" done, even with online booking and documentation. So, by the time the Canadian immigration gets the manifest, and starts running the checks, the ship has most likely departed. At that point, they will notify the agents in the Canadian port of call to disallow the passenger from disembarking.

 

I agree...and I have been wondering how this could happen and if it did, how did the Canadians know about this passengers criminal history prior to boarding? Someone posted earlier in this thread of a person being denied boarding on NCL...and I too remember that thread. I can't remember the details though.

Edited May 9, 2014 by Aquahound

[wichitastatecruiser]

Yes, I have a friend who married a man who had served time in prison many years ago. He's a good man now, but apparently wasn't in his younger days. She loves cruising and he can't go with her. She usually cruises with her mother. She has also gone with us.

 

Umm, have they checked with the cruise companies? I have a criminal record from a mistake in college and cruised Carnival no problems, the RCCL security team called me and asked me to send them certain court documents and asked me to provide details of the case, along with any documentation, a letter detailing why I should be able to sail and the purpose of the cruise.

[Jackytar]

I agree...and I have been wondering how this could happen and if it did, how did the Canadians know about this passengers criminal history prior to boarding? Someone posted earlier in this thread of a person being denied boarding on NCL...and I too remember that thread. I can't remember the details though.

 

If one is accused, tried and found guilty, there is a record that goes into a national database. In Canada, it's the Canadian Police Information Center (CPIC). It is interfaced with the US's National Crime Information Center (NCIC), so law enforcement officers (which includes border services officers, these days) can access both countries' information.

 

Also, as RickT noted, there is a difference between being charged, or accused; and being found guilty. If the charges were dropped, the accused ought to enjoy the presumption of innocence. That said, it's well worth inquiring, because some organizations in Canada and the US operate on the "you were charged; that's enough for us to flag you" principle.

 

On the subject of discharges and pardons (at least in Canada), here's a couple of useful links to give Canadian travellers an idea of what information may be cross-linked to NCIC and therefore available to US authorities. I've not been able to find the information going the otherway (for discharged or pardoned Americans), but if someone did find some helpful links...?

 

http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/pub/A5.htm

https://www.nationalpardon.org/

Edited May 9, 2014 by Jackytar

[jan-n-john]

That was an interesting story. MacDonald's should not have had their coffee that hot, but that woman was also an idiot for holding it between her legs where the pressure would pop the lid off and it could spill. I did that with coke as a kid before myself was in big trouble with my mom for that mess hence I would have never tried that with coffee! Lol! but perhaps that woman had never had that experience? hard to believe huh? Perhaps she did deserve something, her bills paid as she asked, but not what she got, however, if Mac Donald's had paid her bills which were only a couple of thousand, she would not have sued them. Perhaps the judge was sending them a message?

 

This is getting seriously off topic, but the McDonalds thing often comes up, and there is nearly universal misinformation and misunderstanding about it, so I sometimes post, in a largely futile effort to correct the record. Two things: as a matter of the facts, McD was mostly in the wrong, not the lady who burned herself; I won't go into it here, but if anyone is actually interested in knowing the facts, google and read. Second: McD was not given its large fine due to the coffee incident itself -- rather, they were fined because they withheld very pertinent evidence from the court (the evidence that went to why they had culpability, which is why they tried to hide it). Hiding evidence is a major crime irrespective of the facts of the case itself, and the punishment the judge imposed was mainly for that, not for the matter at hand. In short, the disposition of the case was very reasonable in light of what took place, and in no way constitutes evidence that the US legal system is "out of control."

Edited May 9, 2014 by jan-n-john

[Aquahound]

If one is accused, tried and found guilty, there is a record that goes into a national database. In Canada, it's the Canadian Police Information Center (CPIC). It is interfaced with the US's National Crime Information Center (NCIC), so law enforcement officers (which includes border services officers, these days) can access both countries' information.

 

I understand all that. I'm actually part of the process. ;) I'm just wondering how the Canadians could have this info early enough to deny boarding. Here in the U.S., the manifest is handed to CBP and if there is a problem with a passenger, that problem is addressed upon the ship visiting the first U.S. port, that sometimes being the original embarkation port. I know a little about Canadian Customs, but I don't know how they would know a crim history prior to the attmepted boarding.

[momofmeg]

Umm, have they checked with the cruise companies? I have a criminal record from a mistake in college and cruised Carnival no problems, the RCCL security team called me and asked me to send them certain court documents and asked me to provide details of the case, along with any documentation, a letter detailing why I should be able to sail and the purpose of the cruise.

 

Yes. I do think it matters the type of conviction. I also know they could not buy a house that was near a day care. Now, I do not know exactly what he was convicted of-she has never said, and I don't pry, but I have my own ideas.

[momofmeg]

This is getting seriously off topic, but the McDonalds thing often comes up, and there is nearly universal misinformation and misunderstanding about it, so I sometimes post, in a largely futile effort to correct the record. Two things: as a matter of the facts, McD was mostly in the wrong, not the lady who burned herself; I won't go into it here, but if anyone is actually interested in knowing the facts, google and read. Second: McD was not given its large fine due to the coffee incident itself -- rather, they were fined because they withheld very pertinent evidence from the court (the evidence that went to why they had culpability, which is why they tried to hide it). Hiding evidence is a major crime irrespective of the facts of the case itself, and the punishment the judge imposed was mainly for that, not for the matter at hand. In short, the disposition of the case was very reasonable in light of what took place, and in no way constitutes evidence that the US legal system is "out of control."

 

I have read news articles on it. Maybe I am thinking of another case? Then again, news organizations rarely tell the actual truth, they always put their "spin" to it in what they feel is the best way to sell the news. No I have not read court documents on it, are those privy to the public?