Due Diligence - Admiralty Law

These summaries of recent Fisheries law cases are prepared by Brad Caldwell of Caldwell & Co., 404-815 Hornby Street, Vancouver, B.C., V6Z 2E6. Telephone (604) 689-8894, E-mail: brad@marine-law.ca CV: Link.

Readers are urged to consult CanLii for updates to the cases digested on this site.

Due Diligence - need to avoid killing incidental catch of endangered chum salmon - Offences - salmon gill netting

R v. Dudoward et al.

In Due Diligence, Fish Cases, Offences on June 14, 2017 (Updated June 14, 2017)

Four vessel operators were charged with gill net fishing for salmon in a closed area after drifting from an open area into a closed area. The open area was open to fishing for a number of different species of salmon but closed for chum salmon because there was a run of chum salmon in the vicinity that was endangered. The …

Due Diligence - Fishing Without a Designated Operator - Offences

R v. Harris, 2016 CanLii 81499

In Due Diligence, Fish Cases, Offences on December 20, 2016 (Updated December 20, 2016)

This case involved a crab fishing vessel that was required under its licence to have the licence holder or a designated operator on board the fishing vessel at all times when fishing and offloading. When the licence holder could not be on board the fishing vessel because of health reasons, she and her son attempted to have a new crew …

Full Summary

Due Diligence - Logbook offence - No system to ensure compliance

R v. Pisces Fishery Incorporated, 2016 ONSC 618

In Due Diligence, Fish Cases, Offences on June 28, 2016 (Updated June 28, 2016)

This case involved a company that employed a captain to operate its commercial fishing vessel on a lake in Ontario. The Crown planted a covertly installed tracking device on the vessel and then later compared the daily catch reports prepared by the captain to the information provided by the tracking device. As a result, it was discovered that the captain …

Full Summary

(b) receiving authorization number and (c) updating log book. - Due Diligence - East coast halibut fishery - Offences - Removing fish from vessel prior to (a) contacting Fisheries Resource Centre

R v. Howell, 2015 NLPC 1314,

In Due Diligence, Fish Cases, Offences on November 17, 2015 (Updated November 17, 2015)

A due diligence defence was not established, as writing down catch numbers on a piece of cardboard does not constitute due diligence.

Full Summary

Due Diligence - Offences - Retaining Whelk less than 63 millimeters in length

R v. Rideout, 2014 NLTD 27

In Due Diligence, Fish Cases, Offences on August 28, 2014 (Updated August 28, 2014)

This case involved a fish harvester who was charged with violating a licence condition that prohibited him from retaining whelk that were less than 63 mm in overall length. At trial the fish harvester gave evidence that his primary method of grading the whelk for size was by using a grading table that that was an open table with a …

Full Summary

Due Diligence - Offences - Possession of two "V" notched female lobster out of catch of 360 pounds - Waiting to do final examination at dock does not establish due diligence defence.

R v. v. Gallant, 2013 CanLII 8718 (NL PC)

In Due Diligence, Fish Cases, Offences on August 28, 2013 (Updated August 28, 2013)

Full Summary

Due Diligence - Offences - Onus of Proof - Whether s. 44(2)(3) of the Atlantic Fisheries Regulations is an element of the offence or a due dilligence provision.

R v. Arbuckle, 2013 NSSC 2

In Due Diligence, Fish Cases, Offences on March 12, 2013 (Updated March 12, 2013)

This case involved a charge under s. 44 of the Atlantic Fisheries Regulations for possession of undersize herring that was incidental catch. S. 44 of the Atlantic Fishery Regulations provided: 44. (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (4), no person shall fish for, buy, sell or have in his possession any herring that is less than 26.5 cm in length. …

Full Summary

closed area - Due Diligence Defence - Offences

R v. Smith, 1996 CanLII 2803

In Due Diligence, Fish Cases, Offences on July 17, 2012 (Updated July 17, 2012)

The accused was the owner of a gill net vessel which participated in a commercial chum opening. His regular deckhand was not available and he was therefore required to hire another experienced deckhand. Before doing so, he obtained the recommendation of a previous employer of the deckhand. Evidence was led that it was common practice for gill net vessels to …

Full Summary

Page 1 of 5
1
2
3
...
5
→