This case involved a crab boat that was owned by a group of fishermen who were under suspicion for illegal crab fishing. Although the vessel had not engaged in commercial fishing for some time, it was outfitted for fishing, it was tied up to a dock with crab traps piled upon it, and on the day in question, it had …
Full SummaryR v. Stengler, 2003 SKPC 119
This case involved a charge of exceeding a possession limit arising out of evidence obtained during a roadside search of a motor vehicle. The search was performed pursuant to s. 24 of the Fisheries Act (Saskatchewan), 1994. This section allows for search of a motor vehicle “[w]here due to circumstances, time or location, there could reasonably be expected to be …
Full SummaryR v. Morrel, 2004 NSPC 4
Not yet available.
Full SummaryR v. Leahy, 2004 NSPC 62
P v. Diep, 2005 ABCA 54
This case involved a s. 8 Charter challenge of a warrantless inspection/search of a fish farm facility which in addition to finding unlicensed fish also discovered a large marijuana grow operation. The appeal court upheld the validity of the search for the following reasons: In R v. Jarvis [2002] 3 S.C.R. 757, the Supreme Court of Canada has said that …
Full SummaryR v. Kooktook, 2004 NUCJ 7
R v. King, 2008 PESCTD 18
Upon summary conviction appeal, the appeal court ruled that the act of waiting and watching some undersize lobster that had been discovered pursuant to a legal inspection under s. 49(1) of the Fisheries Act, "from within a warehouse, which was a limited access building that was used by a number of public agencies for various purposes" (para. 23) did not …
Full SummaryR v. Boudreau, 2009 NSPC 26
This case involved a motion during a trial to exclude a statement made by the accused to a fisheries officer. Prior to the making of the statement the accused had been given a Charter warning and had advised that he did not want to call a lawyer "at this time". Based upon the British Columbia Provincial Court decision of R. …
Full SummaryR v. Corcoran, N.J. No. 180 (Nfld. S.C.)
This case involved a variation order which declared that fishing was prohibited in a local area "beginning on January 1 and ending on December 31". The trial judge ruled that the variation order was vague and that it failed to properly prohibit fishing during a "specified period" as within the meaning of the Act. The appeal was allowed and the …
Full SummaryR v. Gorman, 1998 CanLII 3545
This was a summary conviction appeal of an order of a Provincial Court acquitting an accused fisher of an offence on the grounds that a Variation order had not been published in the Canada Gazette. The appeal court set aside the acquittal on the grounds that sections 15(1) and 7(1) j of the Statutory Instruments Act had not been brought …
Full Summary