This case involved charges against a fisherman of landing halibut contrary to his commercial trawl licence on three different occasions. This licence provided that the fisherman could land an unlimited amount of turbot but only a set quota of other species caught as a by-catch. When these quotas are reached the vessel must stop fishing. The vessel is not allowed …
Full SummaryR v. Cox, 2003 NLSCTD 56
This was a summary conviction appeal of a case that involved a charge against the owner of a ground fish vessel for continuing to fish for a species (cod, plaice and halibut) after his allowable by-catch had been exceeded. Upon appeal, the following issues were raised: Correct interpretation the licence condition regarding when one must stop fishing because of incidental …
Full SummaryR v. Kinghorne, 2003 NBQB 341
This case involved a charge of having on board a fishing vessel scallops having more than the permitted average count of 45 meats per 500 grams. At trial a number of defences were raised including (1) illegal search, (2) due diligence, and (3) mistake of fact. With respect to the due diligence and mistake of fact defences, the accused unsuccessfully …
Full SummaryR v. Croft, 2003 NSCA 368
This case involved a fisherman who was charged with catching six undersize lobsters out of a total catch of 100 to 150 lbs of lobsters. Despite evidence that he used a properly calibrated measuring device, the trial judge rejected a due diligence defence and apparently a separate defence based upon the maxim de minimus non curat lex (the law does …
Full SummaryR v. Croft, 2004 NLSCTD 46
Not yet available.
Full SummaryR v. Tremblett, 2007 CanLII 69301
This case involved a fishing vessel fishing with an otter trawl. Although a "fish finder" did not indicated many fish in the area and the first four trawls caught few fish, on the fifth trawl a very large number of fish were caught. An attempt was made to winch the net aboard, but it was discovered that the vessel could …
Full SummaryR v. Chandler, No. 23728 Prince Rupert Registry) (B.C.S.C)
This case involved the captain of a crab fishing vessel who was charged with possession of undersize crabs. In upholding the trial judges finding of due diligence, the summary conviction appeal court distinguished two lobster cases (R. v. Cameron [1996] N.S.J. 83 and R. v. Morrison) because unlike the lobster cases, after the initial measuring by the crew member the …
Full SummaryR v. Gallant, 2005 PESCTD 6
This case involved an oyster fisherman who collected 7 tubs of oysters in his boat over a period of two hours and forty minutes and then moved to a more sheltered area adjacent to his oyster lease to sort the oysters and discard the undersize. Of 5,306 oysters, 4,480 were undersize. While acknowledging that under some circumstances the need to …
Full SummaryR v. Doody, 2005 CanLII 6039
This case involved charges against a lobster fish harvester who had a bait fishing licence to catch herring by gillnet. It was a condition of the bait licence that the head rope of the net be at lease one meter below the surface of the water so as to allow Atlantic salmon to swim over the net. After finding the …
Full SummaryR v. Keough, 2006 NLTD 142
This case involved a charge of fishing for crab during a closed time. The accused ran a defence based upon evidence that he had been unable to retrieve his crab traps prior to the end of the season because of bad weather. He gave evidence that he contacted someone named "Tony" at the St. John’s office who advised that "they …
Full Summary