This case involved an alleged arrangement whereby in order to get around a restriction upon the holding of fishing licences by companies, two companies arranged for an individual to hold a fishing licence in trust for the companies. In an action to enforce the alleged agreement, the court reviewed the evidence and declined to find such a trust. In doing so, the court said that “[o]ne starts with a basic premise that . . . the registered owner of the licence was the beneficial owner, and that in order to be successful, . . . [the parties alleging the trust] were obliged to establish there was a trust imposed . . .” (para. 24). Upon reviewing evidence that the fish companies normally reduced its trust arrangement to writing, the court took an adverse inference from the fact that the alleged trust agreement at issue had not been reduced to writing.
Upon appeal, the finding of the trial court (Carver, J.) was upheld.