This case involved a master and vessel owner who were charged with exceeding the amount of catch provided by their halibut quota after they failed to properly process the papers necessary for the transfer of a second quota to their vessel. The summary conviction appeal court upheld the conviction imposed by the trial court after rejecting a defence based upon both officially induced error and due diligence. With respect to the defence of officially induced error, the court rejected the defence, because it was not a situation where an official told the accused that the prohibited course of action was allowed.
Editors Note: For a similar case, see R. v. Gant (22 July 1988) No. 13192 (B.C. Co. Ct.)
See also paper: IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE . . . OR IS IT? The Defence of Officially Induced Error Fisherman Life July 2006 posted on the papers section of the Fisheries section of this website.