R v. Rideout

In Fish Cases, Miscellaneous, Offences on (Updated )

This was a companion case to R. v. Cox 2003 NLSCTC 56 (digested herein). In addition to the issues raised in R. v. Cox, this summary conviction appeal also raised the issue of who has the onus of proof regarding the question of whether or not the licensing official was properly authorized to issue licence conditions on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries. At trial, the court ruled that onus of proof lay on the Crown and acquitted on the grounds that the Crown had failed in meeting that onus. Upon appeal, the court applied a “presumption of regularity” set aside the acquittal.