This case involved a fisheries officer who was inspecting a property under s. 49 of the Fisheries Act to see if logging on the property had any impact on fish habitat. While attempting to question the woman who was the owner of the property in question, her husband, the accused, aggressively placed himself between his wife and the fisheries officer, preventing him from even attempting to communicate with the property owner and ordering him off the property.
At trial, the husband was convicted of obstruction.
One of the issues arising at the summary conviction appeal was whether questioning of the owner of the property at her ranch house, away from the waterway was authorized under the Fisheries Act.
In holding that the search was valid, the appeal court referred to s.49(1.2) of the Act which provides that the owner or person in charge of a place stall (a) give all reasonable assistance and (h) provide the officer with any information he or she may reasonably require.
The second issue was whether or not the conduct of the property owner’s husband amounted to obstruction. In upholding a conviction for obstruction, the summary conviction appeal judge said as follows:
This was not simply saying rude words or unpleasant words. There was a phvsical stance, body language and viewed totally, a course of conduct which was intended to impede and hinder the officer and obstruct him from what he was attempting to do . . . (para. 5)