This case involved a fishing vessel operator who was also an elected representative of a crab fishermen committee. Trip limits were imposed in the conditions of the crab fishing licences at the request of fish processors. For a number of years the limits had not been enforced. Prior to the fishing season in question, the accused attended a meeting with DFO in his capacity as a Crab Committee Representative. At the meeting the crab fishermen requested that trip limits be removed from the licence conditions. At the meeting the accused was told by a DFO official that DFO had not enforced trip limits for six years and that they would not be enforced for the upcoming season.
On the basis of this evidence, the court had had no problem in finding that the accused had established elements 2 to 6 of the test set out in Levis (City) v. Tetreault, {2006] S.C.J. No. 12 at para 26. The only contentious element was the first element that: "an error of law or of mixed law and fact was made". The Crown argued on the basis of Canada v. Shiner, (2007] N. J. No. 101 that the accused had not established the first element, presumably because he only believed the law would not be enforced. In rejecting this argument and acquitting the accused the court distinguished Canada v. Shiner on the basis that trap limits are only included as a term of the licence and not in a regulation that specifically prohibits a certain type of fishing.