Editor’s note: This entire decision deal with the question of whether fish seized pursuant to the Criminal Code should be detained for a period in excess of 90 days. However, it is arguable that the Criminal Code is not applicable to either the seizure of fish or for orders for continued detention. In this regards see R.v. Ulybel Enterprises Ltd., …Full Summary
These summaries of recent Fisheries law cases are prepared by Brad Caldwell of Caldwell & Co., 401-815 Hornby Street, Vancouver, B.C., V6Z 2E6. Telephone (604) 689-8894, E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org. Papers related to Fisheries law and additional groupings of Fisheries law cases by sub-topic can be obtained at the full version of the website.
Readers are urged to consult CanLii for updates to the cases digested on this site.
This was an aboriginal rights case where a vessel was seized as a result of a charge under the Fisheries Act. The issue was whether or not the Crown must bring an application under section 71(4) of the Fisheries Act for continued detention of a seized fishing boat within 90 days of the seizure. Upon reviewing sections 50, 52, 71, …Full Summary
This case involved an application under s. 71(4) of the Fisheries Act on behalf of a number of First Nations fishermen to have seized gear returned pending trial on charges of illegal fishing. At issue was whether or not the Crown had to make application under s. 71(4) of the Act if they wished to retain seized gear for more …Full Summary