Section 78.4 of the Fisheries Act provides that: “In any prosecution for an offence under this Act, it is sufficient proof of the offence to establish that it was committed by a person in respect of any matter relating to any operations under a lease or licence issued to the accused pursuant to this Act or the regulations, whether or …Full Summary
These summaries of recent Fisheries law cases are prepared by Brad Caldwell of Caldwell & Co., 404-815 Hornby Street, Vancouver, B.C., V6Z 2E6. Telephone (604) 689-8894, E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org CV: Link.
Readers are urged to consult CanLii for updates to the cases digested on this site.
R v. Dudoward et al.
Four vessel operators were charged with gill net fishing for salmon in a closed area after drifting from an open area into a closed area. The open area was open to fishing for a number of different species of salmon but closed for chum salmon because there was a run of chum salmon in the vicinity that was endangered. The …
R v. Harris, 2016 CanLii 81499
This case involved a crab fishing vessel that was required under its licence to have the licence holder or a designated operator on board the fishing vessel at all times when fishing and offloading. When the licence holder could not be on board the fishing vessel because of health reasons, she and her son attempted to have a new crew …Full Summary
R v. Pisces Fishery Incorporated, 2016 ONSC 618
This case involved a company that employed a captain to operate its commercial fishing vessel on a lake in Ontario. The Crown planted a covertly installed tracking device on the vessel and then later compared the daily catch reports prepared by the captain to the information provided by the tracking device. As a result, it was discovered that the captain …Full Summary
R v. Howell, 2015 NLPC 1314,
A due diligence defence was not established, as writing down catch numbers on a piece of cardboard does not constitute due diligence.Full Summary
R v. Rideout, 2014 NLTD 27
This case involved a fish harvester who was charged with violating a licence condition that prohibited him from retaining whelk that were less than 63 mm in overall length. At trial the fish harvester gave evidence that his primary method of grading the whelk for size was by using a grading table that that was an open table with a …Full Summary
R v. v. Gallant, 2013 CanLII 8718 (NL PC)
R v. Arbuckle, 2013 NSSC 2
This case involved a charge under s. 44 of the Atlantic Fisheries Regulations for possession of undersize herring that was incidental catch. S. 44 of the Atlantic Fishery Regulations provided: 44. (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (4), no person shall fish for, buy, sell or have in his possession any herring that is less than 26.5 cm in length. …Full Summary