This case involved a fishing vessel fishing with an otter trawl. Although a "fish finder" did not indicated many fish in the area and the first four trawls caught few fish, on the fifth trawl a very large number of fish were caught. An attempt was made to winch the net aboard, but it was discovered that the vessel could …
Full SummaryR v. Chandler, No. 23728 Prince Rupert Registry) (B.C.S.C)
This case involved the captain of a crab fishing vessel who was charged with possession of undersize crabs. In upholding the trial judges finding of due diligence, the summary conviction appeal court distinguished two lobster cases (R. v. Cameron [1996] N.S.J. 83 and R. v. Morrison) because unlike the lobster cases, after the initial measuring by the crew member the …
Full SummaryR v. Gallant, 2005 PESCTD 6
This case involved an oyster fisherman who collected 7 tubs of oysters in his boat over a period of two hours and forty minutes and then moved to a more sheltered area adjacent to his oyster lease to sort the oysters and discard the undersize. Of 5,306 oysters, 4,480 were undersize. While acknowledging that under some circumstances the need to …
Full SummaryR v. Doody, 2005 CanLII 6039
This case involved charges against a lobster fish harvester who had a bait fishing licence to catch herring by gillnet. It was a condition of the bait licence that the head rope of the net be at lease one meter below the surface of the water so as to allow Atlantic salmon to swim over the net. After finding the …
Full SummaryR v. Keough, 2006 NLTD 142
This case involved a charge of fishing for crab during a closed time. The accused ran a defence based upon evidence that he had been unable to retrieve his crab traps prior to the end of the season because of bad weather. He gave evidence that he contacted someone named "Tony" at the St. John’s office who advised that "they …
Full SummaryR v. Raymond, [2006] NBPC 27
This case involved a trawl vessel that commenced fishing in a area where a lobster vessel had already set a string of traps. After entangling its trawl gear in the string of lobster traps, charges were laid under s. 37(1) of the Atlantic Fishery Regulations for failing to maintain a distance of at least one-half nautical mile between the trawl …
Full SummaryR v. Biggin, 2007 CanLII 13690
This case involved a commercial crab fisher whose marked crab traps were found well within a closed area. After a useful review of the law regarding due diligence, mistake of fact, the definition of "fishing" and the onus of proof, the court rejected a due diligence defence on the following basis: In this case, the crab pots were well within …
Full SummaryR v. Quinlan Brothers Ltd., 2011 NLCA 22
This case involved a fish processing company and its two weigh masters who were charged with under-reporting the weight of a load of snow crab by approximately 5,000 pounds. At trial, the second weigh master advanced a defence of mistake of fact and the fish processor advanced a defence of due diligence. With respect to the mistake of fact defence, …
Full SummaryF.H v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53
This is pronouncement by the Supreme Court of Canada on the civil burden of proof "on a balance of probabilities". Although this is not a fisheries case, since this is the burden of proof by which an accused fisher must establish a due diligence defence, it is an important decision for fisheries prosecutions. In this case the court rejected an …
Full SummaryR v. Neary, 2010 NSSC 466
This case involved charges under s. 48 of the Atlantic Fisheries Regulations for possessing undersize mackeral that were incidental catch. Section 48 of the Regulations provides as follows: (1)Subject to ss. (2) and (4), no person shall fish for, buy, sell or have in his possession any mackerel that is less than 25 cm in length. (2) Subsection (1) does …
Full Summary