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: brad@marine-law.ca. 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.

Marshall v. Regina, [1999] 3 SCR 456

In Aboriginal Rights/Defences, Fish Cases on (Updated )

This case involved a Mikmaq Indian who was charged with fishing with a prohibited net during a closed period and selling fish without a licence in violation of Federal fishery regulations. The main issue in the case was whether he possessed a treaty right to sell fish so as to be exempted from compliance with regulations. The Majority of the …

Full Summary

Marshall v. R., [1999] 3 SCR 533

In Aboriginal Rights/Defences, Fish Cases on (Updated )

This was an application by an intervener, West Nova Fisherman’s Coalition, in the Marshall appeal to have the appeal reheard, with a stay pending appeal. Although the application was denied, the court issued reasons clarifying portions of its earlier judgment on September 17, 1999. In particular the court said as follows: (1) The Government of Canada has power to regulate …

Full Summary

R v. Peter Paul, 2002 NSPC 25

In Aboriginal Rights/Defences, Fish Cases on (Updated )

This case involved illegal fishing charges against two First Nations defendants who wished to assert a defence based upon a Marshal type treaty right. Upon reviewing all of the facts, the court distinguished R. v. MacDonald [2001] N.S.J. No. 368 (N.S.C.A.) (digested herein) and granted state funded assistance on the basis of the test set out in R. v. Rowbotham …

Full Summary

R v. Houle, 2003 ABPC 107

In Aboriginal Rights/Defences, Fish Cases on (Updated )

This case involved five aboriginal defendants charged with catching and retaining northern pike of a prohibited length while involved in a sport fishing derby. Amongst other things, a defence was raised based upon a right to fish pursuant to Treaty No. 6 of 1876. Upon review the evidence, the court rejected this defence because the defendants fishing activities were not …

Full Summary