Miscellaneous - Case Summaries
The database contains 104 case summaries relating to Miscellaneous. The summaries are sorted in reverse date order with 20 summaries per page. If there are more than 20 summaries, use the navigation links at the bottom of the page.
Please note that to facilitate easier browsing and indentification of a relevant case on small devices, we have truncated the summaries which requires you to click "more" to view a full summary. If you wish to view these summaries without truncation, click here
Offences - Misc. - undersize - catching and retaining - failing to return " forthwith"
R v. Vinh Van Vuong, Delta Prov. Ct. No. 24988
The accused was charged with failing to return undersized crabs to the water " forthwith" . Because the crew were busy hauling traps off of the ground line, undersized crabs remained out of water for periods of 5 to 30 minutes before being measured and returned. The Court reviewed some of the definitions of " forthwith" and concluded that the Crown had failed to prove that the accused did not return the crabs to the water within a reasonable time.
Counsel for Accused: Brad M. Caldwell
Counsel for Crown: Donald Chang
Offences - Sport Fishing - definition of " sport fishing"
R v. William David Sam , (Port Alberni Registry No. 17874) (B.C.S.C.)
In this case the accused was charged under the British Columbia Sports Fishing Regulations with a number of offences including snagging, and not having a sport fishing licence. In the regulations, "sport fishing" was defined as " fishing for recreational purposes" . The accused was convicted at trial. He appealed on the grounds that it had not been proven he was " sport fishing" and that this was an essential element of the offence.
On appeal, Mr. Justice Meredith held that " however difficult it might be to prove that an accused was fishing for pleasure or pastime (as against, for instance, out of hunger or for survival) nevertheless recreation is the vital element that must be proven . . ."
Counsel for the Appellant: H.M.G. Braker
Counsel for the Respondent: J.W. Bennie
This case was recently followed in R. v. Valeres et al. (3 December 1996) Burnaby Provincial Court File No. 57217 (reasons have not been transcribed)
Although the Sport Fishing Regulations have been replaced since the decision of R. v. Sam, the definition of " Sport Fishing" has not changed.
Offences - Possession of undersize lobster - Dealing with perishable evidence - failure of Crown to adequately complete a photographic record of measurements prior to returning to water - No entitlement to stay
R v. v. Crane, 2013 CarswellNfld 258
This case involved four charges including a charge of possession of undersized lobster. The issue in this case was whether the Department of Fisheries (DFO) breached the accused's charter rights by failing to provide the accused with an adequate photographic record of the measuring of the undersized lobster that were returned to the sea after being measured. In concluding that the photographic record was not adequate the court found that:
"In a case involving undersize lobsters --- where the live evidence is returned to the sea, where there can be less than a millimeter of difference separating a guilty verdict from a not guilty verdict, where the Officers have cameras readily available, where the Officers have the calibrated lobster gauge readily available, where due diligence is a good defence --- preserving an adequate photographic record illustrating the carapace size of the lobsters would be a reasonable step. From the various video and photographic images, there was only one lobster photographed in a way to display both ends of the gauge over the carapace."
Based upon these findings of fact, the court applied R. v. La (appeal by Vue), 1997 CanLII 309 (SCC) to find a charter breach as a result of unacceptable negligence by the Crown in preserving evidence. As a result it upheld a stay on the charge of possession of undersize lobsters. In doing so, the court limited the application of its decision as follows:
Upon further appeal, the Appeal Court set aside the stay. In doing so, it stated:
"[T]he rules regarding disclosure do not require the creation or gathering of particular forms of evidence. In this case, there was no obligation on the Crown to take photos or video. It was open to DFO officers, for example, to measure the lobsters and simply record the measurements in their notes. Good investigative practice may well call for the creation of evidence (e.g. photos) that verifies what is recorded in the officers' notes, but the law does not require it."
With respect to the failure to preserve the lobster as evidence the court stated that the "DFO officers released the lobsters as part of the living resource. There is no suggestion that they did so for any other purpose."
With respect to the stay, the court noted that a key issue is whether the accused can "establish actual prejudice to his or her right to make full answer and defence". The court stated that the preferred course is for the trial court to proceed to trial and then assess the issue of the violation in the context of the evidence as it unfolds at trial. Accordingly, the trial judge erred by making a premature decision on the stay application.
Offences - Due Diligence - weigh masters improper filling out purchase slips - Offence - Misc. - Tally Sheet - submission of false statement - aiding and abetting offence requires proof of intent
R v. Walsh, 2010 NLTD 77