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: email@example.com CV: Link.
Readers are urged to consult CanLii for updates to the cases digested on this site.
R v. Grandy, 2005 NLTD 40
The accused was a commercial lobster fisherman who was caught hauling 14 unmarked lobster pots intermingled with his tagged pots. He plead guilty and a joint submission was made requesting: A fine of $2,000; Forfeiture of the 14 unmarked lobster pots; No forfeiture of his boat, motor and contents; and Prohibition from fishing for the first five days of the …Full Summary
R v. Hynes, 2004 CanLII 48134
The accused was the holder of a licence allowing a fishing vessel to fish for snow crab in a defined area. The fishing vessel was observed in a area outside the defined fishing area with crab fishing gear hanging over its side. As well, buoys bearing the CFV number of the fishing vessel were found in numerous locations outside the …Full Summary
R v. T.&T. Fisheries Inc.,  P.E.I.J. No. 74
In a complicated fact situation involving a company owned fishing vessel that was illegally fishing for Lobster while the sole director was not aboard, based upon the rule in Hodge’s case (1838), 168 E.R. 1136 and circumstantial evidence produced by the Crown, the court was not prepared to convict the director for his personal involvement. The court was also not …Full Summary
R v. Kukuljan and Emil K. Fishing Corp., 2008 BCCA 490
This case involved charges against the the owner of a salmon fishing vessel for unlawfully retaining incidental catch of sockeye and coho salmon. Since the owner of the vessel was not aboard at the time of the offence, the owner was charged under both s. 78.3 of the Act with respect to liability of employers and s. 78.4 with respect …Full Summary