R v. Kinghorne, 2003 NBQB 341

In Due Diligence, Fish Cases, Offences, Search and Seizure on (Updated )

This case involved a charge of having on board a fishing vessel scallops having more than the permitted average count of 45 meats per 500 grams. At trial a number of defences were raised including (1) illegal search, (2) due diligence, and (3) mistake of fact. With respect to the due diligence and mistake of fact defences, the accused unsuccessfully …

Full Summary

R v. Croft, 2003 NSCA 368

In Due Diligence, Fish Cases, Offences on (Updated )

This case involved a fisherman who was charged with catching six undersize lobsters out of a total catch of 100 to 150 lbs of lobsters. Despite evidence that he used a properly calibrated measuring device, the trial judge rejected a due diligence defence and apparently a separate defence based upon the maxim de minimus non curat lex (the law does …

Full Summary

R v. Tremblett, 2007 CanLII 69301

In Due Diligence, Fish Cases, Offences on (Updated )

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 Summary

R v. Chandler, No. 23728 Prince Rupert Registry) (B.C.S.C)

In Due Diligence, Fish Cases, Offences on (Updated )

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 Summary

R v. Gallant, 2005 PESCTD 6

In Due Diligence, Fish Cases, Offences on (Updated )

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 Summary

R v. Doody, 2005 CanLII 6039

In Due Diligence, Fish Cases, Offences on (Updated )

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 Summary

R v. Keough, 2006 NLTD 142

In Due Diligence, Fish Cases, Offences on (Updated )

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 Summary

R v. Raymond, [2006] NBPC 27

In Due Diligence, Fish Cases, Offences on (Updated )

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 Summary

R v. Biggin, 2007 CanLII 13690

In Due Diligence, Fish Cases, Offences on (Updated )

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 Summary