458093 BC Ltd v. Dietterle

This case concerned the interpretation of an agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant relating to the roe herring fishery. The Plaintiff alleged an agreement between it and the Defendant fishermen the terms of which required the Plaintiff to lease the Defendant fishing licences and to provide specific services such as packing and trucking. Expenses for such services were to be recovered “from the final price payable to the fisherman”. In return for providing the fishing licences and services, the Defendant would fish exclusively for the Plaintiff. The agreement further specified how the profits from the fishing would be split between the parties but was silent on what would happen in the event of a loss. Precisely such an event occurred after the 1997 fishery and the Plaintiff sought to recover from the Defendant a portion of the loss. The Prothonotary dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim holding that there was no provision in the contract imposing personal liability on the fishermen in the event of a loss and that the Plaintiff had failed to establish a “long standing and consistent practice” that such losses were shared.