This case involved a fishing vessel that was purse seining for capelin. In this fishery, the most common method of estimating the weight of one’s catch is to use baffle boards. On the day in question, the accused’s vessel was using this method. The seine net was off the starboard side of the vessel and the captain was using a …
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: firstname.lastname@example.org CV: Link.
Readers are urged to consult CanLii for updates to the cases digested on this site.
Gavin v. R, 2017 PESC 6
This case involved a charge of fishing for lobster in a closed area. The accused’s fishing vessel was observed by a surveillance aircraft using (1) a state of the art camera, (2) a very high-powered telescope, (3) a software program that enhanced the live video, (4) radar assisted/integrated info software, (5) forward looking infrared radar, and (6) a 6,000,000 candlepower …Full Summary
R v. McIntyre, 2004 NBPC 10
R v. Tremblett,  N.J. No. 247
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. Pittman, 2007 CanLII 283
This case involved a fish harvester who was charged with failing to comply with a term of his licence requiring his herring net to be set one fathom below the surface. At trial, a fishery guardian testified to finding the net in question attached to some buoys and floating less than one fathom below the surface. He also testified that …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