R. v. Bailey (H.), (2003) 268 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 92 (NLPC)

• Judge: Kennedy, P.C.J.
• Court: Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 03, 2003
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (2003), 268 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 92 (NLPC)

R. v. Bailey (H.) (2003), 268 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 92 (NLPC);

    813 A.P.R. 92

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. JN.016

Her Majesty The Queen v. Hubert Bailey

(No. 0601A00463)

Indexed As: R. v. Bailey (H.)

Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court

Kennedy, P.C.J.

February 4, 2003.

Summary:

The accused fishing captain was charged with failure to comply with conditions of his fishing licence (fishing in wrong zone) and leaving fishing gear (gill nets) unattended in the water for more than 72 consecutive hours.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court found the accused guilty on both counts. The offences were strict liability offences and the accused failed to establish the defence of due diligence.

Fish and Game - Topic 2107

Fishing offences - Defences - Due diligence - The accused fishing captain was charged with noncompliance with the conditions of his fishing licence (fishing in wrong zone) and leaving fishing gear (gill nets) unattended in the water for more than 72 consecutive hours - The accused was functionally illiterate - He never read the conditions of his licence, although he acknowledged he was bound by them - The nets were dropped in the wrong zone because the accused lacked the skill to operate the GPS or other navigational tools on his fishing vessel - The accused submitted that the only reason his nets were not removed was that bad weather kept him from retrieving them - The Newfoundland Provincial Court found the accused guilty - The accused failed to establish the defence of due diligence - He had a duty to know the conditions of his licence - Failure to read those conditions, or become aware of them by other means, could not constitute due diligence - Whether the accused was unable to remove the nets within 72 hours because of bad weather was irrelevant where he failed to exercise due diligence to learn of the 72 hour requirement in the first place - Had the accused read his licence, noncompliance resulting solely from bad weather may have afforded him a defence of due diligence - The court rejected the accused's assertion that the nets were placed in the wrong zone because the GPS malfunctioned - The accused admittedly did not know how to properly use the GPS or other navigational aids on board - The accused was negligent in operating the fishing vessel when he lacked the required navigational skills to do so - The accused's wilful blindness precluded him from arguing an honest mistake of fact as a defence - See paragraphs 39 to 59.

Fish and Game - Topic 2108

Fishing offences - Defences - Honest mistake of fact - [See Fish and Game - Topic 2107 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City) (1978), 21 N.R. 295; 85 D.L.R.(3d) 161 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Chapin, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 121; 26 N.R. 289; 45 C.C.C.(2d) 333 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc. and Chedore (1991), 130 N.R. 1; 49 O.A.C. 161; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society (No. 2) (1992), 139 N.R. 241; 114 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 313 A.P.R. 91; 74 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Longmire (M.E.) (1997), 162 N.S.R.(2d) 52; 485 A.P.R. 52 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Jarvis (S.A.) (1993), 120 N.S.R.(2d) 354; 332 A.P.R. 354 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Agpro Grain Inc. and Bielka (1996), 142 Sask.R. 37 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Kavanagh (T.) (2002), 214 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 350; 642 A.P.R. 350 (Nfld. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Petten (C.) (1995), 129 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 37; 402 A.P.R. 37 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Thibeau, [1996] N.S.J. No. 610 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Ship Elm et al., [1998] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. Uned. 31 (Nfld. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Alexander (B.) (1999), 171 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 74; 525 A.P.R. 74 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Ploughman, [2002] N.J. No. 67 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Starvish (1986), 76 N.S.R.(2d) 43; 189 A.P.R. 43 (Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 43].

Coronach Credit Union Ltd. v. Saskatchewan Housing Corp. (1991), 94 Sask.R. 49 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Boutilier, [1994] N.S.J. No. 690 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Harris (P.) (2001), 198 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 324; 595 A.P.R. 324 (Nfld. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Sansregret (1985), 58 N.R. 123; 35 Man.R.(2d) 1; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 223 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Rainshed, [1996] O.J. No. 5226 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Gould (W.) (1995), 136 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 58; 423 A.P.R. 58 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Penney (H.S.) (1988), 74 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 320; 231 A.P.R. 320 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Devereaux (D.) (1994), 118 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 24; 369 A.P.R. 24 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Hennebury, [2001] N.S.J. No. 398 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Gavin (S.T.) (2002), 212 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 195; 637 A.P.R. 195 (P.E.I. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Troung, [2000] B.C.J. No. 2770 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. D'Entremont (G.) (1994), 130 N.S.R.(2d) 28; 367 A.P.R. 28 (S.C.), dist. [para. 54].

R. v. Rogue River Outfitters, [1996] Y.J. No. 137, refd to. [para. 56].

Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act et al. (1990), 106 N.R. 161; 39 O.A.C. 161 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 57].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Swaigen, John, Regulatory Offences in Canada, Liability and Defences (1992), pp. 80, 81 [para. 44].

Counsel:

J. Hughes, for the Crown;

C. Mills, Q.C., for the accused.

This case was heard before Kennedy, P.C.J., of the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment orally on February 3, 2003.