R. v. Daley Brothers Ltd., (1995) 131 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 201 (NFTD)

• Judge: Orsborn, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (Canada)
• Case Date: May 03, 1995
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (1995), 131 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 201 (NFTD)

R. v. Daley Bros. Ltd. (1995), 131 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 201 (NFTD);

    408 A.P.R. 201

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Daley Brothers Limited (respondent)

(1994 St. J. No. 2557)

Indexed As: R. v. Daley Brothers Ltd.

Newfoundland Supreme Court

Trial Division

Orsborn, J.

June 12, 1995.

Summary:

A fishery officer requested Daley Brothers Ltd. to provide daily information returns respecting capelin purchases, and to forward those returns by 10 a.m. the following day. Most of the returns were received after the 10 a.m. deadline. Daley was charged with failure to provide information requested by a fishery officer, contrary to s. 61(4) of Fisheries Act.

The trial judge, in a decision not reported in this series of reports, acquitted the com­pany on the grounds that failure to submit information by the time designated by the fishery officer was not an offence under the Act. The Crown appealed.

The Newfoundland Supreme Court, Trial Division, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. The court held that although no time limit was stipulated in the Act, there was an obligation to provide the information no later than the time reasonably necessary to produce and transmit the information. In any prosecution the Crown had to establish the time reasonably necessary. There was no offence until the expiration of that time, notwithstanding any time limit contained in the fishery officer's request.

Fish and Game - Topic 2167

Fishing offences - Failure to furnish return of catch - A fishery officer requested Daley Brothers Ltd. to provide daily infor­mation returns respecting capelin pur­chases, and to forward them by 10 a.m. the following day - Most of the returns were late - Daley was charged with failure to provide information requested by a fishery officer (Fisheries Act, s. 61(4)) - The Newfoundland Supreme Court, Trial Divi­sion, held that even though s. 61 did not stipulate a time limit, there was an obliga­tion to provide the information no later than the time reasonably necessary to produce and transmit the information - In any prosecution, the Crown had to estab­lish the time reasonably necessary - There was no offence until the expiration of that time, notwithstanding any time limit con­tained in the fishery officer's request.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Savory (1992), 108 N.S.R.(2d) 245; 294 A.P.R. 245 (C.A.), refd to [paras. 9, 10].

R. v. McCaul (1989), 90 N.S.R.(2d) 426; 230 A.P.R. 426 (C.A.), refd to [para. 11 et seq.].

R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299; 21 N.R. 295; 40 C.C.C.(2d) 353, refd to [paras. 13, 14].

R. v. Fernandez (1980), 29 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 361; 82 A.P.R. 361 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to [paras. 17 et seq.].

Carling O'Keefe Breweries of Canada Ltd. v. Newfoundland (Minister of Finance) (1993), 113 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 271; 353 A.P.R. 271 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to [para. 21].

R. v. Sproule (1987), 81 N.S.R.(2d) 308; 203 A.P.R. 308 (Co. Ct.), refd to [para. 31].

Lister (Ronald Elwyn) Ltd. et al. v. Dunlop Canada Ltd. (1982), 42 N.R. 181; 135 D.L.R.(3d) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to [paras. 37, 41].

Ronald Elwyn Lister Ltd. - see Lister (Ronald Elwyn) Ltd.

Bank of Baroda v. Panessar, [1986] 3 All E.R. 751 (Ch. D.), refd to [para. 38 et seq.].

Statutes Noticed:

Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. F-14, sect. 48 [para. 27].

Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14, sect. 61 [paras. 3, 5, 22]; sect. 61(1), sect. 61(2) [para. 5 et seq.]; sect. 61(3) [paras. 5, 22]; sect. 61(4) [para. 2 et seq.]; sect. 61(5) [paras. 5, 23]; sect. 78 [para. 6]; sect. 78.6 [para. 7 et seq.];

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, sect. 12 [paras. 16, 18].

Counsel:

Anne Fagan, for the Crown;

Rosalie McGrath, for the accused.

This appeal was heard on May 3, 1995, by Orsborn, J., of the Newfoundland Supreme Court, Trial Division, who filed the follow­ing deci­sion on June 12, 1995.