R. v. Hawkins Bros. Fisheries Ltd., (2006) 308 N.B.R.(2d) 163 (CA)

• Judge: Turnbull, Larlee and Robertson, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (New Brunswick)
• Case Date: November 30, 2006
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (2006), 308 N.B.R.(2d) 163 (CA);2006 NBCA 114

R. v. Hawkins Bros. Fisheries (2006), 308 N.B.R.(2d) 163 (CA);

    308 R.N.-B.(2e) 163; 797 A.P.R. 163

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2006] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. DE.025

Hawkins Bros. Fisheries Ltd. (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(6/06/CA; 2006 NBCA 114)

Indexed As: R. v. Hawkins Bros. Fisheries Ltd.

New Brunswick Court of Appeal

Turnbull, Larlee and Robertson, JJ.A.

November 30, 2006.

Summary:

An aquaculture site operator was charged with failing to comply with a ministerial order, issued pursuant to s. 19(2) of the Aquaculture Act (N.B.), requiring the opera­tor to remove all fish and nets from the site.

The New Brunswick Provincial Court dismissed the charges, ruling that the minis­ter did not have the authority to make the order. The prosecution appealed.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, in a decision reported 299 N.B.R.(2d) 66; 778 A.P.R. 66, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. The aquaculture site operator applied for leave to appeal and, if leave were granted, appealed.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal. The court restored the not guilty verdicts at first instance.

Administrative Law - Topic 574

The hearing and decision - Decisions of the tribunal - Collateral attack - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal stated: "While it is dangerous for an appellate court to make sweeping statements with respect to the state of the law, it is possible to articu­late some general propositions for guidance purposes. If a regulatory regime provides an adequate appeal mechanism for chal­lenging administrative action, it is more likely than not that the failure to pursue that avenue will block a collateral attack in either judicial review or penal proceedings [...] If the regulatory regime does not provide for an adequate appeal mechanism, an aggrieved person may challenge the va­lidity of an administrative order either in judicial review or penal proceedings. Cor­relatively, the failure of an accused to seek judicial review of an order is not fatal to a collateral attack in penal proceedings" - See paragraphs 1 to 33.

Administrative Law - Topic 574

The hearing and decision - Decisions of the tribunal - Collateral attack - [See Fish and Game - Topic 5607 ].

Fish and Game - Topic 5607

Enforcement - General - Judicial review - Section 19(2) of the Aquaculture Act (N.B.) authorized the Minister of Agricul­ture, Fisheries and Aquaculture to issue an order requiring an aquaculture site operator to take the necessary measures to prevent the spread of disease, parasites, toxins and contaminants - An operator could be charged with a provincial offence for failure to comply (ss. 30(3) and 30(4)) - Section 28 barred judicial review in any court of a s. 19(2) order except for excess of jurisdiction or denial of natural justice - There was no right to appeal to a tribunal or a court - An operator charged with failure to comply with a ministerial order argued in defence that the Minister had no statutory authority to make the order - The trial judge accepted the argument and found the operator not guilty - The Crown appealed, arguing that the operator's attack on the validity of the ministerial order constituted an impermissible collateral attack in penal proceedings - The appeal was allowed - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal restored the trial judge's deci­sion where the presumption that the legis­lature did not intend that an accused would be deprived of his right to make full an­swer and defence to charges laid under the Aquaculture Act had not been rebutted.

Practice - Topic 6270

Judgments and orders - Administrative orders - Collateral attack - [See Fish and Game - Topic 5607 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Consolidated Maybrun Mines Ltd. et al., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 706; 225 N.R. 41; 108 O.A.C. 161, folld. [para. 1].

R. v. Klippert (Al) Ltd., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 737; 225 N.R. 107; 216 A.R. 1; 175 W.A.C. 1, consd. [para. 1].

R. v. Consolidated Maybrun Mines Ltd. et al. (1996), 89 O.A.C. 199; 28 O.R.(3d) 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Rothesay Residents Association Inc. v. Rothesay Heritage Preservation & Re­view Board et al. (2006), 299 N.B.R.(2d) 369; 778 A.P.R. 369; 2006 NBCA 61, refd to. [para. 19].

Saint John (City) Pension Board et al., Re (2006), 301 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 783 A.P.R. 1; 2006 NBCA 70, refd to. [para. 19].

Saint John (City) Pension Board v. New Brunswick (Superintendent of Pensions) -see Saint John (City) Pension Board et al., Re.

Farrah v. Quebec (Attorney General) and Transport Tribunal, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 638; 21 N.R. 595, refd to. [para. 20].

Crevier v. Quebec (Attorney General) et al., [1981] 2 S.C.R. 220; 38 N.R. 541, refd to. [para. 20].

Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan Inc. v. Scott et al. (2006), 301 N.B.R.(2d) 204; 783 A.P.R. 204; 2006 NBCA 74, refd to. [para. 20].

Human Rights Commission (N.B.) v. Pot­ash Corp. of Saskatchewan Inc. - see Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan Inc. v. Scott et al.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1386 v. Bran­sen Construction Ltd. et al. (2002), 249 N.B.R.(2d) 93; 648 A.P.R. 93; 2002 NBCA 27, refd to. [para. 20].

Taylor and Western Guard Party v. Cana­dian Human Rights Commission, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892; 117 N.R. 191, dist. [para. 24].

Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canadian Liberty Net et al., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 626; 224 N.R. 241, consd. [para. 26].

Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canadian Liberty Net et al., [1996] 1 F.C. 787; 192 N.R. 313 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 26].

Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canadian Liberty Net et al., [1996] 1 F.C. 804; 192 N.R. 298 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 26].

R. v. Wilson, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 594; 51 N.R. 321; 26 Man.R.(2d) 194, consd. [para. 28].

R. v. Litchfield, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 333; 161 N.R. 161; 145 A.R. 321; 55 W.A.C. 321, consd. [para. 29].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Greenbaum (M.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 674; 149 N.R. 114; 61 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Sharma (D.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 650; 149 N.R. 161; 61 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 31].

Harelkin v. University of Regina, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 561; 26 N.R. 364, refd to. [para. 32].

Executive Director of Assessment (N.B.) v. Ganong Bros. Ltd. et al. (2004), 271 N.B.R.(2d) 43; 712 A.P.R. 43; 2004 NBCA 46, refd to. [para. 35].

Hoyt v. Murphy (2004), 268 N.B.R.(2d) 322; 704 A.P.R. 322; 2004 NBCA 19, refd to. [para. 35].

Comeau et al. v. Breau et al. (1994), 145 N.B.R.(2d) 329; 372 A.P.R. 329 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Irving Oil Ltd. v. Petro-Canada Inc. and Daly et al. (1988), 88 N.B.R.(2d) 78; 224 A.P.R. 78 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Statutes Noticed:

Aquaculture Act, S.N.B. 1988, c. A-9.2, sect. 28(2) [para. 16].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Mullan, David J., Administrative Law (2001), pp. 468, 469 [para. 30].

Counsel:

James L. Mockler and Cory H.D. Ryan, for the appellant;

William B. Richards and Iain R.W. Hol­lett, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on September 21, 2006, by Turnbull, Larlee and Robertson, JJ.A., of the New Brunswick Court of Ap­peal.

The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered in both official languages on No­vember 30, 2006, by Robertson, J.A.