R. v. Hayward and Borgald, (1987) 79 N.B.R.(2d) 332 (PC)

• Judge: Strange, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of New Brunswick (Canada)
• Case Date: May 29, 1987
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (1987), 79 N.B.R.(2d) 332 (PC)

R. v. Hayward (1987), 79 N.B.R.(2d) 332 (PC);

    79 R.N.-B.(2e) 332; 201 A.P.R. 332

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

R. v. Mark Hayward and Wayne Borgald

(86-40/406)

Indexed As: R. v. Hayward and Borgald

New Brunswick Provincial Court

Strange, P.C.J.

May 29, 1987.

Summary:

Two hunters were jointly charged with possession of carcasses of migratory game birds (black ducks) in excess of the legal limit.

The New Brunswick Provincial Court acquitted both accused.

Fish and Game - Topic 1700

Offences - Intent or mens rea - Offences of strict liability - The New Brunswick Provincial Court held that the offence of possession of numbers of migratory game birds in excess of the legal limit was an offence of strict liability, to which the defence of due diligence applied - See paragraph 23.

Fish and Game - Topic 2437

Hunting offences - Possession of carcasses in excess of quota - Defences - Due diligence - Two hunters were charged with possession of black ducks in excess of the legal limit - The Crown contended that the hunters had seven black ducks, whereas the le gal limit was six, or three each - The seventh duck could have been a black duck or a hybrid - There was no definition of "black duck" in the Migratory Birds Convention Act or Regulations - The hunters immediately pointed out to the officers the presence of the alleged hybrid and offered explanatory material at trial - The New Brunswick Provincial Court held that short of having an expert accompanying them, the hunters could do no more; the hunters successfully raised the defence of due diligence - See paragraphs 23 to 25.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Sault Ste. Marie, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299; 21 N.R. 295, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Chapin, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 121; 26 N.R. 289, refd to. [para. 23].

Counsel:

Ronald E. Morris, for the Attorney General of Canada;

Michael P. Quinn, for the accused.

This case was heard before Strange, P.C.J., of the New Brunswick Provincial Court, at Burton, Sunbury County, New Brunswick, whose decision was delivered on May 29, 1987.