R. v. Labrador Fisheries Union Shrimp Co. et al., (2007) 295 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 8 (NLPC)

• Judge: Joy, P.C.J.
• Court: Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 06, 2007
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (2007), 295 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 8 (NLPC)

R. v. LFU Shrimp Co. (2007), 295 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 8 (NLPC);

    911 A.P.R. 8

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. FE.037

Her Majesty the Queen v. Labrador Fisheries Union Shrimp Co. Ltd. and Her Majesty the Queen v. Jerome Kelly

(1704A00393; 1704A000394)

Indexed As: R. v. Labrador Fisheries Union Shrimp Co. et al.

Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court

Happy Valley-Goose Bay

Joy, P.C.J.

September 20, 2007.

Summary:

The owner and skipper of a fishing vessel were each charged with catching more crab than the licence permitted contrary to s. 22(7) of the Fisheries General Regulations and committed an offence giving rise to a penalty under s. 78(a) of the Fisheries Act.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court acquitted the accused. The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they caught more crab than the licence permitted.

Fish and Game - Topic 2170

Fishing offences - Particular offences - Catching and retaining fish in excess of quota - The owner and skipper of a fishing vessel were each charged with catching more crab than the licence permitted (Fisheries General Regulations, s. 22(7)) - The Crown relied primarily on documentary evidence (the Fishing Licence, Purchase Slip Invoices, Logbook Sheets, Dockside Monitoring Sheets, and Revised Dockside Monitoring Form) - The accused challenged whether the Crown had established the weight of the crab - They challenged the contingencies in the weighing of the crab (checking the scales, taking into account the weight of the pallets (if any) and pans, observing the presence or absence of holes in the bottom of the pans, calculating an allowance for barnacles, and accounting for an allowance for ice and water in the pans) - The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court acquitted the accused - A case of over-fishing crab generally required careful consideration of documentary evidence - The court concluded that "[t]he errors, omissions, ambiguities and inconsistencies in the documentation concerning testing the scales, accounting for pallets (if any) and pans, the failure to make entries in the comments section of the Dockside Monitoring Sheets, the omissions and limitations of the forms as forms, the extra figures in Column B of the Ice Check Forms, the clarity of writing and calculation errors, uncertain and vague support provided through the testimony of the fishery officers, and the failure to call any of the dockside monitors or other witnesses together gives rise to the inevitable conclusion that the Crown has failed to prove the act of the offence, the actus reus, beyond a reasonable doubt".

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Ralph, [1999] N.J. No. 110 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Lifchus (W.) (1997), 216 N.R. 215; 118 Man.R.(2d) 218; 149 W.A.C. 218; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Starr (R.D.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144; 258 N.R. 250; 148 Man.R.(2d) 161; 224 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Bisson (J.) et autres, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1097; 173 N.R. 237; 65 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. R.W.A. (2005), 203 O.A.C. 56; 34 C.R.(6th) 271 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Matthews v. Canada (Attorney General) (1996), 118 F.T.R. 81 (T.D.), affd. (1999), 242 N.R. 181 (F.C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2000), 255 N.R. 398 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Perry (M.) (2003), 222 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 313; 663 A.P.R. 313 (Nfld. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 126].

R. v. Keough (C.) (2006), 260 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 278; 786 A.P.R. 278 (N.L.T.D.), refd to. [para. 130].

R. v. W.D.S., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 521; 171 N.R. 360; 157 A.R. 321; 77 W.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 131].

R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352, refd to. [para. 131].

R. v. Cox (W.T.) (2003), 225 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 86; 672 A.P.R. 86 (N.L.T.D.), dist. [para. 132].

R. v. Pittman, 2007 CarswellNfld 11 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), dist. [para. 133].

R. v. Harrison, 1982 CarswellOnt 1232 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 134].

R. v. Caines, 2007 CarswellNfld 2 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 137].

R. v. Joudrey (1992), 113 N.S.R.(2d) 117; 309 A.P.R. 117; 1992 CarswellNS 7 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 144].

R. v. Prasad, 2002 CarswellOnt 5842 (C.J.), refd to. [para. 146].

Everett v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) (1994), 169 N.R. 100 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 156].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Sinclair Prowse, Janet A., and Bennett, Elizabeth, Working Manual of Criminal Law (2007) (Release 3), generally [para. 13].

Counsel:

Mark Stares, for the Crown;

Norman J. Whalen, Q.C., for both accused.

This matter was heard on February 6, 2007, by Joy, P.C.J., of the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on September 20, 2007.