R. v. Marsland (J.C.), (2012) 393 Sask.R. 175 (CA)

• Judge: Smith, Ottenbreit and Caldwell, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: March 22, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2012), 393 Sask.R. 175 (CA);2012 SKCA 47

R. v. Marsland (J.C.) (2012), 393 Sask.R. 175 (CA);

    546 W.A.C. 175

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] Sask.R. TBEd. MY.024

Jason Cody Marsland (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (Canada) (respondent) and Her Majesty the Queen (Saskatchewan) (respondent)

(CACR2026; 2012 SKCA 47)

Indexed As: R. v. Marsland (J.C.)

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Smith, Ottenbreit and Caldwell, JJ.A.

April 25, 2012.

Summary:

The accused was charged with transporting white-tailed deer interprovincially without a valid federal permit (Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act (Can.) (WAPPRIITA), s. 6(3)), with possession of white-tailed deer that had been transported interprovincially contrary to the WAPPRIITA (s. 8(a)), and with unlawfully importing white-tailed deer/wildlife without an import permit (Wildlife Act (Sask.), s. 31(1)(b)).

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court, in a decision reported 326 Sask.R. 147, acquitted the accused on all charges. The Crown (Canada) appealed and the Attorney General of Saskatchewan filed a notice of participation.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench (summary conviction appeal judge), in a decision reported 374 Sask.R. 255, allowed the appeals respecting all three charges and entered convictions on those charges. The court imposed a fine of $5,000 for the convictions under ss. 6(3) and 8(a) of the WAPPRIITA and a fine of $1.00 for the conviction under s. 31 of the Wildlife Act. The accused appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, the summary conviction appeal judge having made no error of law. As to sentence, it was acknowledged that the summary conviction appeal judge mistakenly believed that the legislation in force at the time imposed a minimum sentence of $5,000. The Crown also acknowledged that the two convictions under the WAPPRIITA would be subject to the Kienapple principle because they were essentially for the same act. Thus, the court stayed the charge under s. 8(a) and imposed a $100 fine for the conviction under s. 6(3) of the WAPPRIITA. The sentence for the conviction under the Wildlife Act remained unchanged.

Fish and Game - Topic 1669

Offences - General - Possession of wildlife - Interprovincial or international transportation of wildlife - The accused, a deer farmer, was transporting five white-tailed deer from his deer farming ranch in Alberta to a first nations hunt farm operation in Saskatchewan - En route, the accused was stopped in Saskatchewan - He was convicted of transporting white-tailed deer interprovincially without a valid permit (Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act (Can.) (WAPPRIITA, s. 6(3)), possession of white-tailed deer that had been transported interprovincially (WAPPRIITA, s. 8(a)) and with unlawfully importing white-tailed deer without an import permit (Wildlife Act (Sask.), s. 31(1)(b)) - These were strict liability offences - The accused did not have the import license he was required to have under the Wildlife Act - Although it was not possible for him to obtain such a license because the first nations could not obtain a provincial license for its hunt farm, that did not excuse the accused from the Wildlife Act requirements - That violation of the Wildlife Act, led to the violation under WAPPRIITA - The accused was guilty under WAPPRIITA if he had no provincial import license as required by the Wildlife Act - Further, the accused did not establish due diligence, nor was the defence of officially induced error available - The accused appealed - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal - See paragraphs 1 to 35.

Fish and Game - Topic 2735.2

Offences - Sentence - Fines and penalties - Interprovincial or international transportation of wildlife - The accused, a deer farmer, was transporting five white-tailed deer from his deer farming ranch in Alberta to a first nations hunt farm operation in Saskatchewan - En route, the accused was stopped in Saskatchewan - He was convicted of transporting white-tailed deer interprovincially without a valid permit (Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act (Can.) (WAPPRIITA, s. 6(3)), possession of white-tailed deer that had been transported interprovincially (WAPPRIITA, s. 8(a)) and with unlawfully importing white-tailed deer without an import permit (Wildlife Act (Sask.), s. 31(1)(b)) - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal stayed the charge under s. 8(a) on the basis of the Kienapple principle - The court imposed a $100 fine for the conviction under s. 6(3) of the WAPPRIITA and affirmed a fine of $1.00 for the conviction under s. 31 of the Wildlife Act - See paragraphs 36 to 39.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Greenwood (1986), 50 Sask.R. 129 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Lévis (City) v. Tétreault, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 420; 346 N.R. 331; 2006 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Shiner (W.) (2007), 264 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 186; 801 A.P.R. 186; 2007 NLCA 18, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Molis, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 356; 33 N.R. 411, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Kienapple, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729; 1 N.R. 322, refd to. [para. 37].

Statutes Noticed:

Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act, S.C. 1992, c. 52, sect. 6(3), sect. 8(a), sect. 10(1) [para. 21].

Wildlife Act, S.S. 1998, c. W-13.12, sect. 31, sect. 32 [para. 23].

Counsel:

Lyle Bouvier and Dallas Lommer, for the appellant;

Douglas Curliss, for the Federal Crown;

Anthony Gerein, for the Provincial Crown.

This appeal was heard on March 22, 2012, before Smith, Ottenbreit and Caldwell, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. The following decision was delivered for the court by Ottenbreit, J.A., on April 25, 2012.