R. v. McDonald (A.P.) et al., (2002) 203 N.S.R.(2d) 225 (SC)

• Judge: Kelly, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: December 04, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (2002), 203 N.S.R.(2d) 225 (SC);2002 NSSC 66

R. v. McDonald (A.P.) (2002), 203 N.S.R.(2d) 225 (SC);

 635 A.P.R. 225

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. AP.016

Alexander P. McDonald et al. (applicant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(SH 172842; 2002 NSSC 66)

Indexed As: R. v. McDonald (A.P.) et al.

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Kelly, J.

March 8, 2002.

Summary:

The Chief Justice of the Nova Scotia Provincial Court denied an application for the return of fishing boats, gear and catches seized pursuant to the Fisheries Act. The applicants sought certiorari to quash the Chief Justice's decision and mandamus to direct the return of the seized items.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court dismissed the application.

Editor's Note: For related decisions, see 193 N.S.R.(2d) 256; 602 A.P.R. 256 (Prov. Ct.) and 197 N.S.R.(2d) 318; 616 A.P.R. 318 (C.A.).

Criminal Law - Topic 7122

Extraordinary remedies - Certiorari - When available - Fishing boats, gear and catches belonging to the applicant First Nation fishers were seized pursuant to the Fisheries Act - After charges, the appli­cants pleaded "not guilty" - They then applied, under s. 71(4) of the Act, for the return of the seized items - The applicants argued that the Crown had a duty to make an application under s. 71(4) if they wanted to detain seized items longer than 90 days - The Crown replied that s. 71(4) applied only if no proceedings were insti­tuted - Since proceedings were instituted in relation to the seizures, the Crown argued that the seized items could be kept until the proceedings were concluded - The Chief Justice of the Nova Scotia Provincial Court agreed with the Crown and dis­missed the application - The applicants then sought certiorari to quash the decision - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court dis­missed the application where the Chief Justice had not committed a jurisdictional error - The Court stated that in criminal or quasi-criminal matters, there were no interlocutory appeals or interlocutory pre­rogative remedies except in exceptional circumstances.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Wilcox (J.A.) et al. (2001), 192 N.S.R.(2d) 159; 599 A.P.R. 159 (C.A.), consd. [para. 5].

R. v. Fitzpatrick (B.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 154; 188 N.R. 248; 65 B.C.A.C. 1; 106 W.A.C. 1; 102 C.C.C.(3d) 144, consd. [para. 5].

R. v. Sandover-Sly (R.A.) et al. (1999), 2 B.C.T.C. 81 (S.C.), consd. [para. 6].

R. v. Ulybel Enterprises Ltd. (2001), 275 N.R. 201; 206 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 304; 618 A.P.R. 304; 203 D.L.R.(4th) 513 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 7].

R. v. Russell (D.) (2001), 274 N.R. 247; 150 O.A.C. 99 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 17]; refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Murdock (M.) (1995), 141 N.S.R.(2d) 251; 403 A.P.R. 251 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Wood (J.D.) (1998), 170 N.S.R.(2d) 199; 515 A.P.R. 199 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Skogman, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 93; 54 N.R. 34; 13 C.C.C.(3d) 161; [1984] 5 W.W.R. 52; 41 C.R.(3d) 1; 9 Admin. L.R. 153, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Corbeil (1986), 13 O.A.C. 382; 27 C.C.C.(3d) 245 (C.A.), consd. [para. 13].

R. v. Dubois, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 366; 66 N.R. 289; 41 Man.R.(2d) 1; [1986] 3 W.W.R. 577; 25 C.C.C.(3d) 221, consd. [para. 14].

Quebec (Procureur général) v. Girouard, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 254; 87 N.R. 343; 17 Q.A.C. 157; 47 C.C.C.(3d) 88, consd. [para. 15].

R. v. Codina, [1990] O.J. No. 704 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Atlantic Fabricators and Erectors Ltd. (1992), 97 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 325; 308 A.P.R. 325 (Nfld. T.D.), consd. [para. 16].

Statutes Noticed:

Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14, sect. 71 [para. 2]; sect. 83 [para. 8]; sect. 86 [para. 10].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Létourneau, G., The Prerogative Writs in Canadian Criminal Law and Procedure (1976), p. 152 [para. 11].

Salhany, Roger E., Canadian Criminal Procedure (5th Ed. 1989), p. 481 [para. 4].

Counsel:

Douglas E. Brown, for the applicant;

LoriAnne D. Vienotte, for the respondent.

Kelly, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court heard this application at Halifax, N.S., on December 4, 2001, and delivered the fol­lowing decision on March 8, 2002.