R. v. Rutley (L.) et al., (2004) 252 Sask.R. 53 (PC)

• Judge: Halderman, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: June 14, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2004), 252 Sask.R. 53 (PC);2004 SKPC 85

R. v. Rutley (L.) (2004), 252 Sask.R. 53 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] Sask.R. TBEd. JL.053

Her Majesty the Queen v. Vaughn Fiala and Lorne Rutley

(2004 SKPC 85)

Indexed As: R. v. Rutley (L.) et al.

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Halderman, P.C.J.

June 14, 2004.

Summary:

The accused were charged with hunting on posted land without permission, contrary to s. 41(1) of the Wildlife Act. The accused argued that the land was not posted in the manner required by s. 41. They also argued that there was a common-law abuse of process entitling them to have the charges stayed.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found the accused guilty and dismissed the application for a stay.

Editor's Note: For a prior decision in this matter see 246 Sask.R. 268.

Fish and Game - Topic 2301

Hunting offences - General principles - What constitutes hunting - [See Fish and Game - Topic 2386 ].

Fish and Game - Topic 2386

Hunting offences - Hunting on posted land - Defences - The accused were charged with hunting on posted land without permission, contrary to s. 41(1) of the Wildlife Act - Signs indicating hunting with permission only had been posted on the corners of the land except for the southeast corner - The accused argued that the land was not posted in the manner required by s. 41 - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found the accused guilty - The land was posted as required by s. 41 - It was not necessary to post a sign at all four corners - While there was some uncertainty about whether the elk were shot on the land in question, it was not necessary to make a determination in that regard because the evidence established that after being shot the elk died on the land in question and were removed from that land by the accused - The taking away of animals killed by hunters fell within the definition of "hunting" in the Wildlife Act - The court further found that the accused were guilty on the basis that they had actual knowledge of the fact that the entire section of land was posted - See paragraphs 15 to 33.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Presley, [1988] S.J. No. 618; 71 Sask.R. 239 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Kronberger (1982), 18 Sask.R. 95 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Blackstock (1983), 10 W.C.B. 73 (Sask. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 34].

Statutes Noticed:

Wildlife Act, S.S. 1998, c. W-13.12, sect. 41(1) [para. 3].

Counsel:

Cam Scott, Crown Prosecutor;

Tom Healey, for the defendants.

This matter was heard before Halderman, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on June 14, 2004.