R. v. St. Pierre and Thibault, (1983) 45 N.B.R.(2d) 435 (PC)

• Judge: Strange, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of New Brunswick (Canada)
• Case Date: March 23, 1983
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (1983), 45 N.B.R.(2d) 435 (PC)

R. v. St. Pierre (1983), 45 N.B.R.(2d) 435 (PC);

    45 R.N.-B.(2e) 435; 118 A.P.R. 435

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

R. v. St. Pierre and Thibault

Indexed As: R. v. St. Pierre and Thibault

Répertorié: R. v. St. Pierre and Thibault

New Brunswick Provincial Court

County of Sunbury

Strange, P.C.J.

March 23, 1983.

Summary:

Résumé:

The accused were charged with hunting wildlife with the assistance of lights contrary to s. 33(1)(b) of the Fish and Wildlife Act.

The New Brunswick Provincial Court acquitted the accused.

Civil Rights - Topic 4945

Presumption of innocence - Evidence and proof - Reverse onus provisions - The New Brunswick Provincial Court discussed the factors to be considered and the test to apply to determine if a reverse onus provision is unreasonable - See paragraphs 26 to 30.

Civil Rights - Topic 4945

Presumption of innocence - Evidence and proof - Reverse onus provisions - Under s. 109 of the New Brunswick Fish and Wildlife Act if the Crown proves the accused possessed a light capable of attracting or locating wildlife the onus is on the accused to prove by a preponderance of evidence that he did not commit the offence of hunting with a light - The New Brunswick Provincial Court held that the reverse onus provision of s. 109(1) was constitutionally invalid because it offended the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty as guaranteed in s. 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - See paragraphs 8 to 31.

Fish and Game - Topic 2409

Hunting offences - With a light - Burden of proof - Under s. 109 of the New Brunswick Fish and Wildlife Act if the Crown proves the accused possessed a light capable of attracting or locating wildlife the onus is on the accused to prove by a preponderance of evidence that he did not commit the offence of hunting with a light - The New Brunswick Provincial Court held that the reverse onus provision of s. 109(1) was constitutionally invalid because it offended the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty as guaranteed in s. 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - See paragraphs 8 to 31.

Fish and Game - Topic 2409

Hunting offences - With a light - Burden of proof - The Crown proved that at night the accused backed into two driveways shining the vehicle lights into fields, hunting season was not open, there were shotgun shells, hunting vest and knife in the vehicle and that one accused had a hunting licence - The accused explained that they were looking for wood which was cut and piled in the fields - The New Brunswick Provincial Court held that the Crown evidence raised a prima facie case but the accuseds' explanation raised a reasonable doubt - The court acquitted the accused - See paragraphs 32 to 54.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Davis; R. v. Doiron (1954), 108 C.C.C. 257, consd. [para. 12].

R. v. Shelley (1981), 37 N.R. 320; 59 C.C.C.(2d) 292, consd. [para. 21].

R. v. Appleby [1972] S.C.R. 303; 3 C.C.C.(2d) 354, consd. [para. 24].

R. v. Proudlock [1979] 1 S.C.R. 525; 24 N.R. 199; 5 C.R.(3d) 21, consd. [para. 46].

Tremblay v. R. [1969] S.C.R. 431; [1970] 4 C.C.C. 120, consd. [para. 47].

Statutes Noticed:

Game Act, R.S.N.B. 1952, c. 95, sect. 106(1) [para. 11]; sect. 106(2) [para. 9].

Fish and Wildlife Act, S.N.B. 1980, c. F-14.1, sect. 1(1), sect. 33(1)(b), sect. 109 [para. 8].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 19]; sect. 11(d) [para. 20].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Phipson on Evidence (10th Ed. 1963), p. 53-54 [para. 47].

Counsel:

William J. Kearney, for the Crown;

George T. Yeamans, for the accused.

This case was heard by STRANGE, P.C.J., of the New Brunwick Provincial Court who on March 23, 1983, delivered the following decision: