R. v. Tomah (J.K.), (2005) 296 N.B.R.(2d) 101 (PC)

• Judge: Jackson, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of New Brunswick (Canada)
• Case Date: October 06, 2005
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (2005), 296 N.B.R.(2d) 101 (PC);2005 NBPC 39

R. v. Tomah (J.K.) (2005), 296 N.B.R.(2d) 101 (PC);

    296 R.N.-B.(2e) 101; 769 A.P.R. 101

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Temp. Cite: [2005] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. DE.031

Her Majesty the Queen v. Jamie Kyle Tomah

(02854007; 2005 NBPC 39)

Indexed As: R. v. Tomah (J.K.)

New Brunswick Provincial Court

Jackson, P.C.J.

December 15, 2005.

Summary:

An accused was charged with hunting with the aid of a light. The Crown relied on s. 109(2) of the Fish and Wildlife Act which provided that proof of the use of a light was prima facie proof of hunting. The accused brought a motion challenging the constitu­tional validity of s. 109(2).

The New Brunswick Provincial Court denied the motion.

Civil Rights - Topic 4945

Presumption of innocence - Evidence and proof - Reverse onus provisions - The accused was charged with hunting with a light - The Crown relied on s. 109(2) of the Fish and Wildlife Act which provided that proof of the use of a light was prima facie proof of hunting - The accused sub­mitted that s. 109(2) was inconsistent with the presumption of innocence enshrined in s. 11(d) of the Charter - The New Bruns­wick Provincial Court denied the motion - Section 109(2) did not force the accused to prove some fact to escape conviction - Hunting wildlife was the essential element that the Crown had to prove - The Crown had to prove that the light was used to locate or attract wildlife to gain the benefit of the prima facie case - The trier of fact on the prima facie case was not required to convict - If the trier of fact was satisfied that the light might have been used for an innocent purpose, a conviction was not required to be entered.

Civil Rights - Topic 4946

Presumption of innocence - Evidence and proof - Prima facie case - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4945 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5223

Evidence and witnesses - Burden of proof - Burden on accused where Crown proves a prima facie case - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4945 ].

Fish and Game - Topic 2409

Hunting offences - With a light - Evidence and proof - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4945 ].

Fish and Game - Topic 2484

Hunting offences - Evidence and proof - Burden on accused - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4945 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Thorne and Marks (1985), 64 N.B.R.(2d) 29; 165 A.P.R. 29 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. A.J., [2001] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) No. 6; 2001 CanLII 18025 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Rivers (1986), 75 N.B.R.(2d) 378; 188 A.P.R. 378 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Oakes (1983), 32 C.R.(3d) 193 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Vaillancourt, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 636; 81 N.R. 115; 10 Q.A.C. 161; 68 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 281; 209 A.P.R. 281; 60 C.R.(3d) 289; 39 C.C.C.(3d) 118, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Whyte, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 3; 86 N.R. 328; 64 C.R.(3d) 123; 6 M.V.R.(2d) 138; [1988] 5 W.W.R. 26; 42 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 29 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273; 51 D.L.R.(4th) 481; 35 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Chaulk and Morrissette, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303; 119 N.R. 161; 69 Man.R.(2d) 161; [1991] 2 W.W.R. 385; 62 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 1 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 2 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 14].

Statutes Noticed:

Fish and Wildlife Act, S.N.B. 1980, c. F-14.1, sect. 109(2) [para. 1].

Counsel:

J.T. Keith McCormick, for the Crown;

Harold L. Doherty, for the accused.

This motion was heard on October 6, 2005, by Jackson, P.C.J., of the New Bruns­wick Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on December 15, 2005.