R. v. Ivy Fisheries

R. v. Ivy Fisheries

The regulations creating licence conditions are intra vires under s.43 of the Fisheries Act and contraventions are offences under s.78; those offences are strict liability so Crown need only prove the factual breach (established by DFO, observer and business documents) and the onus then shifts to defendants to prove due diligence which none did; delay under s.11(b) was not unreasonable after waivers and apportionment; documentary evidence seized and departmental records were admissible and sufficient to establish guilt on the specified counts; directors and related corporate actors were held liable where accounting and receipts demonstrated participation or receipt of proceeds.

Citation
2006 NSPC 5
Parties
Prosecution: R.; Defendant: Andrew W. Henneberry; Defendant: Clark Andrew Henneberry; Defendant: Marcel Steven Henneberry; Defendant: Wesley L. Henneberry; Defendant: Paul Raymond Parnell; Defendant: James Phillip Ryan; Defendant: Gregory Burton Smith; Defendant: Ivy Fisheries Limited
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal — Fisheries Act Offences / Trial Concluded; Judicial Decision on Guilt (verdict)
Outcome
Convictions entered on multiple counts as specified; one acquittal (Paul Parnell Count 14); no stay on Charter s.11(b) application
Legal Topics
Charter S.11(b) Delay, Strict Liability Offences, Statutory/regulatory Interpretation, Licence Condition Breaches, Documentary Evidence Admissibility, Director/company Liability, Due Diligence Defence, Hailing/notification Requirements
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Administrative Law Fisheries Law Constitutional Law Evidence Law Charter S.11(b) Delay Strict Liability Offences Statutory/regulatory Interpretation +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R.

Prosecution

Andrew W. Henneberry

Defendant

Clark Andrew Henneberry

Defendant

Marcel Steven Henneberry

Defendant

Wesley L. Henneberry

Defendant

Paul Raymond Parnell

Defendant

James Phillip Ryan

Defendant

Gregory Burton Smith

Defendant

Ivy Fisheries Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal — Fisheries Act Offences / Trial Concluded; Judicial Decision on Guilt (verdict)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether breaches of licence conditions in Fisheries regulations constitute offences under the Fisheries Act
  2. 2 What elements the Crown must prove for licence-condition offences and whether mens rea is required
  3. 3 Whether delay violated Charter s.11(b) and whether waiver/apportionment negates breach

Ratio Decidendi

The regulations creating licence conditions are intra vires under s.43 of the Fisheries Act and contraventions are offences under s.78; those offences are strict liability so Crown need only prove the factual breach (established by DFO, observer and business documents) and the onus then shifts to defendants to prove due diligence which none did; delay under s.11(b) was not unreasonable after waivers and apportionment; documentary evidence seized and departmental records were admissible and sufficient to establish guilt on the specified counts; directors and related corporate actors were held liable where accounting and receipts demonstrated participation or receipt of proceeds.

Court Disposition

Convictions entered on multiple counts as specified; one acquittal (Paul Parnell Count 14); no stay on Charter s.11(b) application

Orders

  • Clark Andrew Henneberry: Count #2 guilty; Count #10 guilty
  • Wesley L. Henneberry: Count #3 guilty; Count #4 guilty; Count #5 guilty; Count #6 guilty; Count #10 guilty