R. v. Rideout

R. v. Rideout

Court found the Crown proved the actus reus (fishing outside Area 23D) beyond a reasonable doubt; the 2001 license condition, read with the regulatory definition of Crab Fishing Area 23, sufficiently defined Area 23D; the defendant did not take reasonable steps (e.g. contact DFO or plot boundaries) and thus failed to establish due diligence or a reasonable belief; officially induced error did not apply; defendant guilty.

Citation
2003 NSPC 5
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant/accused: Ricky Kenneth Rideout
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Regulatory Criminal Prosecution Under the Fisheries Act (s.78) / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Defendant found guilty of contravening licence condition contrary to s.78 of the Fisheries Act
Legal Topics
Due Diligence Defence (s.78.6), Officially Induced Error, License Conditions and Territorial Description, Actus Reus Location of Fishing, Mistake of Law Vs Mistake of Fact, Seizure of Proceeds
Source Language
English
Fisheries Law Regulatory Offences Criminal Law Administrative Law Due Diligence Defence (s.78.6) Officially Induced Error License Conditions and Territorial Description Actus Reus Location of Fishing +2 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Ricky Kenneth Rideout

Defendant/accused

Procedural Posture

Regulatory Criminal Prosecution Under the Fisheries Act (s.78) / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the defendant fishing outside the licensed area (23D)?
  2. 2 Was the licensed description of Area 23D sufficiently ascertainable?
  3. 3 Did the defendant establish due diligence or a reasonable and honest belief under s.78.6?

Ratio Decidendi

Court found the Crown proved the actus reus (fishing outside Area 23D) beyond a reasonable doubt; the 2001 license condition, read with the regulatory definition of Crab Fishing Area 23, sufficiently defined Area 23D; the defendant did not take reasonable steps (e.g. contact DFO or plot boundaries) and thus failed to establish due diligence or a reasonable belief; officially induced error did not apply; defendant guilty.

Court Disposition

Defendant found guilty of contravening licence condition contrary to s.78 of the Fisheries Act

Orders

  • Defendant convicted as charged under s.78 of the Fisheries Act
  • Proceeds of the catch seized by DFO in the amount of $35,362.25 (seized at Louisbourg)