R. v. Pierce Fisheries Ltd.

R. v. Pierce Fisheries Ltd.

Majority held s.3(1)(b) of the Lobster Fishery Regulations creates a strict liability offence; mens rea is not an essential element because the regulation is protective and regulatory in nature (conservation of lobster beds), the statutory scheme lacks fault words in the provision, and Parliament elsewhere specified fault where intended; therefore possession of undersized lobsters can ground liability absent proof of guilty knowledge.

Citation
[1971] SCR 5
Parties
Appellant (crown): Her Majesty The Queen; Respondent (accused): Pierce Fisheries Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 June 1970
Procedural Posture
Criminal Regulatory Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Nova Scotia Appeal Division After Acquittal by a Magistrate (leave Granted)
Outcome
Appeal allowed by majority; question of law answered in the negative; acquittal set aside for determination in accordance with decision and matter remitted to Provincial Magistrate; Cartwright C.J. dissenting
Legal Topics
Mens Rea, Strict Liability, Possession, Statutory Interpretation, Conservation Regulation
Source Language
English
Fisheries Law Criminal Law Administrative/regulatory Law Mens Rea Strict Liability Possession Statutory Interpretation Conservation Regulation

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty The Queen

Appellant (crown)

Pierce Fisheries Limited

Respondent (accused)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Regulatory Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Nova Scotia Appeal Division After Acquittal by a Magistrate (leave Granted)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether mens rea is an essential ingredient for an offence under s.3(1)(b) of the Lobster Fishery Regulations
  2. 2 Whether possession of undersized lobsters requires proof of knowledge of size
  3. 3 Construction of Fisheries Act and Lobster Fishery Regulations in context of public interest conservation

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held s.3(1)(b) of the Lobster Fishery Regulations creates a strict liability offence; mens rea is not an essential element because the regulation is protective and regulatory in nature (conservation of lobster beds), the statutory scheme lacks fault words in the provision, and Parliament elsewhere specified fault where intended; therefore possession of undersized lobsters can ground liability absent proof of guilty knowledge.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed by majority; question of law answered in the negative; acquittal set aside for determination in accordance with decision and matter remitted to Provincial Magistrate; Cartwright C.J. dissenting

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Question of law (whether mens rea is essential to s.3(1)(b)) answered in the negative