R. v. Courtney

R. v. Courtney

The court interpreted the Variation Order wording 'from September 6' by reference to the Interpretation Act s.27(4) and concluded the day named is excluded so the variation became effective on September 7; accordingly none of the defendants were fishing during a closed time and the Crown failed to prove the actus reus. Alternatively, even if the order were effective Sept 6 the Crown failed on the balance of probabilities to show reasonable steps were taken to notify the fishermen at sea (inadequate lead time and ineffective broadcast practice); the accuseds' credible testimony of non‑receipt and industry practice required acquittal.

Citation
2012 NSPC 20
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Robert Courtney; Defendant: Thomas W. Fudge; Defendant: John MacMullin; Defendant: Lawrence S. Moore; Defendant: John Gregory Organ; Defendant: Joseph Avery Rambeau
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal (regulatory Offence Under the Fisheries Act) / Joint Trial Oral Decision (acquittal)
Outcome
All six defendants acquitted (not guilty).
Legal Topics
Variation Order, Notice to Fishers, Strict Liability, Computation of Time, Broadcasting of Regulatory Notices, Bycatch Regulation
Source Language
English
Fisheries Law Criminal Law Administrative Law Statutory Interpretation Variation Order Notice to Fishers Strict Liability Computation of Time +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Robert Courtney

Defendant

Thomas W. Fudge

Defendant

John MacMullin

Defendant

Lawrence S. Moore

Defendant

John Gregory Organ

Defendant

Joseph Avery Rambeau

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal (regulatory Offence Under the Fisheries Act) / Joint Trial Oral Decision (acquittal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the effective time of the Variation Order (when does a closure 'from' a date take effect)?
  2. 2 Were reasonable steps taken to notify affected fishermen of the Variation Order such that convictions could be sustained under the Statutory Instruments/Regulations scheme?
  3. 3 Whether the Crown proved the actus reus of fishing during a closed time given the interpretation and notice findings

Ratio Decidendi

The court interpreted the Variation Order wording 'from September 6' by reference to the Interpretation Act s.27(4) and concluded the day named is excluded so the variation became effective on September 7; accordingly none of the defendants were fishing during a closed time and the Crown failed to prove the actus reus. Alternatively, even if the order were effective Sept 6 the Crown failed on the balance of probabilities to show reasonable steps were taken to notify the fishermen at sea (inadequate lead time and ineffective broadcast practice); the accuseds' credible testimony of non‑receipt and industry practice required acquittal.

Court Disposition

All six defendants acquitted (not guilty).

Orders

  • Defendants Robert Courtney, Thomas W. Fudge, John MacMullin, Lawrence S. Moore, John Gregory Organ and Joseph Avery Rambeau found not guilty of fishing during a closed time and charges dismissed.