Canada Case Law

Regroupement des pêcheurs professionels du sud de la Gaspesie Inc. v. Listuguj Mi’gmaq Government

Court

Federal Court

La Cour fédérale accueille en partie la motion en radiation visant des affidavits déposés dans une demande de contrôle judiciaire liée à une entente sur les pêches, en éliminant certains paragraphes et pièces, mais en conservant une large preuve de contexte et de procédure équitable.

• Duty to consult
• Procedural fairness
• Judicial review
• Admissibility of evidence
• Motions to strike
• Procedural-fairness

Read case analysis

R. v. Mossman

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Sections 121(1) of the Environmental Management Act and 78.2 of the Fisheries Act do not displace the presumption of strict liability or require proof of subjective knowledge of the circumstances or activities constituting the corporation's actus reus; secondary liability requires proof of the corporation's commission of the offence and an actus reus component showing the accused's active or passive involvement (e.g. failure to prevent foreseeable harm) but not mens rea.

Source excerpt

• Secondary liability
• Strict liability
• Actus reus
• Acquiescence
• Due diligence
• Statutory interpretation

Read case analysis

Mowi Canada West Inc. v. Canada (Fisheries, Oceans and Coast Guard)

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The appeal is dismissed because the Minister met procedural fairness obligations (operators had notice of the Minister’s concerns and conflicting science and were not prejudiced by additional materials), there was no legitimate expectation to exclusive reliance on DFO/CSAS, and the Minister’s decision to refuse licences was reasonable under Vavilov given the factual record, the acknowledged scientific uncertainty, and the application of a precautionary approach with adequate reasons to depart from departmental advice.

Source excerpt

• Procedural fairness
• Duty to consult
• Reasonableness review
• Precautionary principle
• Licensing

Read case analysis

Unified Fisheries Conservation Alliance v. Independent Fisheries Limited

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Defendants failed to meet the persuasive burden to show that the Amended Statement of Claim lacked required material particulars under CPR 38.03(3); many demands sought evidentiary detail or information likely solely within defendants' knowledge and not material facts that must be pleaded. Given the regulatory complexity and public interest, disclosure/production and discovery are the appropriate mechanisms to develop the detailed factual record, so an order for further particulars is not warranted and the motion is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Particulars and pleading requirements
• Civil conspiracy
• Intentional interference with economic relations
• Unjust enrichment
• Trespass
• Novel tort doctrine

Read case analysis

Sipekne’katik First Nation v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Balancing the exceptional factors relevant to intervenor costs — nature and extent of UFCA's interest, active adversarial participation, anticipated involvement, the late cancellations that caused wasted effort, and the absence of cost terms on the intervention order — the court concluded UFCA was entitled to a partial indemnity but not the excessive amount claimed; the Tariff was inapplicable and a modest lump sum of $15,000 awarded to the Intervenor as fair compensation for wasted effort and to uphold procedural fairness.

Source excerpt

• Treaty rights
• Moderate livelihood
• Justification (badger test)
• Intervenor costs
• Discontinuance
• Duty to consult

Read case analysis

R. v. Cameron

Court

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

Court held that, absent reliable expense evidence, an additional fine under s.79 should reflect the gross value of the illegal catch; applied sentencing principles of proportionality, restraint and totality and imposed fines of CAD 30,000 (closed time) and CAD 10,000 (coordinates) plus a CAD 36,561.35 s.79 fine, ordered one-year VMS installation at defendant's cost, one-year prohibition from fishing groundfish in Division 4S and Subarea 4T2a, and required a sincere letter of apology to the At Sea Observer.

Source excerpt

• Monetary benefits under s.79
• Interpretation of s.79
• Observer safety and obstruction
• Vessel monitoring
• Prohibition orders
• Fines and totality

Read case analysis

Terrapure BR Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court

Federal Court

Judicial review was granted after the Federal Court found the Fisheries Act direction unreasonable because of the sulfate analysis and illogical monitoring conditions.

• Judicial review
• Direction under s.38(7.1) of the fisheries act
• Definition of deleterious substance
• Monitoring and toxicity testing requirements
• Procedural fairness
• Ultra vires and statutory interpretation

Read case analysis

R. v. Nichols

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Appeals were allowed after the court found a reasonable apprehension of bias from mid-trial reasons and escalating judicial interventions, requiring a new trial.

• S.35 aboriginal rights defence
• Charter remedies and s.24(2)
• Reasonable apprehension of judicial bias
• Fresh evidence (palmer criteria)
• Voir dire and trial management
• Forfeiture of property

Read case analysis

R. v. Steer

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court imposed a six-year global sentence, forfeiture, restitution, broad prohibition orders, and monetary penalties after finding repeated, deliberate Fisheries Act offences.

• Sentencing
• Fisheries act offences
• Forfeiture
• Disgorgement (s.79)
• Prohibition orders
• Piercing corporate veil

Read case analysis

Prince Edward Island Fishermen’s Association Ltd. v. Canada (the Attorney General)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court dismissed PEIFA’s judicial review over Atlantic Bluefin Tuna quota allocation, finding no reviewable decision and, alternatively, no unreasonableness or estoppel.

• Standing
• Justiciability
• Reasonableness review (vavilov)
• Promissory estoppel
• Quota allocation policy
• Delegated discretion

Read case analysis