R. v. Parker, 2021 BCPC 61

Citation: R. v. Parker 2021 BCPC 61 Date: 20210317 File No: 30553-1 Registry: Prince Rupert IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. RICHARD WILLIAM PARKER STUART PARKER REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE D. PATTERSON (Re Accused Richard Parker) Crown Counsel appearing by teleconference: R. Yalowsky Appearing on his own behalf by teleconference: R. Parker Place of Hearing: Prince Rupert , B.C. Date of Judgment: March 17, 2021 [ 1 ] THE COURT: These are my reasons for sentence. I reserve the right to order a transcript and edit these reasons for sentence to

make them grammatically correct or more readable, but the result and substance of my decision will not change. The Offence [2] Richard William Parker has pled guilty to Counts Number 1 and 2 of Prince Rupert Court Information 30553-1.

Count 1 is that: Richard William Parker, on or about the 2nd day of August, 2020, at or near the City of Prince Rupert, British Columbia and elsewherein Canadian fisheries waters, while carrying out activities under the authority of a fishing licence, did fail to comply with a condition ofthat licence by failing to keep the licence in his possession while fishing, contrary to s. 43.4(1) of the Fisheries Act.

Count 2 is: Richard William Parker, on or about the 2nd day of August, 2020, at or near the City of Prince Rupert, British Columbia and elsewherein Canadian fisheries waters, did fish with a barbed hook, contrary to

section 63 of the B.C. Sports Fishing Regulations. [3] THE ACCUSED: Yes, Your Honour [indiscernible/teleconference]. [4] THE COURT: That is okay.

The Facts [5] On August 2, 2020, Fishery Officers were on duty aboard a ship on the Pacific Ocean, not far from Prince Rupert, when theynoted another vessel that appeared to have two adults on board, but four fishing rods with lines in the water. [6] The Fishery Officers pulled beside the second vessel and advised the two adults that they were going to board the second vesseland conduct a fisheries inspection, as allowed under the relevant legislation, which requires: 1. A valid BC Tidal Waters Sport Fishing Licences be produced on request by a Fishery Officer, Conservation Officer or FisheryGuardian; 2.

A valid BC Tidal Waters Sport Fishing Licences be in the possession of a person fishing or transporting fish; and 3. The person fishing must record in ink all chinook, lingcod, and halibut catch on their valid BC Tidal Waters Sport Fishing Licence. [7] Once on board the second vessel, the Fishery Officers noted that there were actually four people on the vessel: two adults andtwo children. The Fishery Officers requested to see everyone’s 2020 BC Tidal Waters Sport Fishing Licences. [8] The two children and the second adult all produced their valid 2020 BC Tidal Waters Sport Fishing Licences, but Mr.

Parker,despite having a valid 2020 BC Tidal Waters Sport Fishing Licence, produced an expired 2018 BC Tidal Waters Sport Fishing Licencefor the Fishery Officers. Mr. Parker had recorded the details of the halibut that he had caught and retained on August 2, 2020, on hisexpired 2018 BC Tidal Waters Sport Fishing Licence. Mr. Parker explained that he had misplaced his 2020 BC Tidal Waters SportFishing Licence, but undertook the fishing trip regardless. [9] The Fishery Officers then ask Mr. Parker how many fish were on board, to which he replied seven.

One of the Fishery Officersthen confirmed that there were, in fact, seven halibut in the cooler. Because Mr. Parker did not have his valid 2020 BC Tidal WatersSport Fishing Licence with him, the Fishery Officers seized his halibut and three of the remaining six halibut, as the daily catch limit wasone halibut per person. [10] The Fishery Officers then inspected the fishing rods on board the vessel, one of which had a single barbed hook on the lure. Asskipper of the vessel, Mr. Parker immediately took responsibility for the barbed hook.

Sentencing for Fisheries Offences [11] The fundamental purposes and principles of sentencing are set out at s. 718, 718.1, and 718.2 of the Criminal Code, with furtherprinciples related to the sentencing for environmental offences set out at paragraphs 13 and 14 of R. v. Brown, 2010 BCCA 225, whereinMr. Justice Tysoe for a unanimous Court of Appeal confirmed that: [13] The leading case on the principles of sentencing for environmental offences is R. v. Terroco Industries Ltd., 2005 ABCA 141,which involved violations of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, S. A. 1992, c.

E-13.3 and the Dangerous GoodsTransportation and Handling Act, S.A. 1998, c. D-3.5. At para. 34, the Alberta Court of Appeal adopted the comment in R. v.

KenastonDrilling (Arctic) Ltd. (1973), 1973, (NWT SC), 41 D.L.R. (3d) 252, that sentencing principles for environmentaloffences require a special approach, and the court focused on the areas of culpability, past involvement with the authorities, acceptanceof responsibility, harm and deterrence. [14] At para. 53, the court observed that deterrence is a key component of sentences for breaches of environmental protection statutes.The court commented, at para. 54, that when the maximum fines under an environmental statute are high, it is a message that low ornominal fines do not meet the goal of the statutes. [12] The penalties applicable in this case are set out in s. 78(

a) of the Fisheries Act: Except as otherwise provided in this Act, every person who contravenes this Act or the regulations is guilty of

A) an offence punishable on

summary conviction and liable, for a first offence, to a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand dollarsand, for any subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding oneyear, or to both …

[ 13 ] Perhaps the leading British Columbia decision with regard to fishing cases remains that of Mr. Justice Punnett in R. v. Schafhauser, 2017 BCSC 2287 . In particular, Justice Punnett's comments at paragraph 11 and 12 are instructive: [11] The Fisheries Act is regulatory legislation designed to protect and preserve a valuable resource and any contravention of it must be taken seriously. Accordingly, the predominant sentencing consideration must be deterrence, both specifically of the accused and generally of other members of the public who are inclined to act in the same manner.

Penalties must be sufficiently severe to communicate to the accused that there is a high risk associated with their illegal activities both for the resource they are affecting and to themselves for their conduct … [12] In this instance, the sentencing judge appropriately highlighted the need for an appropriate sentence to deter similar conduct by the commercial fishing community generally and specifically by Mr. Schafhauser. I note that many of the authorities refer to the fact that a penalty should be more than simply a cost of doing business.

In particular, in this instance, that is significant because this is a regulatory statute designed to preserve a valuable resource. In sentencing on -- [ 14 ] THE ACCUSED: Yes. [ 15 ] THE COURT: -- regulatory offences, our Court of Appeal has accepted the following sentencing principles: culpability, prior record, acceptance of responsibility and remorse -- [ 16 ] THE ACCUSED: Yes. [ 17 ] THE COURT: -- the damage or harm done, and deterrence … [ 18 ] So, in light of all of that, Mr.

Parker, I accept your explanation and that is what it is -- [ 19 ] THE ACCUSED: Oh, thank you. [ 20 ] THE COURT: -- it is an explanation and I accept it. It is not a defence at law and you have -- [ 21 ] THE ACCUSED: No. [ 22 ] THE COURT: -- appropriately pled guilty. So -- [ 23 ] THE ACCUSED: Yes. [ 24 ] THE COURT: What Judge Brecknell, then the Regional Administrative Judge for the North Region of the Provincial Court, stated at paragraphs 13 and 14 in R. v. Roberts, 2018 BCPC 2007 , applies in your case.

Judge Brecknell said: [13] As anybody who has followed the history of fishing in British Columbia would be well aware, that the fish stocks today are more unpredictable and certainly diminishing as a resource from what they were even 20 or 30 years ago.

As a result, compliance with Regulations, and strict compliance at that, is necessary so that there is at least an opportunity for Fisheries and Oceans Canada and others who study the resource to get some understanding of what fish are being taken, the circumstances they are being taken in, and when bycatch is involved that the bycatch is returned to the ocean in as vigorous and healthy a fashion as possible. [14] In deciding on what amount a fine should be, the court must take into account the deterrent aspects both specific deterrence for Mr.

Roberts and general deterrence for other masters of vessels that might participate in the similar fishery. The courts have made it clear in previous cases that if a fine is to be imposed the court should first determine the fine and then, if there is an issue with regard to the fine being able to be paid by the defendant, the court should allow more time to pay the fine rather than diminishing the fine to adapt to the defendant's particular circumstances at the time the fine is imposed. Penalty Imposed [ 25 ] I am in agreement with the prosecutor Mr.

Yalowsky that an appropriate fine in relation to Count Number 1 should be $500 and an appropriate fine in relation to Count Number 2 should be $1,500. Accordingly, I do impose a fine of $500 on Count 1 and a fine of $1,500 on Count Number 2. [ 26 ] It is an expensive lesson that you have learned, Mr.

Parker -- [ 27 ] THE ACCUSED: Yes. [ 28 ] THE COURT: -- one that you will remember, and one, quite frankly, that -- [ 29 ] THE ACCUSED: Yes. [ 30 ] THE COURT: -- will serve as a deterrence to other individuals because the reality is, as soon as that ship leaves the dock, you should have made sure -- [ 31 ] THE ACCUSED: Yes. [ 32 ] THE COURT: -- you had your licence and you should have made sure nobody put that barbed hook --

[ 33 ] THE ACCUSED: Yes. [ 34 ] THE COURT: -- into the water. [ 35 ] THE ACCUSED: Yes, I take full response for that, Your Honour. I am not -- I just look at it, for the moment, the excitement, the family, even though that is all involved, there is still that other responsibility that is serious enough and I am pretty sure my siblings and my grandchildren are well aware, because I am not trying to hide it, and I am explaining it to them that the law is the law.

So, anyway. [ 36 ] THE COURT: Well, how much time are you going to need to pay the $2,000 in fines, sir? [ 37 ] THE ACCUSED: Oh, it can be paid right away. Just give us a place where I can go pay it, the Vanderhoof courthouse or wherever you want it paid. It will be paid right away. [ 38 ] THE COURT: All right. Well, I will give you until April 30 of 2021 to pay the fine and you can go the Government Agent Office or to the courthouse in Vanderhoof when the registry is open to pay that fine. [ 39 ] THE ACCUSED: Okay. So -- I see. Okay. So they will look it up on the website and you know find it.

Okay, yes. [ 40 ] THE COURT: Yes. They will need your name and the court file number, 30553-1, and you can just say, "Judge Patterson -- [ 41 ] THE ACCUSED: [Indiscernible/overlapping speakers]. [ 42 ] THE COURT: -- gave me a fine of $2,000 and I'm here to pay it." [ 43 ] THE ACCUSED: That is right. Yes, sir. [ 44 ] THE COURT: All right. [ 45 ] THE ACCUSED: Thank you, Your Honour. [ 46 ] THE COURT: Thank you very much. Mr. Yalowsky, did I miss anything from your perspective? [ 47 ] CNSL R. YALOWSKY: No, that is everything. Thank you. [ 48 ] THE COURT: Thank you very much, Mr. Yalowsky. Thank you very much, Mr.

Parker. You can both hang up. [ 49 ] THE CLERK: Disconnecting now. [ 50 ] THE ACCUSED: Okay, thank you very much. [ 51 ] THE COURT: Thank you -- [ 52 ] CNSL R. YALOWSKY: I thank Your Honour. [ 53 ] THE COURT: -- and, Madam Clerk, for the record, I am waiving the requirement that Mr. Parker sign the time-to-pay form. (REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED)