R. v. Vukic Date:, 2017 BCPC 393

Citation: R. v. Vukic Date: 20171123 2017 BCPC 393 File No: 39558-1 Registry: Duncan IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. GEORGE LOUIS VUKIC REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE J. P. MACCARTHY Counsel for the Crown: N.W.P. Fraser Appearing on his own behalf G. Vukic Place of Hearing: Duncan , B.C. Dates of Hearing: October 24, 2017 and November 23, 2017 Date of Judgment: November 23, 2017

INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] THE COURT: George Louis Vukic has entered three voluntary guilty pleas for separate types of licensing violations, all being contrary to s. 22(7) of the Fishery (General) Regulations , and, therefore, all being offences contrary to the s. 78 (

a) of the Fisheries Act . [ 2 ] The offences relate to fishing activities being conducted by George Louis Vukic (hereinafter the "Offender") while he was conducting commercial fishing activities of Chum salmon on the 36-foot-long vessel Ms. Maxine (the "Vessel"). At the time of the offences, the Vessel was owned and mastered by the Offender.

He has owned the Vessel since around 1989. [ 3 ] Count 1 on the Information states as follows: [that the Offender] George Louis Vukic, on or about the 28th day of October, 2016, at or near Cowichan Bay, in Area 18, in the Province of British Columbia, being a person carrying on an activity under the authority of a licence, did contravene or fail to comply with a condition of the licence, to wit: did fail to record the Daily Catch Report Confirmation Number in the appropriate space of the Daily Catch Record in the paper harvest log before 0800 hours the following day after fishing and did thereby commit an offence contrary to Section 22(7) of Fishery (General) Regulations , and did thereby commit an offence contrary to

Section 78 (

a) of the Fisheries Act of Canada . [ 4 ] Count 2 reads: George Louis Vukic, on or about the 28th day of October, 2016, at or near Cowichan Bay, in Area 18, in the Province of British Columbia, being a person carrying on an activity under the authority of a licence, did contravene or fail to maintain a harvest log of all harvest operations, contrary to Section 22(7) of the Fishery (General) Regulations , and did thereby commit an offence contrary to

Section 78 (

a) of the Fisheries Act of Canada . [ 5 ] Count 3 reads: George Louis Vukic, between October 3, 2016 and October 27, 2016, in Canadian Fisheries Water, near Vancouver Island, in the Province of British Columbia, being a person carrying on an activity under the authority of a licence, did contravene or fail to comply with the conditions of a licence, to wit: did fail to maintain a harvest log of all harvest operations, contrary to Section 22(7) of the Fishery (General) Regulations , and did thereby commit an offence contrary to

Section 78 (

a) of the Fisheries Act of Canada . [ 6 ] Crown has proceeded summarily on these charges. The Offender has been self-represented throughout these proceedings. The task of this court is to consider and impose a fit sentence for each of these three admitted Fisheries offences. FACTS Circumstances Surrounding the Offences [ 7 ] No issue is taken with the circumstances outlined by Crown in submissions, which I accept as the facts. Those facts support the pleas of guilt with respect to these matters. I will provide a brief

summary of the facts which are relevant to the sentencing considerations. [ 8 ] At all material times, the Vessel was properly licenced under the Fisheries Act and s. 19 of the Pacific Fishery Regulations, 1993 . That licence was a salmon gill-net licence for Fisheries in Canadian Fisheries waters in the Pacific Ocean, and, specifically, in licence Area E, and within certain described management areas in which fishing is permitted. Those described areas include a certain Area 18 and certain areas referred as Nitinat Net Areas 20, 21, 121.

As is usual, the conditions of the licence are attached and form part of it (the "Licence"). The Licence and its conditions were for the period April 1, 2016, to March 31, 2017. [ 9 ] Area 18 and its 11 or so sub-areas generally can be described as comprising the southerly British Columbia ocean waters lying to the east of Vancouver Island, commencing just north of Maple Bay and extending to just south of Cowichan Bay, and then extending east across the northerly tip of the Saanich Peninsula to include the southerly waters surrounding Salt Spring Island.

Those waters consist of Fulford Harbour and Long Harbour, and also Active Pass and the waters surrounding the other southerly Gulf Islands. The area then extends further east to Georgia Strait, but all lie north and west of the U.S. border. [ 10 ] I understand that Chum salmon migrating through this area forms part of the fishery stock of the Cowichan River. [ 11 ] I further understand that the Nitinat Net Areas 20, 21 and 121 are on the west coast of Vancouver Island. [ 12 ] Under the 2016 conditions of the Licence for Area E, a vessel master must maintain either a paper or an electronic logbook.

The Offender chose the paper logbook, which entailed following a reporting option which required the Offender, as the vessel master, to "hail in"; that is, to contact the call centre of Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. ("AMR"), being a service provider of Fisheries and Oceans Canada ("DFO"), to report the vessel master's intention of commencing fishing activity. [ 13 ] This information results in fishery information being entered into the DFO's electronic database, called the Fishery Operations System ("FOS").

The resulting electronic record is referred to as a "hail out", "fishing commences" or "start fishing" activity reports. [ 14 ] A further condition for a vessel master who chooses a paper logbook reporting option (including the Offender) requires the vessel master to contact AMR to report that he had stopped fishing within 24 hours of ending a fishing trip and prior to commencing a subsequent fishing trip.

That information results in the creation within the FOS of an electronic "fishing discontinues" or "end fishing" activity report. [ 15 ] Also under the paper logbook reporting option, the vessel master (including the Offender) is required to contact AMR to report

his daily catch for each day within Area 18 before 0800 hours of the following day. In Areas 20, 21, 22 and 121, that report must be made within 24 hours of the completion of a fishery opening, and if the Fishery opening lasts longer than seven days, the daily catch must be reported within seven days for each day of fishing. [ 16 ] This information is then entered into the FOS. This produces what is referred to as a "phone-in" catch report. [ 17 ] Similarly, vessel masters in Area 18 (including the Offender) were required to report for each day not fished to AMR before 0800 hours of the following day.

For Areas 20, 21, 22 and 121, the report must be made within 24 hours of the completion of a fishery opening, and if the Fishery opening lasted longer than seven days, then that type of fishing report shall be made within seven days for each day of fishing.

This is entered into the FOS and produces a "pause fishing" or "pause trip" activity report. [ 18 ] Also, it was a condition of licences during the 2016 Salmon Area E Fishery that vessel masters (including the Offender) who choose a paper logbook reporting option to report to the off-loading of catch from Area 18 for each day fished by 0800 hours the following day. Offloading of catch within Areas 20, 21, 22 and 121 must be reported within 24 hours of completion of a fishery, and if the fishery lasted longer than seven days, the off catch is to be reported within seven days for each day of fishing.

This report is entered into the FOS and produces an "off-loading" catch report. [ 19 ] As a further condition of licences for Salmon Area E, vessel masters (including the Offender) for the 2016 season are required to return their paper logbook to AMR prior to January 31, 2017. [ 20 ] The daily catch information is entered into the FOS as part of "logbook" type data source which is differentiated from the daily "phone-in" catch reports for the same period.

The catch information is necessary and is used by DFO for fish management purposes, and to determine fishery openings. [ 21 ] Salmon Area E Licence conditions, under

Part 5 entitled "Harvest Log," set out the vessel master's obligations and requirements to maintain a paper harvest log or an electronic harvest log, the format to be used, and the required information to be recorded. [ 22 ] The requirements stipulate that the daily catch information for each day and the area fished are to be recorded on the daily catch record page in the harvest log not later than 2359 hours for each day fished. The required information for the harvest log is particularized under paragraphs 5 to 8 inclusive, and 12 and 13.

The harvest log must be produced for examination upon the request of a Fishery officer or other specified officials. Circumstances Giving Rise to Counts 1 and 2 [ 23 ] On October 28, 2016, DFO officials and Fisheries officers were aware that the Vessel which was in Cowichan Bay had failed to report its catch of October 27, 2016, by 0800 hours on October 28, 2016, and had failed to "hail in" for October 28, 2016, by 0800 hours. [ 24 ] The Vessel was located by Fisheries officers and boarded for the purposes of conducting an inspection pursuant to sections 49 and 61 of the Fisheries Act .

Those Fisheries officers then observed Chum salmon on the deck and in the hold of the Vessel. The Offender and his son were on the Vessel. [ 25 ] The Fisheries officers required production of the Vessel's harvest log. No information at all had been recorded by the Offender or by anybody else in the harvest log for any portion of the 2016 fishing season.

In other words, the preprinted pages were blank and absent of any required details. [ 26 ] Information of sorts apparently relating to fishing activities of the Vessel had been recorded in handwriting on the envelope containing the actual preprinted paper pages that were to form the completed harvest log. The blank pages were still inside the envelope. The information contained on the envelope had apparently been provided to AMR by the Offender, but not necessarily in accordance with the time requirements. [ 27 ] At 1543 hours on October 28, 2016, the Offender hailed in his catch for October 27, 2016.

That of course was late reporting. [ 28 ] These circumstances give rise to the charges on Counts 1 and 2. Circumstances Giving Rise to Count 3 [ 29 ] The FOS records of DFO reveal that the Vessel and the Offender had been engaged in fishing activities on October 3rd, 9th, 10th, 17th, 18th, 21st, 24th, and 27th of 2016. The areas fished were in the Nitinat Net Area, also north of Nanaimo, and in Area 29 on the Fraser River. There is no question that the Vessel was licenced to fish in those areas and during the existing fishery openings in force during those dates.

According to the reports made to AMR by the Offender, some 2,862 fish were apparently caught by the Vessel during this period of time. However, again, no harvest log had been prepared for these dates. [ 30 ] Although under s. 78.1 of the Fisheries Act it is a separate offence for each day of contravention, Crown has combined all of the breaches into one count, that being Count 3. [ 31 ] As I understand it, information had been provided to AMR for these dates, but not necessarily in accordance with the time requirements. Although the Offender hailed in on these days, it sometimes occurred late.

No charges were laid by Crown in connection with these violations. [ 32 ] I further understand that the Offender was some four months late in finally submitting his harvest logs for 2016. Again, no charges were laid. [ 33 ] As I understand it, no seizure of the Vessel or any of the catch on board took place as permitted by s. 51 of the Fisheries Act on October 28, 2016.

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENDER [34] The Offender is now age 71. He has no material health issues. He is a very seasoned and experienced commercial fisher. [35] He started in the fishing industry as a deckhand/crew member in 1963, at the age of 16 years. He started operating a seine boatin his early twenties, and by 1968 he had his own boat. [36] He fished salmon out of Prince Rupert in Johnstone Strait, on the west coast of Vancouver Island and in the Gulf of Georgia. He now primarily fishes in the Nitinat, near Nanaimo, in Management Area 18 and on the Fraser River.

He says that fishing theCowichan River run within Management Area 18 has been beneficial due to the collapse of the Sockeye Fishery on the Fraser River. Hehas continued to fish in Management Area 18 during the 2017 fishing season. [37] He is married with five adult children. He supports his spouse. Two of his adult children are active in the fishing industry. [38] He lives in a home in East Vancouver originally rented by him and then subsequently inherited from his own mother in 2014. Itis owned jointly with his spouse. It is free of any mortgages. The declared value of the property in 2014 was $636,300.

The assessedvalue of the property has increased steadily such that by 2016 it was assessed at $944,100, and in 2017 it was slightly in excess of$1,245,000. [39] Based on the Offender's T1 general income tax and benefit return, his 2016 gross income from fishing was $40,719, and afterexpenses, the net income before adjustments was $9,869. [40] The Offender also receives CPP and Old Age Security benefits.

In 2016, he also collected Employment Insurance benefits. [41] He believes that his gross and net income from fishing in 2017 will be about the same as in 2016. [42] The Offender says that he knows the fishery regulations and the conditions of his Licence. He states that there is no excuse forfailing to keep the harvest log up to date, but noted that he was calling in the required reports to AMR.

With respect to his failure to callin the October 27, 2016, catch report on time, he says that he "just forgot." [43] I take from these comments that his failure to keep the harvest log up to date and to complete the call of his daily catch forOctober 27, 2016, on time was not part of a general scheme of non-compliance on his part.

He says that this is the first time in all of hisfishing years that he has failed to comply, and he has no prior record for Fisheries offences nor, as I understand it, any criminal record. [44] I sense that he is sincerely regretful about committing these Fishery offences, notwithstanding that in his estimation moreserious violations were being committed by other vessels during the same fishery opening. Those other offenders were dealt with onlyby way of a warning. In other words, he questions why he did not get just a warning.

POSITION OF THE CROWN ON SENTENCING [45] Crown says that the sentence for these fishery offences must stress specific and general deterrence to ensure regulatorycompliance in the highly regulated commercial fishing industry. [46] Accordingly, on Count 1, Crown seeks a fine of $1,000; on Count 2, Crown seeks a fine of $1,000; on Count 3, Crown seeks afine of $3,000. Thus, the total fines, according to Crown's submission, would be in the amount of $5,000. [47] No licence cancellations or fishing prohibitions are being sought under s. 79.1 or 79.2 of the Fisheries Act.

CASE AUTHORITIES RELIED UPON BY CROWN [48] In support of its overall position about emphasizing the importance of the sentencing objectives of specific and generaldeterrence, Crown relies on the decision of the Honourable Judge Mrozinski in R. v. McKinnell Fishing Ltd., [2016] B.C.J. No. 2943,2016 BCPC 466 . [49] Crown also relies upon that case for the suggested fines, specifically with respect to Count 3. POSITION OF DEFENCE ON SENTENCING [50] The Offender had hoped that the matter would be dealt with by way of a warning or a nominal fine.

He did not make asuggestion as to what an appropriate fine would be nor did he provide any case authorities to the court. LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK [51] The

section of the Regulations which are applicable to this particular matter, first of all, is s. 22(7) of the Fishery (General)Regulations, which reads as follows: No person carrying out any activity under the authority of a licence shall contravene or fail to comply with any condition of the licence. [52] The second relevant piece of legislation that covers this matter is under the Fisheries Act, and in particular s. 78 which reads asfollows: 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 thousanddollars and, for any subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not

exceeding one year, or to both; or (

b) an indictable offence and liable, for a first offence, to a fine not exceeding five hundred thousand dollars and, for any subsequentoffence, to a fine not exceeding five hundred thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to both. [53]

Section 78.1 provides: Where any contravention of this Act or the regulations is committed or continued on more than one day, it constitutes a separate offencefor each day on which the contravention is committed or continued. [54] The next relevant provision is under s. 72 of the Fisheries Act which reads as follows:

(1) Where a person is convicted of an offence under this Act, the court may, in addition to any punishment imposed, order that anything seized under this Act by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, or any proceeds realized from its disposition,be forfeited to Her Majesty.

(2) Where a person is convicted of an offence under this Act that relates to fish seized pursuant to paragraph 51(a), the court shall, inaddition to any punishment imposed, order that the fish, or any proceeds realized from its disposition, be forfeited to Her Majesty.

(3) Where a person is charged with an offence under this Act that relates to fish seized pursuant to paragraph 51(

a) and the person isacquitted but it is proved that the fish was caught in contravention of this Act or the regulations, the court may order that the fish, or anyproceeds realized from its disposition, be forfeited to Her Majesty. PURPOSES, OBJECTIVES AND PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCING IN FISHERIES SENTENCING CASES [55] The purposes and principles of sentencing are found in sections 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code. These sections codify andplainly state the intention and rationale for imposing particular sentences. They apply to sentencing for offences under the Fisheries Act. [56]

Section 718 of the Criminal Code outlines the fundamental purpose of sentencing as follows: The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for thelaw and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: (

a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct; (

b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences; (

c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary; (

d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders; (

e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and (

f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community. [57]

Section 718.1 of the Code directs that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of theoffender's responsibility. [58]

Section 718.2 of the Code, under the heading of "Other Sentencing Principles" states, in part, that a court that imposes asentence shall also take into consideration the following principles: (

a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to theoffence or to the offender . . . (

b) a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances; (

c) where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh; . . . ANALYSIS [59] It has been held by this court and by other courts that the Fisheries Act and its regulations statutorily create public welfareoffences. Often the case of R. v. Cotton Felts Ltd., (ON CA), [1982] O.J.

No. 178, being a decision of the OntarioCourt of Appeal, is cited in support of the proposition that public welfare offences range from safety and consumer protection toecological conservation and are accepted as essential to public interest to ensure standards of conduct, performance or reliability to makelife tolerable for all (see paragraph 19). [60] In R. v. Steer, [2013] B.C.J. No. 2763, 2013 BCPC 323 , the Honourable Judge Gouge provided the following usefulanalysis about the weight to be given to each of the fundamental purposes of sentencing in fishery cases.

At paragraphs 21 and 22, hestates as follows: [21] The weight to be given to each of those matters will differ in each case. It has been said that the ". . . paramount principle ofsentencing in a regulatory context such as the Fisheries Act is deterrence, both specific and general . . . ": R. v. Ivy Fisheries Ltd., 2006NSPC 26 @ paragraph 15. I refer also to R. v. Reid, 2001 BCSC 1307 @ paragraph 12 and to R. v. Castro, 2010 ONCA 718 @paragraph 30. I differ with that proposition only because I think that it requires some explanation.

In my view, the primary sentencingobjective in fisheries cases is the protection of the fishery. Deterrence (general and specific) is an important and useful tool in pursuit of

that objective. For that reason, it should be given greater weight than some of the other sentencing objectives and principles identified by the Criminal Code . I acknowledge that it would be an error in principle to focus solely on deterrence to the exclusion of the other factors which the Criminal Code requires me to consider: R. v. Weaver [2002] N.B.J. No. 140 @ paragraphs 22, 23, 34. [22] The tools commonly available to effect denunciation and deterrence (specific and general) in criminal cases are fines and sentences of imprisonment.

In the case of fisheries offences, the court is offered the additional tool of a fishing prohibition under sections 79.1 and 79.2 of the Fisheries Act . Such a prohibition directly serves the primary imperative of protecting the fishery, by preventing the offender from fishing for the term of the prohibition. It also serves to denounce the crime and as a specific and general deterrent.

Because it minimally infringes the liberty of the offender, it is an alternative to imprisonment which the Criminal Code requires the court to consider. [ 61 ] In McKinnell Fishing Ltd. , Judge Mrozinski was dealing with the sentencing of an Offender who had either been found guilty or had pleaded guilty to multiple offences, some involving the failure to maintain accurate harvesting logs and failing to hail in. [ 62 ] As an overall observation, Judge Mrozinski noted at paragraph 39 that, ". . . the defendant had developed a pattern of regulatory non-compliance, much of which went unchecked, possibly for decades." She also noted that the defendant had adopted a casual approach to its licensing and regulatory requirements.

In that case, it was the licensing and regulatory requirements of the commercial crab fishery. [ 63 ] In paragraph 41 of McKinnell Fishing Ltd. , Judge Mrozinski noted that the regulatory offences that were before her were not so much the case of the defendant in that case benefiting from the offences as the public potentially suffering from this approach to regulatory licensing requirements.

Judge Mrozinski noted that this larger context had to be used against which the offences before her were to be measured. [ 64 ] In paragraph 43 of McKinnell Fishing Ltd. , Judge Mrozinski noted the importance, economically, of the fishing industry and the resources of it, noting specifically First Nations who are interested in preserving their aboriginal right and interest in the crab fishery, as well as recreational fishers and also commercial fishers.

She noted that, indirectly, all residents of British Columbia benefit from a sustainable and vibrant fishery. [ 65 ] As part of paragraph 44, Judge Mrozinski makes the following observation about the value of the resource, its decline and the importance of resource management: There may have been a time in the distant past when a mind of a practical bent might have wondered about the futility of the finer points of fisheries laws. In the present day, there is no room for such complacency.

In a world in which resource sustainability is strained, not just by demand but by the environment itself, the value of regulatory compliance cannot be overstated. [ 66 ] Having regard specifically to the Crab Fishery, in paragraph 45 of McKinnell Fishing Ltd., Judge Mrozinski made the following observation about a highly regulated environment in the fishing industry : . . . and it is only when everyone complies with the regulations and licensing requirements that we can ensure a sustainable fishery for the benefit and enjoyment of all and that includes the defendant herein. [ 67 ] At paragraph 46 of McKinnell Fishing Ltd., Judge Mrozinski also noted that seemingly innocuous transgressions of the regulatory regime are in fact clearly not innocuous.

The failure to comply with licensing and regulations has the potential to contribute to a failure of the fishery, and she goes on to note as follows: It is for this reason, clearly, that virtually all of the case law before me in this sentencing emphasizes the importance of the sentencing objectives of specific and general deterrence in regard to these regulatory offences. AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING FACTORS [ 68 ] I am directed by the principles and objectives of sentencing to consider aggravating and mitigating factors. Aggravating Factors [ 69 ] I find the following to be aggravating factors: 1.

First, the extent of the failure of the Offender to complete the harvest log. Specifically, that occurred during most of the month of October of 2016. 2. Second, the extent of the potential harm of this non-compliance to fishery stock management. In that regard, I note specifically the impact statement filed by Crown counsel.

Specifically this document is entitled as follows: "Impact Statement: Failure to comply with fishing reporting requirements during Commercial Chum Salmon Fisheries in Fisheries Management Area 18." [ 70 ] Under the heading "Impact,", the report, prepared by Beth Pechter, Resource Management Biologist-Salmon Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, South Coast Area, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, at Campbell River, British Columbia, notes that poor compliance with daily catch reporting can jeopardize the accuracy of catch estimates in Area E Gill-net fisheries.

She goes on to indicate that poor compliance with daily catch reporting can lead to a reduced sample size, and higher uncertainty in both the catch per unit effort (“CPUE”) and the subsequent catch estimates. [ 71 ] She notes, further, that daily catch and effort information is essential for in-season and post-season salmon management, salmon stock assessment and to determine levels of by-catch in fishing efforts. It is this information that is used to formulate the management plans for the Chum Fishery.

[ 72 ] She writes as follows [all as read in]: Without accurate and timely data, the proper management of fisheries is compromised, and conservation requirements for both target and non-target stocks is ultimately threatened. [ 73 ] She notes, specifically, the following as it affects the area in which the Offender was conducting fishing activities on October 28, 2016: For the Cowichan River directed Chum Fisheries, the commercial total allowable catch (TAC) is calculated weekly after accounting for spawning requirements. Harvest opportunities are scheduled based on the identified TAC.

If catch is not reported accurately and in a timely fashion, it may indicate the falsely-low return and result in fewer commercial fishery opportunities that would benefit all commercial harvesters, including a First Nation Commercial Demonstration Fishery. [ 74 ] Ms. Pechter concludes with the following statement: In

summary, timely and accurate information on harvest levels and harvesting activities provided by fishers in fishing activity reports is essential to properly manage Pacific Salmon Fisheries in season to ensure spawning, escapement and conservation objectives are not compromised. Mitigating Factors [ 75 ] The mitigating factors include the following: 1. First of all the Offender's guilty pleas with respect to these offences and the fact that a lengthy trial has been avoided. 2. Second is his insight into the offences which he has committed. 3.

Third is the fact that he has a clean record with no prior Fisheries offences, notwithstanding over 55 years of participation in the fishing industry. DISCUSSION [ 76 ] In my view, the overall circumstances and the totality of offences in R. v. McKinnell Fishing Ltd. are much more egregious than in the present case. The significant fines imposed in McKinnell Fishing Ltd. must be viewed both in those circumstances and what the court in that case determined was likely a lengthy pattern of regulatory non-compliance by the defendant. [ 77 ] In my view, that is not the situation in the present case before me.

There is no doubt that the Offender was not in compliance with certain aspects of his Licence and the regulations during the month of October 2016. However, the fact that he has no prior Fishery convictions supports a conclusion that for over half a century he has been compliant with his licensing and regulatory responsibilities. [ 78 ] However, his offences are not trifling in nature, nor are they simply minor technical offences that should not attract much in the way of a deterrent. [ 79 ] In a recent case before me of R. v. Steer , 2016 B.C.J.

No. 2176 , 2016 BCPC 318 (who was not the defendant in the matter before Judge Gouge), the Crown sought much lower fines for three breaches of the Aboriginal Communal Fishing Licence Regulations by an experienced, non-indigenous vessel master. The resulting sentence was total fines of $1,400 and forfeiture of the catch with a value of $1,122. [ 80 ] The defendant in that case continued to be non-compliant under the Licence on three occasions, all within a short time span, even after having been stopped by a Fisheries officer and made aware of the non-compliance.

I view the offences in that case to be less egregious than in the matter before me. [ 81 ] I am satisfied that, having gone through this case, specific deterrence of the Offender is not of the highest order. I do not think he will re-offend in the future thereby putting the fishery at risk. There is nothing to suggest that the Offender has profited financially from his non-compliance. [ 82 ] However, as noted above, general deterrence is very important, especially, to protect the fishery. The sanctions must, therefore, be proportionate to the offences committed.

The Offender here is blameworthy, but I must place that in the context of the applicable aggravating and mitigating factors as well as the whole of the circumstances. [ 83 ] Having regard to all of the circumstances in this case, and having regard to the analysis above, I am of the view that fines must be imposed, but not to the extent sought by Crown. [ 84 ] Mr. Vukic, could you stand please? [ 85 ] GEORGE VUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.

CONCLUSIONS AND SENTENCING [ 86 ] THE COURT: On Count 1, the failure to record the daily catch report confirmation number on October 28, 2016, as alleged, there will be a fine of $500. [ 87 ] On Count 2, the failure to maintain a harvest log on October 28, 2016, as alleged, there will be a fine of $500. [ 88 ] On Count 3, the failure to maintain a harvest log for the period October 3, 2016, to October 27, 2016, there will be a fine of

$1,750. [ 89 ] The total fines, therefore, will be $2,750. The fines will be payable within four months of today's date. [ 90 ] There is no victim fine surcharge that attaches to these fines. [ 91 ] That concludes my reasons. [REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED]