R. v. Wilson, 2021 BCPC 135

Citation: R. v. Wilson 2021 BCPC 135 Date: 20210503 File No: 42079-1 Registry: Duncan IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. MICHAEL JOHN WILSON ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE J.P. MacCARTHY Counsel for the Crown: T. McFadgen Appearing on his own behalf: M. Wilson Place of Hearing: Duncan , B.C. Date of Hearing: May 3, 2021 Date of Judgment: May 3, 2021 INTRODUCTION

[ 1 ] Michael John Wilson is before this court. He faces five charges on Information 42079-1. He has entered guilty pleas with respect to three counts on that information. These are offences under the Fisheries Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14 . Crown has proceeded summarily. [ 2 ] With respect to Count 2, it alleges as follows: Michael John WILSON, on or about the 13th day of September, 2020 at or near Youbou, in the Province of British Columbia, did wilfully foul hook, or attempted to foul hook fish and did thereby commit an offence contrary to Section 10(1) (

c) of the British Columbia Sport Fishing Regulations , 1996 and did thereby commit an offence under

Section 78 (

a) of the Fisheries Act . [ 3 ] A guilty plea has been entered with respect to Count 2. [ 4 ] A guilty plea has also being entered with respect to Count 3 which reads as follows, that Mr. Wilson: … on or about the 13th day of September, 2020 at or near Youbou, in the Province of British Columbia, did unlawfully fish for salmon with prohibited gear, to wit: a hook having more than one point, contrary to

Section 49 of the British Columbia Sport Fishing Regulations , 1996 and did thereby commit an offence under the

Section 78 (

a) of the Fisheries Act . [ 5 ] With respect to the final count, being Count 5 on that information, to which Mr. Wilson has also entered a guilty plea, it reads as follows, that: Michael John Wilson, on or about the 13th day of September, 2020 at or near Youbou, in the Province of British Columbia, did unlawfully fish for salmon during a closed time, contrary to

Section 43 of the British Columbia Sport Fishing Regulations , 1996 , and did thereby commit an offence under

Section 78 (

a) of the Fisheries Act . [ 6 ] Mr. Wilson, hereinafter sometimes referred to as the "Offender", has been self-represented throughout these proceedings. [ 7 ] 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: [ 8 ] No issue is taken with the circumstances outlined by Crown in submissions. which I accept as the facts. Those facts support the entered guilty pleas. I will provide a brief

summary of the facts which are relevant to the sentencing considerations. [ 9 ] The offences took place on the Nitinat River near Youbou, British Columbia. The area in question is known as Red Rock Pool. That pool is an area which is a vital salmon fishery habitat. That area is under an annual fishing closure between August 25th and December 31st of each year.

Accordingly, it was a closed area for fishing at the time of the offences to which the Offender has entered guilty pleas. [ 10 ] The actions of the Offender came to the attention of an off-duty Fisheries Officer who happened to be driving by, while returning from his own personal fishing expedition. He noted an individual, later identified as the Offender, fishing the pools that included the use of a casting motion with a rod. That casting motion caught the attention of the Fisheries Officer.

An investigation of the situation determined that the Offender, earlier that day, met with and spoke to other Fisheries Officers who were conducting compliance checks in that area and thereby determined that Mr. Wilson was aware from a historical perspective that it was a closed area. [ 11 ] As a result of the subsequent interaction with Fisheries Officer Blacklock, being the off-duty Fisheries Officer, it was determined that the motion that was being employed by the Offender was, in fact, designed to snag or foul hook salmon in the pool.

A further search of a vehicle nearby determined that there were six salmon which had been caught apparently in a similar fashion and showed evidence of the snagging. Those were six Chinook salmon. A further investigation of the gear being used by the Offender determined that there was a use of illegal equipment. There was a hook that contained not only barbs, but three points on it. That type of hook is illegal for fishing in this area and, in fact, is no longer permitted under the terms of the applicable Regulations.

The use of that type of hook can cause significant injury to salmon stock and, hence, the regulatory prohibitions have been imposed to prevent its use and the resulting damage to the fish stocks. [ 12 ] The Offender does not take any issue with the circumstances, but does note that he was only responsible for one of the attempts to snag or foul hook fish in the pool. He says that he was with friends visiting that area who had departed and left him with the six Chinook salmon as well as the offending hook equipment. The Offender's friends are, in fact, members of the local First Nation.

A Fisheries check with that First Nations band disclosed that no authority had been provided to any individual including and specifically not to the Offender with respect to fishing in that particular area during the charge period and coinciding with the closure. Victim Impact Statement: [ 13 ] Crown has filed as Exhibit Number 1 a victim impact statement entitled, "Impacts of Unsanctioned Fishing, Illegal Gear, and Illegal Harvest" (the “Victim Impact Statement”).

It is dated January 2021, and it is prepared by Brad Beaith, West Coast Vancouver Island Recreational Fisheries Coordinator, Pacific Region, Fisheries and Oceans Canada/Government of Canada. In the Victim Impact Statement, the author points, first of all, to the primary objective of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Resource Management Division. That is to ensure the conservation of aquatic species. The secondary objective of the DFO Resource Management is to conduct orderly fisheries.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) is the agency responsible for all fisheries and fishing activities in the tidal waters of British Columbia and salmon in the non-tidal waters of British Columbia. [ 14 ] The regime is governed by the Fisheries Act , the Pacific Fishery Regulations , 1993, SOR/93-54 , the Fishery (General) Regulations , SOR/93-53 , and the British Columbia Sport Fishing Regulations , 1996, SOR/96-137 . These are the main legal authorities that govern the recreational fishery in British Columbia.

[ 15 ] Under the heading of "Implications of Unsanctioned Fishing, Illegal Gear, and Illegal Harvest," the Victim Impact Statement makes the following points. First of all, unsanctioned fishing has the potential to adversely affect attainment of escapement objectives thereby compromising conservation of salmon stocks. The author goes on to point out that people who are not abiding by the regulatory scheme are obtaining an unfair advantage and putting other fishers to a great disadvantage.

The essential point made in the Victim Impact Statement under this heading is as follows [as read in]: The effect of illegal fishing, including exceeding fishing limits, using illegal gear to harvest fish in a closed area, can be significant. As in all fisheries, illegal harvesting poses a significant risk to the sustainability of our shared resources, as well as creates further challenges in multi-sectoral management programs where resources are managed between groups.

The integrity of the fishery and the accuracy of the catch monitoring need to be of a high standard in order for fisheries to be properly managed. [ 16 ] The Victim Impact Statement goes on to specifically provide information about the location where these offences took place, being the Red Rock Pool in the Nitinat River as follows. The Victim Impact Statement points out that there has been a longstanding fishing closure from August 25th to December 31st of each year and that closure is designed to protect salmon during their spawning migration period.

It goes on further to note that salmon hold in the pool waiting for the right migratory conditions and are therefore vulnerable to illegal fishing, especially snagging. [ 17 ] Moreover, the Victim Impact Statement says that treble hooks, (being the type of equipment being used in the present circumstances before the Court) are not permitted to be used in fresh water due to their misuse by anglers for snagging fish. It also points out that barbless hooks are a requirement for all salmon fishing in British Columbia to promote low mortality rates associated with releasing prohibited catch.

Single-barbless hooks are only permitted when fishing in fresh water for salmon. [ 18 ] Thus, the conclusion to be drawn from this Victim Impact Statement is that the snagging of salmon in fresh water areas such as the Nitinat River can cause significant damage to those salmon that may be hooked, but not necessarily caught. There may be wounds to the eyes, skin, blood vessels, or secondary damage through infection that may set in. Infections may be carried into spawning sites. This physical injury and stress may also adversely affect a salmon's ability to be a successful spawner.

Circumstances of the Offender: [ 19 ] The Offender comes before this Court at age 43. He has been a long-time resident of the Youbou area. I gather from what he tells me he has had a long time attraction and relationship with the ocean and with fishing. That goes back to his early years when family members took him fishing both in the ocean and in the local streams. That love of fishing has evolved into the Offender becoming a professional fishing guide. He has done that for approximately four years now, going into his fifth year.

He has guided in such diverse areas as Zeballos up on Northern Vancouver Island, and also up in the Kitimat area. He guides recreational fishers looking for a full range of fish stocks, including everything from salmon to halibut. [ 20 ] He also been a commercial fisher and holds all the necessary qualifications to do so. He is licenced to operate vessels of limited size 26 to 27 miles offshore from the coast of British Columbia. Most of his work as a commercial fisher has been seeking both tuna as well as black cod.

He works as a deckhand and he is being tutored by the shipmasters in order to gain greater certification in that operational area. [ 21 ] It is fair to say that he fully understands the regulatory scheme that affects both commercial fishing and also sports fishing in British Columbia. His own certification is coming up for renewal, which of course, serves as a vital part to his ability to support himself and his family. He has been married for 20 years. He has two children age 16 and 12. One of them, his youngest child, seeks to follow him into the fishing industry.

Regrettably, that child was with the Offender at the time that these offences occurred and when he was charged by the Fisheries Officers. [ 22 ] The Offender has a highly variable income and a resulting variable set of financial circumstances. The COVID-19 pandemic has very adversely affected his ability to earn a living both from commercial fishing and from guiding. In a good year, he can earn upwards of $70,000.

His most recent years, because of the COVID pandemic lockdown, have resulted in significantly poorer financial years, earning anywhere from $12,000 to $15,000 including amounts received through CERB payments. [ 23 ] This is a situation where Mr. Wilson has clearly indicated that he realizes that his failure to abide by the regulatory scheme, in his words, was "dumb and stupid." He indicates in his submissions to the court that he is knowledgeable and follows the rules and that this one time is the exception.

He indicated that any future time he goes to the Red Rock Pool will be with a camera and not with fishing tackle. Position of the Crown on Sentencing: [ 24 ] Crown notes that this is a situation where significant fines are required in order to address the principles of deterrence and denunciation, which are fundamental to charges under the Fisheries Act and compliance with its regulatory schemes.

In this case, with respect to Count Number 2, which is the foul hook fishing offence, Crown is seeking a fine of $1,000; with respect to Count 3, which is the fishing with the prohibited gear, specifically the hook with more than one point, Crown is seeking a fine of $500; and then with respect to Count 5, which is the fishing during a closed period of time, Crown is seeking a $3,500 fine. Crown is also seeking forfeiture of the six Chinook salmon found in the possession of the Offender under s. 72(2) of the Fisheries Act . [ 25 ] Crown notes that they are not, at this time, seeking a prohibition for Mr.

Wilson's fishing rights. Crown does point out that such an order could be sought by Crown, but they are cognizant of the importance of fishing to Mr. Wilson both for his own personal livelihood as well as the support of his family. Crown does not take issue with the possibility that the fines which they are seeking could be paid in a period of between some two and three years.

Crown is mindful that given the financial situation of the Offender in this case, requiring payment within a two-year period is potentially problematic; although time to pay fines may be extended, Crown is of the view that the outside limit should be something in the nature of three years. Position of the Offender on Sentencing:

[ 26 ] Mr. Wilson does not take significant issue with respect to the proposed fines. His main concern is his financial ability to pay those fines within the required timeframe. He indicates in his submissions that paying those within the two-year period would prove very difficult and hence he requires some additional time.

As I understand his submission, he does not think that the requirements and the result of the proposed sentences by way of those fines results in an unfit sentence for him. [ 27 ] He indicates that as a result of being charged with these offences that, as a professional fisher as well as an enthusiastic recreational fisher and a professional guide, he has learned something about the significant damage that can be caused by foul hooking a fish, especially migratory fish such as salmon, and the resulting negative impacts upon maintaining the important salmon stocks.

Case Authorities Relied Upon by Crown: [ 28 ] Crown has put a number of case authorities before this court for consideration. They are as follows: 1. Her Majesty the Queen v. Terroco Industries Limited , 2005 ABCA 141 ; 2. R. v. Kern , Port Alberni Registry Number 40028-2-C, a decision of the Honourable Judge Saunders rendered November 27, 2007; 3. R. v. Yip and Ye , North Vancouver Registry Number 62670-1, a decision of the Honourable Judge Moss rendered December 15, 2016; 4. R. v.

Tang, Tong, Cheung, Tzang, and Tong , Sechelt Registry Number 17427-1, a decision of the Honourable Judge Merrick rendered June 20, 2018; and 5. R. v. Thompson , 2017 BCPC 351 , a decision of the Honourable Judge Flewelling rendered October 19, 2017. Legislative Framework [ 29 ] Above I have set out the regulatory framework, which is applicable to the offences that are before this court and which is contained within the review of the Victim Impact Statement prepared by Brad Beaith. [ 30 ]

Section 78 of the Fisheries Act reads as follows: 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 dollars 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 subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding five hundred thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to both. [ 31 ] 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 any thing 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, in addition 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 is acquitted 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 any proceeds realized from its disposition, be forfeited to Her Majesty. Purposes, Objectives, and Principles of Sentencing in Fishery Sentencing Cases [ 32 ] The purposes and principles of sentencing are found in s. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code . These sections codify and plainly state the intention and the rationale for imposing particular sentences. They also apply to sentencing for offences under the Fisheries Act .

Of particular significance to fisheries offences, are the provisions of s. 718 of the Criminal Code . They outline the fundamental purposes of sentencing which include: (

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. [ 33 ]

Section 718.1 of the Criminal Code directs that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of the offender's responsibility.

[34]

Section 718.2 of the Code under the heading of "Other sentencing principles," requires this Court to take into consideration bothaggravating and mitigating circumstances relating to the offence, and also states that sentence should be similar to sentences imposed onsimilar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances. [35] Crown has cited the R. v. Terroco Industries Limited case as being a persuasive authority followed by a number of courts inBritish Columbia with respect to regulatory offences and fines.

The Terroco case sets out the important principles to be taken intoaccount when dealing with general sentencing principles for these types of offences. Those general principles may be summarized andset out in paragraph 34 as being: (1) culpability; (2) prior records and past involvement with the authorities; (3) acceptance of responsibility; (4) damage/harm; and (5) deterrence. [36] As further noted in Terroco at paragraph 34: To adopt the wording of Morrow, J. in R. v. Kenaston Drilling (Arctic) Ltd. (1973), (NWT SC), 41 D.L.R. (3d) 252,12 C.C.C. (2d) 383 (N.W.T.

S.C.), sentencing principles for environmental offences require “a special approach.” [37] It is clear from the case authorities that that "special approach" is equally applicable to sentencing in fisheries offences, whichlike environmental offences are also strict liability offences to which the defence of due diligence may be available. Application of these Principles of Sentencing to the Present Case Culpability: [38] The submission of Crown is that in this case before me that the Offender has a significant amount of culpability.

That culpabilityis enhanced by the fact that the Offender was fully familiar with the regulatory scheme that applied to his fishing endeavours on that day.He knew that he was in a closed fishing area, he knew that snagging was illegal, and he knew that the equipment that he was using inthat course of snagging was also illegal.

Hence, Crown says that there is a high degree of culpability. [39] That degree of culpability must be determined by a rigorous assessment by the sentencing judge of what actually occurred andwhere an offender fits on “a sliding scale” of culpability. [40] In the Terroco case, at paragraphs 35 to 37, is an explanation that under the applicable environmental legislation considered inthat case, being the Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, SA 1992, c E-13.3, there are “two extremes” such that atone end, the fines for intentional acts are twice that for unintentional acts; at the other there are circumstances where harm was causedbut due diligence provides an absolute defence.

However, the due diligence defence fails where there is recklessness. The greater therecklessness or the carelessness, the more severe the penalty. Therefore, the degree of carelessness is a factor in sentencing for these typeof offences. In these cases, the degree of an offender’s due diligence, short of an absolute defence, for the purpose of sentencing is to beassessed on a “sliding scale”: The more diligent the offender, the lower the range of fit sentences; alternatively the less diligent theoffender, the higher the range of fit sentence.

At paragraph 37, the Court speaks about the “sliding scale of culpability” upon which anoffender must be placed, ranging from offences where due diligence was a "near miss" to those where the Crown's “ability to establishintent to release [of an environmentally dilatory substance] is a near miss”.

Once that level of culpability is established by the sentencingjudge, then it becomes an important factor in the determination of a fit sentence for the specific offender. [41] In this case, in my view, there is no doubt that there is a middle to high level of culpability on the part of the Offender for thereasons stated by Crown. Prior Records and Past Involvement with the Authorities: [42] The second consideration, being the prior record and past involvement of the Offender with authorities, is also relied upon byCrown.

Some years previous, the Offender was encountered in the same area and had discussions with Fisheries Officers. At that time,he admitted that he knew about the closure restrictions in the pool area where these current offences eventually took place. [43] In my view, it is noteworthy that the Offender in this case has no prior record of convictions under the Fisheries Act nor anyrelated type of offences. Therefore, he comes before this Court as a first-time offender, although a first-time offender with one priorinteraction with the Fisheries authorities from which no charges apparently resulted.

Acceptance of Responsibility: [44] The third principle that this Court must consider is the offender's acceptance of responsibility and remorse. Crown argues thatgiven the fact that the Offender in this case had been previously warned on the same day that the offences took place, it therebyundermines the level of remorse and acceptance of responsibility that should be attributed to the Offender. There is no doubt that he hadthat earlier encounter.

He was put on significant notice of the fact that there were fishing closures in that area. [45] However, I do take into account that the Offender has entered a guilty plea to the offences and has, in direct submissions to theCourt, indicated a very high degree of remorse and an acceptance of responsibility for his offending conduct.

He has also made it veryclear that he does fully acknowledge that the risk and dangers of non-compliant activities in the pursuit of fishing, including recreationalfishing, can cause huge damage to the fishing stocks from which he himself, of course, makes a living as a professional guide and a

professional fisher. Damage and Harm Done: [ 46 ] The fourth consideration, being damage and harm done, is relied upon by Crown in this case. Crown points out that there was actual damage and harm caused by the snagging of the fish, the use of the illegal hook, and the fishing in the closed areas. Crown points specifically to the six damaged fish which were found in the possession of the Offender. [ 47 ] The Offender says in his submissions that those fish were actually caught by other individuals during his presence, but he does not rely on that as being an excuse.

He does acknowledge the significant damage and harm that can arise, especially from snagging fish, fishing out of season as well as from using illegal equipment. Although in this case there was actual damage and harm from the offending conduct, which goes beyond being simply reasonably foreseeable, I do acknowledge that there is certainly a great understanding now, on the part of the Offender, of that damage which has been caused.

Deterrence: [ 48 ] Under the heading of "Deterrence," the case authorities that have been cited by Crown make it very clear, and I accept, that it is well established law that deterrence, both specific and general, and denunciation are important principles for sentencing (see: R. v.

Thompson , supra, at paragraph 25 ). [ 49 ] In this case, the fines that are being proposed by Crown and accepted by the Offender as being reasonable, certainly drive home the fact that this type of illegal activity in a regulated industry such as fishing, which provides individuals with a privilege, not the right to participate, clearly requires an appropriate response by society, by the enforcement authorities and by the courts towards individuals who choose not to comply with those essential regulations.

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors: [ 50 ] In this case, I have described in general terms both the aggravating and mitigating circumstances that come into play. Specifically, the aggravating factors are as outlined in the Victim Impact Statement being the potential damage to the fish stocks when people fail to comply with regulatory conditions.

I also accept as aggravating the fact that the Offender in this case was warned earlier on the same day about the closure of the area and the fact that he, as a very experienced fisher and commercial guide, knew about the closure and about the requirements to use the proper equipment and not engage in the harmful activity of foul hooking fish in an important salmon habitat area. [ 51 ] Under mitigation factors, I do accept that this is the first time that the Offender has come before the court with these types of charges; I accept as mitigating the fact that he has entered guilty pleas with respect to these offences, and I accept that he has expressed insight and significant remorse with respect to the offences that have taken place.

DISCUSSION [ 52 ] Given all of the above, and having regard for the authorities that have been cited to me, I am of the view that Crown submissions for fines as set out in their submissions on each of the counts do result in a fit sentence. In doing so I specifically note the fines imposed upon first time offenders for fishing in closed conservation areas ranging from $3,000 in R. v. Yip and Ye and to $3,500 to $4,000 in R. v. Tang et al . [ 53 ] I am going to ask Mr. Wilson to stand. [ 54 ] Accordingly, Mr.

Wilson, with respect to Count 2, being the charge of wilfully foul hooking or attempt to foul hooking the fish, I am going to impose a fine of $1,000. With respect to Count 3, which is the allegation of fishing for salmon with prohibited gear, I am going to impose the suggested fine of $500. With respect to Count 5, I am going to impose the suggested fine for unlawfully fishing for salmon during a closed time in the amount of $3,500. [ 55 ] I am going to permit you time to pay.

As required under section 734(2) of the Fisheries Act , I have given due regard to your financial circumstances and your ability to pay the fines, the fact that you are facing some financial challenges and facing some uncertain challenges about when you will be able to return to your profession both as a guide as well as a commercial fisher. Therefore, I am going to give you a total of three years in order to pay the total amount of the fines.

However, I am going to require that by the end of the second year from today's date, that you make a payment towards those fines of no less than $1,500. [ 56 ] There are no victim fine surcharges with respect to any of these offences. [ 57 ] I understand that Crown will be entering stays of proceedings on both Count 1 and Count 4; is that correct? [ 58 ] CNSL T. MCFADGEN: It is, and just the s. 72(2) order for the salmon? [ 59 ] THE COURT: I will make the order being sought for forfeiture of the six salmon pursuant to the provisions of s. 70(2); is that correct? [ 60 ] CNSL T.

MCFADGEN: 72(2), yes. [ 61 ] THE COURT: 72(2), all right. [ 62 ] That concludes the matter. Madam Clerk, do we have all of the information we require? [ 63 ] THE CLERK: Yes, sorry, Your Honour, if I can just confirm it was by the end of the second year, $1,500 is to be paid?

[ 64 ] THE COURT: I believe that is the amount that we stated is to be the amount payable. [ 65 ] THE CLERK: Thank you, Your Honour, and then just I do not believe Mr. Wilson's signature is needed on this document, but if we could just formally waive it? [ 66 ] THE COURT: All right.

You understand what the order is, you understand the fine payment requirements -- [ 67 ] THE ACCUSED: Yes. [ 68 ] THE COURT: -- and you are agreeing to pay those fine requirements in accordance with my order? [ 69 ] THE ACCUSED: Yes, sir, as long as -- you said within the first two years, $15 -- $1,500 has to be paid, correct? [ 70 ] THE COURT: Correct -- [ 71 ] THE ACCUSED: Yes, I got it. [ 72 ] THE COURT: -- and then the balance before the end of your -- [ 73 ] THE ACCUSED: The third year, I got you. [ 74 ] THE COURT: -- third year, yes. [ 75 ] All right. I am satisfied that Mr.

Wilson understands the form of the order. I am prepared to waive his signature on any document requirements. [ 76 ] You may want to contact the court registry and get a copy of any documentation. Provide them with your contact particulars including your telephone number and your email address and then, as Mr. McFadgen has pointed, payments can be made at any courthouse in -- [ 77 ] THE ACCUSED: Yes. [ 78 ] THE COURT: -- British Columbia.

So if you happen to be working off of Tofino and you have to make that payment, there is, in fact, a courthouse -- well, as I say that -- there is not a registry in Tofino, but there -- [ 79 ] CNSL R. MCFADGEN: Port Alberni is the closest registry for the -- [ 80 ] THE COURT: Port Alberni, yes. [ 81 ] CNSL R. MCFADGEN: -- for the Coast -- [ 82 ] THE COURT: Yes. [ 83 ] CNSL R.

MCFADGEN: -- at least the -- if he is up in Port Hardy, there is a registry up there. [ 84 ] THE COURT: Yes, there is. [ 85 ] THE CLERK: There are some Service BC locations will take fines if they are in remote locations so he can also -- [ 86 ] THE ACCUSED: Sorry what was that? [ 87 ] THE CLERK: -- pay them at Service BC [ 88 ] THE ACCUSED: Okay. There is one in Kitimat, too. [ 89 ] THE CLERK: Sometimes they will assist with fines. [ 90 ] THE ACCUSED: Yes. [ 91 ] THE CLERK: Yes. [ 92 ] THE COURT: Okay, anything further with respect to these matters? [ 93 ] CNSL T.

MCFADGEN: No, thank you, Your Honour. [ 94 ] THE COURT: Thank you, and -- [ 95 ] THE ACCUSED: So do I have to get any paperwork or anything from -- no? [ 96 ] THE COURT: No, but make sure the registry has your telephone number and contact particulars and they can send you a copy of any of the documentation. [ 97 ] THE ACCUSED: Okay. [ 98 ] THE COURT: All right.

[ 99 ] THE CLERK: And, sorry, Mr. McFadgen, the remaining counts? [ 100 ] CNSL T. MCFADGEN: Yes, Counts 1 and 4 can be stayed. (REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED)