R. v. Tarkanen and Tarkanen, 2018 BCPC 214

Citation: R. v. Tarkanen and Tarkanen 2018 BCPC 214 Date: 20180824 File No: 6340-1, BB101087-1 Registry: Masset and Bella Bella IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. STEVE ALBERT TARKANEN and JORY KARL TARKANEN REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE FLEWELLING Counsel for the Crown: K. Torvik Counsel for the Defendant: R. Bennu Place of Hearing: Campbell River , B.C.

Date of Hearing: June 28, 2018 Date of Judgment: August 24, 2018 Introduction: [ 1 ] Steve Tarkanen and his son Jory Tarkanen are charged with offences under the Fishery ( General ) Regulations and Fisheries Act . [ 2 ] The offences span two time periods - fishing trips between May and July, 2014 and in September, 2014 (collectively the Masset trip) and May to July, 2016 (the Bella Bella trip). Steve Tarkanen was the vessel master on the Masset trip and Jory Tarkanen was

vessel master on the Bella Bella trip.

The vessel on both occasions was the Vikla 1 and it was operated under the authority of a commercial crab fishery. [ 3 ] Steve Tarkanen pleaded guilty to the following offences: Masset Trip - Information 6340: • Count 2 - Failing to report catch on fish slips within seven days after landing; • Counts 3, 4, 5 - Failing to ensure that completed original harvest logs are forwarded to the Shellfish Data Unit within 28 days following the end of each month in which fishing occurred; and • Count 10 - Failing to return live incidental catch - halibut - in a manner that causes it the least harm.

Bella Bella Trip - Information BB101087: • Count 1 - Setting and leaving a crab trap in the water for more than 18 consecutive days without lifting the trap and removing all the crab from it; • Count 9 - Failing to submit a fish slip not later than seven days after landing; and • Count 10 - Unlawfully possessing fish (Dungeness crab) caught in contravention of the Fisheries Act or regulations . [ 4 ] Jory Tarkanen pleaded guilty to the following charges: Bella Bella trip - Information BB101087: • Setting and leaving a crab trap in the water for more than 18 consecutive days without lifting the trap and removing all the crab from it (Count 1); • Failing to submit a fish slip not later than seven days after landing (Count 8); and • Unlawfully possessing fish (Dungeness crab) caught in contravention of the Fisheries Act of regulations (Count 10). [ 5 ] A sentencing hearing proceeded before me on June 28, 2018.

Crown counsel and defence counsel made thorough submissions. Crown seeks fines totalling $42,200. Defence submits $11,200 in fines is appropriate. They are far apart. [ 6 ] With regard to the Masset trip, Crown Counsel says the appropriate global sentence for Steve Tarkanen is $14,500 while defence counsel says $3,000 is more appropriate. [ 7 ] With regard to the Bella Bella trip, Crown says the appropriate sentence pursuant to s. 78 of the Fisheries Act for Steve Tarkanen are fines totalling $10,000 whereas defence counsel says $1,500 in fines should be ordered.

Crown also submits that pursuant to s. 79 of the Fisheries Act both Steve and Jory Tarkanen should be fined an additional global amount of $7,700 ($3,850 each) representing the average value of the crab that was estimated to have been harvested from the traps which were oversoaked.

Defence counsel submits that the appropriate sentence should be based on $5,200 globally ($2,600 each) which she submits is the accurate monetary value of the sale of the crab caught illegally. [ 8 ] I have appended to my judgment a table setting out the submissions of counsel respecting each count for each trip as well as my ultimate determination as to the appropriate sentence. Background: [ 9 ] Steve Tarkanen is 61 years of age and to say he is an experienced fisherman is an understatement. He is the fourth generation of fishermen in his family and has been fishing since the age of five years.

He owned his first fishing boat when he was only 17 years old and obtained his first commercial license in 1974. [ 10 ] His son, Jory Tarkanen, is 32 years of age and has fished his entire life. He has taken additional training and courses. Father and son fish together and were both on the Vikla 1 during the Bella Bella trip. [ 11 ] They have lived in this area for years if not generations. I am advised that Steve Tarkanen’s family originally settled Sointula. [ 12 ] Both have a limited record for fisheries offences.

On December 9, 2014, they received a $500 fine as a result of a total of four offences which occurred on April 19 and April 20, 2012. I was advised by defence counsel that the convictions related to failing to submit fish slips or harvest logs and for retaining too much by catch (Ling cod), although I am advised that the amount of cod retained was minor and approximately two pounds over the limit. [ 13 ] Steve Tarkanen and Jory Tarkanen were, at the material times, masters of the vessel Vikla 1. They operate the vessel under a commercial crab fishing license. [ 14 ] I was provided with a statement written by Mr.

Shaun Davies, Regional Crab Manager, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), dated December 10, 2015. According to him the commercial crab fishery in British Columbia is a lucrative one. Between 2009 and 2014, the commercial crab fleet, on average, landed $37.6 million of crab. It is a limited entry fishery with only 221 license eligibilities which are then divided into seven management areas.

There are no individual vessel quotas and DFO use a number of measures to manage this resource including trap limits, seasonal closures, gear specification, soak restrictions, weekly hail limits, submission of accurate harvest logs and fish slips.

[ 15 ] A condition of every commercial crab fishing license is that a trap is not to be set and left in the water for more than 18 consecutive days without removing it from the water and removing all the crab from it. [ 16 ] The harvest logbook program was established in 1990 and was designed to provide accurate harvest data in the commercial crab fishery including gear, general fishing locations, fishing times, etc. and other data not available through fish slips.

This data allows DFO to assess and address the need for conservation measures and to estimate appropriate allocations for commercial, First Nations and recreational fisheries. Harvest logs are the primary source used by DFO when assessing impacts to conservation and sustainable use. [ 17 ] It is a condition of every license for the commercial crab fishery that harvest log data is provided to DFO within 28 days following the end of the month in which the fishing occurred. [ 18 ] Crab fish slips are also another important means by which DFO obtains valuable information about this resource.

Fish slips are the only record containing both catch and value information and are also critical in assessing general trends as well as the economic health of the fishery. They are also used to validate commercial fishing activity and harvest log reports. [ 19 ] It is mandatory for commercial crab license holders to submit an accurate written fish slip no later than seven days after landing the catch. [ 20 ] Management of other types of fisheries resources intersects with the commercial crab fishery regulations.

The Pacific commercial groundfish fishery, including the Pacific halibut fishery, utilizes strict quotas among other methods to ensure the sustainability and economic viability of that resource. Because commercial crab harvesters are not subject to those same management measures, crab harvesters are not permitted to retain Pacific halibut.

If halibut are caught incidentally, they are required to release them and, if still alive, in a manner that causes the fish the least harm. [ 21 ] As indicated by Adam Keizer, Halibut and Sablefish Coordinator, DFO, in his statement dated March 31, 2015, Pacific halibut must be managed cooperatively on an international level. Through the International Pacific Halibut Commission, catch limits are determined each year based on data confirming the amount of halibut retention.

He states that if crab harvesters catch and retain fish for which they are not licensed: “the total catch will exceed sustainable levels, endangering the health of the stock and long term economic value of the resource.

Moreover, should the catch exceed the catch limits that result from the international process, Canada may be in violation of international treaty provisions." [ 22 ] He also points out that if DFO doesn't enforce the rules and regulations of the fishery, it loses credibility which may result in more noncompliance, reduced cooperation in the decision-making process and the creation of "an unfair field of play for harvesters that adhere to regulations." Circumstances: The Masset Trip - Information 6340: [ 23 ] I will deal first with the circumstances surrounding the first trip in time, the Masset trip. [ 24 ] Steve Tarkanen was the vessel master responsible for the Vikla 1.

The vessel embarked on fishing trips in June, July, August and September, 2014. He was responsible for ensuring that fish slips reporting the catch were submitted to authorities seven days after landing. The fish slips provide catch information: place where landed, species, weight, pieces and price. None were submitted at all. This forms the basis for Count 2. [ 25 ] He also failed to submit the harvest logs for those months which were due by the end of the following month. I do note that he has entered pleas only in respect of this failure for June, July and August.

The harvest logs were not submitted until January 12, 2015. These offences comprise Counts 3, 4 and 5. [ 26 ] His explanation is that he believed that his service provider, Eco Trust, was sending in his harvest logs. [ 27 ] With regard to the remaining offence - Count 10 - the commercial crab fishery regulations require that the vessel have either an electronic or on board monitoring system, including video. On September 4, 2014, Eco Trust reviewed five hours of video footage from the September 4, 2016 trip. What could be seen on the video was that at least twenty three halibut were retained.

This is in contravention of the licence conditions which required that halibut be returned to the ocean. Between 4 pm and 7 pm at least seven of the retained halibut were clearly still alive when hauled into the ship. What could be seen on the video is a crew member cutting up the live halibut which was used for bait in the crab traps. [ 28 ] Mr. Tarkanen’s explanation for this offence is that he had no knowledge that the crew were retaining and cutting up halibut while still alive and using it for bait. He also says that this was a new crew man. He acknowledges that lack of knowledge is not a defence.

The Bella Bella Trip - Information BB101087 [ 29 ] On this trip, Jory Tarkanen was the vessel master. Between May 2 and May 8, 2016 they set crab traps. By law, the traps cannot be left in the water longer than 18 days without hauling them up and removing all the crab. The vessel position can be monitored by GPS satellite and it was possible to verify the dates that the Vikla 1 was in these waters and when they set and hauled the traps.

The Vikla 1 did not return to haul the traps until June 4 to June 10, 2016. [ 30 ] GPS co-ordinates verified that 181 traps, out of a total of 339 traps, were left in the water for a period of between 28 to 35 days and were therefore oversoaked for a range of ten to seventeen days. This forms the basis for Count 1.

[ 31 ] Local fisheries guardians had been monitoring the commercial crab traps and observed that traps left by the Vikla 1 had exceeded the eighteen day limit. This was reported to DFO on June 26, 2016. [ 32 ] A fisheries officer contacted Steve Tarkanen and both he and Jory met with the local officer so the officer could review the log books. [ 33 ] The officer examined the log books. He knew that the GPS had confirmed that the traps had been in the water for between 28 to 35 days. However, the log book data indicated that the traps had only been in the water for a range of 14 to 18 days.

Based on the log books alone, it would have appeared to DFO that they were compliant with the regulations and conditions of licence. [ 34 ] When asked by the officer why there were inaccuracies in the log book, Jory Tarkanen responded that he “couldn’t say”. [ 35 ] When asked why the traps were oversoaked, Steve Tarkanen advised the officer that it was due to mechanical clutch problems and the vessel needing to be repaired.

The inference of course was that due to an unforeseen circumstance - mechanical issues - they were forced to have the vessel repaired and were not able to return to the area sooner. [ 36 ] During submissions, defence counsel submitted that they had every intention of returning and picking up the traps sooner but the clutch broke, it was unforeseen and they returned as soon as the clutch was repaired. [ 37 ] During the hearing, defence counsel provided an invoice from Tarkanen Marine Ways Ltd. dated May 31, 2016. It set out a description of work performed on the Vikla 1 between May 5 and June 1, 2016.

It included a pressure wash, painting of the hull (“bottom paint”) and various parts and labour. The comment or description at the bottom of the invoice was “yearly maintenance, work on reduction gear”. I was advised during the hearing that reduction gear refers to a clutch. [ 38 ] It is also noteworthy that the invoice does not refer to or mention anything about emergency repairs.

Furthermore, I would have expected that if they were truly concerned about returning quickly to Bella Bella waters, the work on the Vikla 1 would have been limited to emergency repairs and not include yearly maintenance. [ 39 ] Jory Tarkanen’s failure to submit fish slips seven days after they landed after this trip forms the basis of Count 8. Crown counsel advised that no fish slips were ever submitted.

This makes it very difficult for DFO to assess the value of the catch for that trip, including any amounts that were caught and sold in contravention of the regulations due to oversoaking. [ 40 ] Subsequently, on another trip during which the Vikla 1 landed on July 22, 2016, Steve Tarkanen failed to submit fish slips which were due on July 29, 2016. Crown advised that none were submitted at all. This forms the basis for Count 9. [ 41 ] Steve Tarkanen’s explanation for this offence (Count 9) is that the practice was that the buyer would give him a copy of the fish slip, keep one for him and mail one to DFO.

He suggested they were always submitted to DFO by the buyer. To further excuse himself, he also says he was never warned by DFO. [ 42 ] Upon landing, the crabs were sold at dock and that included a proportion of the illegally obtained crab. This forms the basis of Count 10. Discussion : [ 43 ] I have reviewed the case law submitted by both counsel. As is often typical, the facts in those cases were distinguishable from the facts in the case at bar.

However, a number of principles of general application may be taken from those authorities. [ 44 ] Offences under the Fisheries Act and Regulations are ones of strict liability and there is no tolerance for “almost” or “close” compliance: R. v. Croft , 2003 NSCA 109 , para.15. [ 45 ] The principles of sentencing as set out in the Criminal Code of Canada apply to offences under fisheries legislation and regulations. A judge must consider principles of denunciation, deterrence, promotion of responsibility and accountability in the offender and rehabilitation.

A judge must also consider mitigating and aggravating circumstances applicable to each individual and each offence in assessing the appropriate sentence. [ 46 ] The degree of moral blameworthiness is also a relevant factor.

Lesser degrees of moral culpability may attract a lesser sentence whereas offences in which the conduct of the individual is deliberate or deceptive will usually attract a great penalty. [ 47 ] The paramount consideration for the court in assessing a fit and appropriate sentence in cases of this nature is general and specific deterrence. [ 48 ] If a fine is imposed, the ability of the individual to pay must be considered. However, a fine should be meaningful, and should be more than the price of doing business. [ 49 ] The fisheries resource is protected through careful and complex management by DFO.

For that reason, it is a highly regulated industry and those who participate in and reap the financial benefit from the resource are presumed to know the conditions and terms of commercial fishing licences and the regulations that apply to them. Mitigating Factors: [ 50 ] Mitigating circumstances in this case are the guilty pleas by both defendants. Aggravating Factors: [ 51 ] There are a number of aggravating circumstances.

[ 52 ] First is the fact that both Steve and Jory Tarkanen are experienced commercial fishermen and were very familiar with the requirements of the conditions of their commercial crab fishing licence. [ 53 ] Although the prior record is dated as it relates to offences committed in 2012, the offences relate to failure to submit harvest logs and fish slips. In 2014, they received a fine of $500 although I was not given enough information to determine if that was $500 for each count or if it was global.

These are the same offences before this court. [ 54 ] Secondly, I am not at all satisfied that either of these gentlemen is genuinely remorseful and takes responsibility for their actions in the true sense of the words. For each of the offences, there was an excuse proffered to deflect or minimize their own responsibility. In relation to the Masset trips, the excuse for the failure to provide harvest logs when was that their service provider should have done that for them and also that they were never warned by DFO.

The excuse for the failure to return live halibut to the ocean was that a new crew member was responsible and Steve Tarkanen had no knowledge that this was happening. [ 55 ] Similarly during the Bella Bella trip, the excuse for failing to provide fish slips for the June, and July 2016 trips was that the buyer was supposed to submit them. [ 56 ] With respect to Count 1 on the Bella Bella Information (the oversoaking), counsel for the defendants submitted that the Vikla 1 did not return to the Bella Bella fishing area in time due to an unforeseen mechanical problem with the clutch.

Her submission was that the defendants returned as soon as possible once the repair was completed. [ 57 ] I do not accept this excuse as a factor that reduces their moral culpability. Although I accept that work was performed on the clutch (the reduction gear), the evidence clearly indicates that the work done on the vessel was yearly maintenance, including painting. Yearly maintenance and painting is not a sudden or unforeseen mechanical issue.

This excuse is, in my view, another attempt to deflect personal responsibility. [ 58 ] The fourth and most significant aggravating factor also relates to the Bella Bella trip. Steven and Jory Tarkanen were called by the fisheries officer about the report they had oversoaked a number of their crab traps. The officer met with them and examined their log books. Contrary to the actual times the traps were set and then hauled (and which had been confirmed by GPS), the log books indicated that the traps had been raised within the time required.

At best, this is a reflection of carelessness or negligence on the part of Jory Tarkanen who was the vessel master for this trip. At worst, it was a deliberate act to deceive the DFO. [ 59 ] When Jory Tarkanen (who was the vessel master) was asked by the fisheries officer why the logs were inaccurate, his response was that he didn’t know. [ 60 ] Given the fact that both Jory Tarkanen and his father Steve Tarkanen, who was also present on that trip, are very experienced commercial fishermen, it is simply incredible that the inaccuracies in the log book were purely accidental.

The lack of explanation is similarly incredible. [ 61 ] The Vikla 1 returned to the area to lift the traps between June 4 and 10, 2016. The fish slips for this period were due seven days after landing. It is striking that none were ever submitted. Had those been submitted, there would be a way of determining the weight and price paid for the crabs caught and sold during this trip. Fish slips are also used by DFO to verify harvest logs. [ 62 ] The only reason they were caught was because of the oversight and reporting by local fisheries guardians in the area and the use of the GPS system.

Conclusion: [ 63 ] Due to its sheer size, the ocean is a difficult area to police. There are not enough fisheries officers and ships to patrol the vast area in which the commercial fishery takes place.

It is imperative to the well-being and survival of Canadian fisheries resources and our international obligations in that regard, that everyone abide by the laws established to protect this valuable resource. [ 64 ] In this case, a sentence must be crafted in a way that will not only deter these particular individuals but also others who may take the view that the chance of being caught is outweighed by the chance of increased profits even though illegally obtained. [ 65 ] It is not appropriate to impose a sentence that does not achieve this goal.

It is not fair to the majority of commercial fishermen who abide by the rules and fish legally. It is not fair to Canadians who depend on the fisheries resources for their livelihood and sustenance. For these reasons, specific and general deterrence are given particular emphasis in regulatory offences such as fisheries legislation.

However, these objectives must be balanced with the other objectives of sentencing and must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and moral culpability of Steve Tarkanen and Jory Tarkanen. [ 66 ] In fashioning an appropriate sentence, I must also consider their ability to pay fines or other financial penalties that are imposed as part of a sentence. Their counsel provided me with a one page five-year comparative review of Jory Tarkanen’s income for tax years 2012 to 2016 inclusive. This document includes an amount for fishing income and EI benefits.

His annual line 150 income over these five years averages to a little over $76,000 and his net income over those years is an average of a little over $71,000. [ 67 ] I do not have any information about Jory Tarkanen’s 2017 income. I was not advised if the amount set out for fishing income is net or gross income although it appears to be net income.

There was no information about the gross income he received from fishing or the expenses or other deductions that would have reduced the gross income. [ 68 ] With regard to Steve Tarkanen, he says that the crabbing industry has “dried up” and he earns one tenth of what he earned five years ago. He says he tried to sell his licence and no one would buy it.

However, I have no other information about Steve Tarkanen’s income to assist me in assessing his ability to pay other than the submission that he used to make a very good income in the past. [ 69 ] The Information regarding the Masset originally included charges against Burger Fisheries Ltd. (Burger) as well as Steve

Tarkanen on every count. I was not provided with any information about Burger or who the owners of that company are.

However, it appears that Steve Tarkanen is a shareholder of that company. [ 70 ] In response to Crown counsel’s submission that there should be an additional fine pursuant to s. 79 of the Fisheries Act , defence counsel submitted that I should consider, in assessing an appropriate fine that after Jory and Steve Tarkanen brought in the oversoaked traps, half the catch was dead and only a small amount was sold on the dock. [ 71 ] Defence counsel provided a year end print out for Burger Fisheries Ltd. for the period June 1, 2016 to May 31, 2017.

This record indicates that in June/July 2016 cash sales of crab in the amount of $5,200 were kept by Steve Tarkanen and recorded as a shareholder’s loan transaction. The note on the

summary states “money was kept by steve (as per steve)”. This, she submits, is an accurate record of the cash received for the sale and submits that a fine whether pursuant to s. 78 or s. 79 should be assessed at $5,200 and not the $7,700 figure submitted by Crown. [ 72 ] I also observed that the invoice dated May 31, 2016 for yearly maintenance and work on the reduction gear on the Vikla 1 was billed to Burger.

I was not provided with any information about the income or assets of Burger which may reflect shareholder’s loans, assets or other income relevant to the ability of either Jory or Steve Tarkanen to pay fines. [ 73 ] The difficulty that DFO was faced with in trying to assess the monetary benefit that flowed from the sale of those crabs, was directly related to the fact that fish slips, for that very time period, were not submitted (Count 8 of the Bella Bella Information).

It does not now lie in the mouths of the defendant to argue that the amount of the monetary benefit should be reduced because DFO can’t accurately verify the monetary benefit. [ 74 ] Defence counsel submits that contrary to submission of Crown counsel, the facts do not support an inference that the defendants have displayed a pattern of disregard for the rules - for the law - as it relates to conditions of their licence and the applicable regulations. She says that, for example, Steve Tarkanen has had a long career and a short record. [ 75 ] With the greatest respect, I do not agree.

The past convictions relating to Jory Tarkanen as well as Steve Tarkanen were from 2012 and the current offences took place only two years later in 2014 and 2016. There is a pattern of failing to submit harvest logs. There is a pattern of failing to submit fish slips.

Most concerning are the inaccurate harvest logs produced to the fisheries officer who was investigating the reports of oversoaking during the Bella Bella trip and the failure to submit fish slips at all for that trip. [ 76 ] It certainly appears to have been deliberate and although I do not have enough evidence to find that as a fact, I am of the view that these actions were the culmination of a troubling pattern of failing to comply with the law.

The inaccurate harvest logs certainly would have deceived the fisheries officer had there not been the independent reporting and the GPS monitoring system. [ 77 ] Failure to provide or delay in providing harvest logs or fish slips should not be considered a mere technical or administrative offence. The data provided by these documents is crucial to the ability of DFO to properly manage the fisheries for the benefit of all Canadians. I concur with my brother Judge Wright in R v. Paul , File No: 31168-1,Terrace Registry (February 3, 2017), who in sentencing Mr.

Paul to a global fine of $10,000 for unlawfully fishing for and selling or attempting to sell fourty one Dungeness crab, said the following: [60] On the face of it, that is to uninformed person, this may appear to be a relatively minor offence. [62] As has been pointed out in numerous decisions of the courts in this province and elsewhere, it is extremely difficult to investigate and prosecute individuals for these types of offences. [63] As a result, when such offenders are in fact caught and convicted, the court must ensure that a crystal clear message is sent to the public that these are serious offences, and therefore the penalty must reflect that fact.

The penalty must also be such that people who are considering committing these offences do not see it simply as the cost of doing business. [ 78 ] Defence counsel reminds the court that general deterrence should not be achieved through the financial devastation of the defendants.

She urges restraint and, referring to what happened in Bella Bella as an unintentional act, points to the culpability of Steve and Jory Tarkanen as being at the low end of the spectrum. [ 79 ] After considering all the circumstances, the evidence and the mitigating and aggravating factors, I find that - particularly with regard to the Bella Bella offences, the moral culpability of Jory Tarkanen and Steve Tarkanen is significant. [ 80 ] Jory Tarkanen enjoys a reasonably good income from fishing although I have no knowledge of his income for 2017 and year to date for 2018.

All I know about Steve Tarkanen’s ability to pay is that he says he used to enjoy a significant income, but not any longer.

I consider this in my assessment of a fit and proper sentence. [ 81 ] I take into account counsel’s submission that fines should not be devastating, but I also must balance this with the objectives of sentencing in a case of this nature. [ 82 ] Steve Tarkanen will receive the following sentence on Information 6340 (2014 Masset trip): • Counts 2, 3, 4 and 5 $1,000 each and consecutive to each other • Count 10 $5,000 also consecutive • Total fines: $9,000 [ 83 ] Steve Tarkanen and Jory Tarkanen will receive the following sentences on Information BB101087 (2016 Bella Bella trip): • Count 1 $3,000 each for a total of $6,000

• Count 8 Jory Tarkanen will receive a fine of $2,000 • Count 9 Steve will receive a fine of $1,500 • Count 10 $2,500 each for a total of $5,000 [ 84 ] I prefer and accept the Crown’s estimate of the monetary value of the crab caught in contravention of the licence conditions. Using averages and a percentage of oversoaked traps to the total number of traps appears to be a reasonable approach in all the circumstances. I am not confident at all in the accuracy of the statement provided by the defendants to show the value of the illegal sales.

Furthermore, the challenge in assessment this is due to Jory Tarkanen’s failure to submit the fish slips for this trip. [ 85 ] Accordingly, there will be an additional global fine pursuant to s. 79 of the Fisheries Act in the amount of $7,700 which is $3,850 each. [ 86 ] That brings the total of the fines on this Information to $14,500. Each count in this Information is consecutive and this Information is consecutive to the Masset Information. [ 87 ] To summarize, the total of the s. 78 and s. 79 fines on both Informations is $31,200. [ 88 ] Pursuant to s. 79.2 (

f) I order that from this amount, $25,000 is to be paid to the Receiver General of Canada c/o Fisheries and Oceans Canada, at 137 Bay Street, Queen Charlotte, British Columbia. The said sum is to be spent at the direction of Elizabeth Guptill, Detachment Supervisor for the Masset detachment of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, or a designate at Fisheries and Oceans Canada, on projects which purposes are the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat, with specific reference to the preservation of fisheries and fish habitat in and around Haida Gwaii.

The payments are to be made as follows: $7,700 on or before September 1, 2019. The remaining balance of $17,300 must be paid on or before September 1, 2022. [ 89 ] This leaves the remainder of the fines which total $6,200 and this amount must be paid on or before September 1, 2022.

BY THE COURT: ________________________________ The Honourable Judge Flewelling SENTENCING TABLE Masset Trip (File 6340) - 2014: Steve Tarkanen Count Crown Defence Court Order 2 Fish Slips $1,500 $500 $1,000 3 Harvest Log $1,000 $500 $1,000 4 Harvest Log $1,000 $500 $1,000 5 Harvest Log $1,000 $500 $1,000 10 Fail to return-live halibut $10,000 $1,000 $5,000 Total $14,500 $3,000 $9,000 Bella Bella Trip (File BB101087) - 2016: Steve Tarkanen and Jory Tarkanen Count Crown Defence Court Order 1 Oversoaking Crab Traps Steve - $3,000 Jory - $3,000 Steve - $1,000 Jory - $1,000 $3,000 - Steve $3,000 - Jory 8 Fish Slips Jory - $2,000 Jory - $500 $2,000 9 Fish Slips Steve - $2,000 Steve - $500 $1,500

10 Possess illegal Catch - Crabs Steve - $5,000 Jory - $5,000 See s. 79 below $2,500 - Steve $2,500 - Jory s. 79 order $7,700 jointly $5,200 jointly $7,700 - $3,850 each Total Fines $20,000 $3,000 $14,500 Total s. 79 order $7,700 $5,200 $23,500 Total Fines Both Informations $42,200 $11,200 $31,200