R. v. Hoggan Date:, 2012 BCPC 285

Citation: R. v. Hoggan Date: 20120711 2012 BCPC 0285 File No: 87608-1 Registry: Port Coquitlam IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. JASON WILLIAM HOGGAN ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE BULLER BENNETT Counsel for the Crown: J. MacAulay Counsel for the Accused: R. Gunnell Place of Hearing: Port Coquitlam , B.C. Date of Hearing: July 11, 2012 Date of Judgment: July 11, 2012

[ 1 ] THE COURT : Mr. Hoggan has pleaded guilty to two counts on Information 87608-1. [ 2 ] Count 1 is a charge that, on or about the 28th day of June, 2011, at or near Maple Ridge, in the Province of British Columbia, he did place or he set fishing gear or apparatus in water, to wit: the Alouette River, along a beach or within any fishery during a closed time, contrary to s. 25(1) of the Fisheries Act and did thereby commit an offence in violation of s. 78 (

a) of the Fisheries Act of Canada . [ 3 ] He pleaded guilty to Count 3, that on or about the 6th day of April, 2011, at or near Maple Ridge, in the Province of British Columbia, he did apply for, or in any way obtain, a licence, to wit: an annual angling licence B.C. 1100581, at a time when his right to apply for or obtain a licence was suspended pursuant to s. 85(2)(

a) of the Wildlife Act and did thereby commit an offence contrary to s. 85(2)(c)(

i) of the Wildlife Act . [ 4 ] Mr. Hoggan's offences go back actually to July 4th, 2007. He, on that day, failed to produce a fishing licence. He did have one, but he just did not have it with him when he was fishing at Stave Lake, so he was issued a violation ticket. [ 5 ] Mr. Hoggan simply forgot about the ticket. Because he did not pay the fine of $115.00 within the required time period, there was a deemed conviction. Also, going along with this whole process, Mr.

Hoggan was served, at the time of getting the ticket, notice of cancellation that prohibited him from applying or in any other way getting a licence under the Wildlife Act . It also cancelled any licences he currently held under the Wildlife Act . [ 6 ] Mr. Hoggan did not read the fine print on that notice of cancellation and in 2011 he purchased a fishing licence. Again, through all of this he had forgotten about or did not even know about the cancellation. [ 7 ] Mr.

Hoggan did apply for and did receive his fishing licence for 2011, amongst other years, and he pleaded guilty to Count 3, getting that licence when he was legally not able to. [ 8 ] On June 28th, 2011, Mr. Hoggan was at the Alouette River in Maple Ridge, B.C. with two friends. He was actively fishing. He was what is commonly called "drift fishing" from a ledge. He had two friends with him on that day. Conservation Officer Klassen was off duty and not in uniform and was on his way home. En route to his home, he decided to drive by the Alouette River, this one particular pool especially.

One of the reasons for doing this was the river was closed for fishing as of June 28th, 2011. [ 9 ] Conservation Officer Klassen knew Mr. Hoggan and the other two men from school, apparently. Conservation Officer Klassen saw Mr. Hoggan actively fishing and spoke to Mr. Hoggan and the two other men. [ 10 ] Conservation Officer Klassen left the scene and went back to his office at some point and searched the Fisheries database. He saw from that database that Mr. Hoggan was not supposed to be having a licence of any sort under the Wildlife Act . [ 11 ] So, Mr.

Hoggan was fishing without a valid licence on June 28th, 2011, but he was also fishing during closed season, hence the guilty plea. [ 12 ] Mr. Hoggan is 27 years old and is a long-time resident of the Maple Ridge area. He is employed. I understand he enjoys the outdoors and spends all of his free time fishing, hunting, riding ATVs, and taking advantage of the wildlife and beautiful scenery that we have in our province. He does not keep fish that he catches. He is a catch and release fisher and follows that diligently.

He has since paid the outstanding fine, I should add. [ 13 ] I have before me a joint submission regarding fines and payments to conservation funds. Really, the dollars are not in dispute. [ 14 ] Crown is seeking a prohibition from obtaining any type of licence for a period of one year under the Wildlife Act . [ 15 ] Mr. Hoggan has not been able to have any licence under the Wildlife Act since February when he was served with this Information and charged.

He has been certainly deterred by this court action, so he opposes any further prohibition from being licensed under the Wildlife Act . [ 16 ] I had the benefit of submissions from both counsel and I will just refer to the case law that has been brought to my attention by Crown. [ 17 ] The first one is Her Majesty the Queen v. Shamrock Chemicals Ltd. , a decision of the Ontario Provincial Court by Judge Phillips, February 13th, 1989; R. v. Chis , a decision of my colleague Judge Miller; it is a Surrey File 76723, December 2nd, 1995.

I have also been referred to a decision of my colleague Judge Fabbro of July 19th, 2001, Creston, B.C. in R. v. Stewart Birkhand, Robert William Dickson, and George Elliott Dickson (all phonetic); and R. v. Christon Bruce Abbott , 2005 BCSC 1523 which was an appeal of a Provincial Court decision and the appeal was dismissed. [ 18 ] All of these cases stand for the following propositions. [ 19 ] Sentencing has to do with general deterrence. That is to deter others from committing these sorts of offences. Also, sentencing is to denounce the commission of these types of offences. [ 20 ] Of course, Mr.

Hoggan, when we are looking at fishing and wildlife offences, we are trying to, by way of various laws and regulations, protect a non-renewable resource. We are trying to prevent harm to the environment and also to uphold the law, the licensing schemes, the management systems, and also respect for the law regarding natural resources in a general sense, but in particular, in your case, to uphold a respect for the law for a licensing scheme and a resource management scheme.

You were fishing during a closed period and, in my view, that is serious because there are closed and open times for a reason, and that is to manage a scarce and non-renewable resource. Licensing under the Wildlife Act and Fisheries Act is a privilege and not a right. It is something that is taken

seriously. [ 21 ] My concern, of course, is making sure that people follow the law and respect the law even though they might not like it and that, in the big picture, our resources are properly managed. Those are the goals of the sentencing today. [ 22 ] I think that the monetary fines suggested by the lawyers are appropriate, given the case law that has been put before me and also because of the nature of the offences. [ 23 ] On Count 1, there will be a fine of $100.00. Also, there will be a contribution of $900.00 to the Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation, and that is under s. 79.2(f). [ 24 ] On Count 3, there will be a fine of $100.00, and under s. 84.1(1)(

e) of the Wildlife Act there will be a $900.00 payment to the Habitat Conversation Trust Foundation. [ 25 ] Because of the need for denunciation and also to send a message to the community that is very clear -- the fishing community, in particular -- in my view it is appropriate to order a one-year prohibition. So, you are prohibited from fishing for a period of one year and that is under s. 79.2 (

a) of the Fisheries Act and that is as against Count 1. [ 26 ] I want it to be very clear to the fishing community that these laws have to be respected and they will be upheld by the courts. [ 27 ] You will have until December 31st, 2012 to pay all of these amounts, sir, and the outstanding counts please? [ 28 ] MR. MACAULAY: Your Honour, the Crown directs a stay of proceedings with respect to Counts 2, 4 and 5 on the Information. [ 29 ] THE COURT: Thank you very much. Mr. Hoggan, you will have to go to the registry now to sign some paperwork.

Thank you, sir. [ 30 ] Given that I ordered the payments to the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund, I am going to waive the victim fine surcharges. (ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED)