Canada (Procureur général) v. Hijos

Canada (Procureur général) v. Hijos
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2007-01-12
Neutral citation
2007 FCA 20
File numbers
A-430-05
Notes
Digest
Decision Content
Date: 20070112
Docket: A-430-05
Citation: 2007 FCA 20
CORAM: LINDEN J.A.
NADON J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Appellant
and
JOSE PEREIRA E. HIJOS, S.A.
and ENRIQUE DAVILA GONZALEZ
Respondents
Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 24, 2006.
Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on January 12, 2007.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: NADON J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: LINDEN J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
Date: 20070112
Docket: A-430-05
Citation: 2007 FCA 20
CORAM: LINDEN J.A.
NADON J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Appellant
and
JOSE PEREIRA E. HIJOS, S.A.
and ENRIQUE DAVILA GONZALEZ
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
NADON J.A.
[1] On March 9, 1995, acting under the authority of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Regulations (the “Regulations”) enacted by the Governor in Council pursuant to section 6 of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-21 (as amended by S.C. 1994, c.14), Canadian fisheries officers and members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (the “RCMP”) arrested the Spanish fishing vessel, the ESTAI (the “ship” or the “vessel”), on the high seas and forced it to proceed to Saint John’s, Newfoundland, where charges were laid against the ship and her master for breaches of section 5.2 of the Act. More particularly, the ship and her master were charged with fishing a “straddling stock”, i.e. Greenland halibut, in the “Regulatory Area” of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (“NAFO”) situated in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean beyond Canada’s 200-mile economic zone.
[2] Although these charges were withdrawn on April 18, 1995, the respondents, pursuant to the provisions of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-50, commenced legal proceedings against the Federal Crown by Statement of Claim filed on July 28, 1995, as amended on April 30, 2003, seeking damages by reason of, inter alia, the illegal arrest of the ship in international waters and the unlawful trespass by servants and agents of the Federal Crown in pursuing, boarding, arresting and forcibly escorting the ship to Saint John’s. In making their claim, the respondents asserted that the Regulations pursuant to which the Federal Crown’s servants and agents purported to act were ultra vires the regulation-making authority conferred on the Governor in Council by section 6 of the Act.
[3] The respondents also advanced a claim on behalf of the master of the ship, Captain Davila, under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”) by reason of discrimination on the basis of his race and of his national and ethnic origins.
[4] On July 26, 2005, after a six-week trial in Saint John’s, Mr. Justice Gibson of the Federal Court rendered judgment. Notwithstanding the fact that he rejected all of the respondents’ allegations with regard to the Federal Crown’s tortious liability and that he upheld the validity of the Regulations, the Judge allowed the respondents’ action, in part, and awarded them the sum of $137,052.57 with interest.
[5] Before us are an appeal by the Attorney General of Canada (the “appellant”) and a cross-appeal by the respondents. The appeal is directed at that part of the judgment which grants damages to the respondents. The appellant says that in the absence of a finding of liability against the Federal Crown, the Judge could not award damages. By their cross-appeal, the respondents attack the Judge’s dismissal of their allegations that the conduct of the Federal Crown’s servants and agents in arresting, detaining and forcibly escorting the ship to Saint John’s was unlawful. In making this challenge, the respondents say that the Judge erred in upholding the validity of the Regulations.
THE RELEVANT LEGISLATION
[6] As the Act and the Regulations are at the heart of the appeal and the cross-appeal, I immediately reproduce the relevant sections thereof:
1. The Act:
2. In this Act,
“Canadian fisheries waters” means all waters in the fishing zones of Canada, all waters in the territorial sea of Canada and all internal waters of Canada;
…
“Foreign fishing vessel” means a fishing vessel that is not a Canadian fishing vessel;
…
“NAFO Regulatory Area” means that part of the following area, being the Convention Area of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, that is on the high seas:
(a) the waters of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean north of 35o00’ north latitude and west of a line extending due north from 35o00’ north latitude and 42o00’ west longitude to 59o00’ north latitude, thence due west to 44o00’ west longitude, and thence due north to the coast of Greenland, and
(b) the waters of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Davis Strait and Baffin Bay north of 78o10’ north latitude;
“protection officer” means
(a) a fishery officer within the meaning of the Fisheries Act,
(b) an officer of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or
(c) any person authorized by the Governor in Council to enforce this Act.
“straddling stock” means a prescribed stock of fish.
[Emphasis added]
…
5.1 Parliament, recognizing
(a) that straddling stocks on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland are a major renewable world food source having provided a livelihood for centuries to fishers,
(b) that those stocks are threatened with extinction,
(c) that there is an urgent need for all fishing vessels to comply in both Canadian fisheries waters and the NAFO Regulatory Area with sound conservation and management measures for those stocks, notably those measures that are taken under the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries, done in Ottawa on October 24, 1978, Canada Treaty Series 1979 No. 11, and
(d) that some foreign fishing vessels continue to fish those stocks in the NAFO Regulatory Area in a manner that undermines the effectiveness of sound conservation and management measures,
declares that the purpose of section 5.2 is to enable Canada to take urgent action necessary to prevent further destruction of those stocks and to permit their rebuilding, while continuing to seek effective international solutions to the situation referred to in paragraph (d).
[Emphasis added]
5.2 No person, being aboard a foreign fishing vessel of a prescribed class, shall, in the NAFO Regulatory Area, fish or prepare to fish for a straddling stock in contravention of any of the prescribed conservation and management measures.
[Emphasis added]
6. The Governor in Council may make regulations
(a) for authorizing, by means of licences, permits or otherwise
(i) foreign fishing vessels to enter Canadian fisheries waters for any purpose specified in the regulations, or
(ii) persons to do all or any of the things described in paragraphs 4(1)(a) to (e), subsection 4(2) or section 5;
(b) respecting the issuance, suspension and cancellation of any licences or permits provided for under paragraph (a) and prescribing their forms, the fees payable therefore and their terms and conditions, which are in addition to such terms and conditions, if any, as the Minister may specify therein;
(b.1) prescribing as a straddling stock, for the purposes of section 5.2, any stock of fish that occurs both within Canadian fisheries waters and in an area beyond and adjacent to Canadian fisheries waters;
(b.2) prescribing any class of foreign fishing vessel for the purposes of section 5.2;
(b.3) prescribing, for the purposes of section 5.2,
(i) any measure for the conservation and management of any straddling stock to be complied with by persons aboard a foreign fishing vessel of a prescribed class in order to ensure that the foreign fishing vessel does not engage in any activity that undermines the effectiveness of conservation and management measures for any straddling stock that are taken under the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries, done at Ottawa on October 24, 1978, Canada Treaty Series 1979 No. 11, or
(ii) any other measure for the conservation and management of any straddling stock to be complied with by persons aboard a foreign fishing vessel of a prescribed class;
(b.4) prescribing the manner in which and the extent to which a protection officer is permitted to use the force referred to in section 8.1;
(b.5) prescribing forms that may be used instead of the forms set out in Part XXVIII of the Criminal Code in proceedings against fishing vessels under this Act or the Fisheries Act;
(c) for appointing or authorizing persons to enforce the provisions of this Act and the regulations;(d) for securing and keeping any fishing vessels or things seized pursuant to this Act; and
(e) generally for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this Act
.
[Emphasis added]
…
8. A protection officer may arrest without warrant any person who the officer suspects on reasonable grounds has committed an offence under this Act.
8.1 A protection officer may, in the manner and to the extent prescribed by the regulations, use force that is intended or is likely to disable a foreign fishing vessel, if the protection officer
(a) is proceeding lawfully to arrest the master or other person in command of the vessel; and
(b) believes on reasonable grounds that the force is necessary for the purpose of arresting that master or other person.
9. Where a protection officer suspects on reasonable grounds that an offence under this Act has been committed the officer may seize
(a) any fishing vessel by means of or in relation to which the officer believes on reasonable grounds the offence was committed;
(b) any goods aboard a fishing vessel described in paragraph (a), including fish, tackle, rigging, apparel, furniture, stores and cargo; or
(c) any fishing vessel described in paragraph (a) and any of the goods described in paragraph (b).
*************
2. The Regulations (SOR/94-362), 25 May 1994:
2. …
19.3 A protection officer may use force under section 8.1 of the Act only where the protection officer is proceeding lawfully and in accordance with the manner set out in sections 19.4 and 19.5 to arrest the master or other person in command of a foreign fishing vessel for the commission of an offence under section 3, paragraph 4(1)(a) of the Act or of an offence set out in subparagraph 17(a)(ii) of the Act.
19.4 Before using force referred to in section 19.3, a protection officer shall:
(a) consider all less violent means reasonable in the circumstances to have the foreign fishing vessel bring to, including boarding the foreign fishing vessel; and
(b) be satisfied that the foreign fishing vessel cannot be made to bring to by those means.
19.5 A protection officer who has met the requirements of section 19.4 shall, before using force referred to in section 19.3,
(a) fire a warning shot or, if the protection officer considers it advisable, a series of warning shots in the vicinity of the foreign fishing vessel but at a safe distance and give the master or other person on board a reasonable opportunity to bring to; and
(b) signal the foreign fishing vessel by Signal SQ 1 and give the master or other person on board a reasonable opportunity to bring to.
3. The Regulations are amended by adding the following after section 20:
21. (1) in this section, “vessel without nationality” means a foreign fishing vessel that
(a) is not registered under the laws of any state or to which no state has issued a document granting the foreign fishing vessel the right to fly the flag of that state;
(b) has no visible markings indicating its name or home port;
(c) is flying a flag of a state that it is not entitled to fly;
(d) is not flying a flag of any state; or
(e) is sailing under flags of two or more states and flying/ the flags according to convenience.
(2) For the purposes of section 5.2 of the Act,
(a) straddling stocks are,
(i) in Division 3L, Division 3N and Division 3O, the stocks of fish as set out in Table I to this section, and
(ii) in Division 3M, the stock of fish as set out in Table II to this section;
(b) vessels without nationality and foreign fishing vessels that fly the flag of any state set out in Table III to this section are prescribed classes of vessels, and
(c) a prohibition against fishing for straddling stocks, preparing to fish for straddling stocks or catching and retaining straddling stocks is a prescribed conservation and management measure.
[Emphasis added]
*************
3. The Regulations (SOR/95-136), 3 March 1995:
2. Paragraphs 21(2)(b) and (c) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:
21 (b) the following classes of foreign fishing vessels are prescribed classes, namely
(i) foreign fishing vessels without nationality;
(ii) foreign fishing vessels that fly the flag of any state set out in Table III to this section, and
(iii) foreign fishing vessels that fly the flag of any state out in Table IV of this section;
(c) in respect of a foreign fishing vessel of a class prescribed by subparagraphs (b)(i) and (ii), prohibitions against fishing for the straddling stocks set out in Table I or II to this section, preparing to fish for those straddling stocks and catching and retaining those straddling stocks are prescribed conservation and management measures; and
(d) in respect of a foreign fishing vessel of a class prescribed by subparagraph (b)(iii), the measures set out in Table V to this section are prescribed conservation and management measures.
(3) Section 21 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after Table III:
___________________________________
Table IV
____________STATES________________
Item State_________________________
1. Spain
2._____Portugal______________________
___________________________________
Table V
Prescribed Conservation
and
Management MeasureS_____
Item Measures______________________
1. Prohibitions against fishing for, or
catching and retaining, Greenland
halibut in Division 3L, Division 3M,
Division 3N or Division 3O during
the period commencing on March 3
and terminating on December 31 in
any year.
2. Prohibitions, when fishing for, or
catching and retaining,
(a) American plaice in Division 3L,
Division 3N or Division 3O;
(b) Atlantic cod in Division 3L,
Division 3N or Division 3O;
(c) Capelin in Division 3N or
Division 3O;
(d) Northern shrimp in Division 3L,
Division 3N or Division 3O;
(e) Witch flounder in Division 3N or
Division 3O;
(f) Yellowtail flounder in Division
3L, Division 3N or Division 3O.
3. Prohibitions, when fishing for any
straddling stocks set out in Part A of
Table I or in Table II, against fishing
with or having on board the foreign
fishing vessel net that has a mesh
size, in any part of the net, that is
(a) in the case of a net made from
Caprolan, Dederon or Kapron, less
than 120 mm; and
(b) in any other case, les than 130
mm.
4. Prohibition against fishing with a
trawl net that any of its meshes
obstructed in any manner, other than
a manner allowed under section 31 of
the Fisheries General Regulations.
5. Prohibition against having on board
the foreign fishing vessel in Division
3L, Division 3N or Division 3O any
(a) Atlantic cod less than 41 cm in
fork length; or
(b) American plaice or Yellowtail
flounder less 25 cm in total length.
6. Requirement to keep, and produce on
the demand of a protection officer,
accurate daily logs that set out
(a) all catches, by species and area of
Capture, and
(b) all production, by species and
product form.
7. Prohibition against removing fishing
gear from the water during the 30
minute period after a Signal SQ 3 is
sent from a government vessel to the
_____foreign fishing vessel._____________
3. Sections 2 and 2 apply according to their terms before they are published in the Canada Gazette.
1. La Loi:
2. Les définitions qui suivent s’appliquent à la présente loi.
…
« bateau de pêche étranger » Le bateau de pêche qui n’est pas canadien.
« eaux de pêche canadiennes » Les eaux de la zone de pêche et de la mer territoriale du Canada, ainsi que les eaux intérieures canadiennes.
« garde-pêche » Font office de garde-pêche :
a) les agents des pêches au sens de la Loi sur les pêches;
b) les agents de la Gendarmerie royale du Canada;
c) les personnes autorisées par le gouverneur en conseil à exercer des pouvoirs de police dans le cadre de la présente loi;
…
« stock chevauchant » Stock de poissons déterminé par règlement.
« zone de réglementation de l’OPAN » La partie en haute mer de la zone de compétence de l’Organisation des pêches de l’Atlantique nord-ouest, laquelle comprend, d’une part, les eaux du nord-ouest de l’océan Atlantique situées au nord de 35o de latitude nord et à l’ouest d’une ligne s’étendant plein nord à partir d’un point situé par 35o de latitude nord et 42o de longitude ouest jusqu’à 59o de latitude nord, puis plein ouest jusqu’à 44o de longitude ouest, et de là, plein nord jusqu’à la côte du Groenland et, d’autre part, les eaux du golfe du Saint-Laurent, du détroit de Davis et de la baie de Baffin situées au sud de 78o10’ de latitude nord.
[Le souligné est le mien]
[…]
5.1 Le Parlement, constatant que les stocks chevauchants du Grand Banc de Terre-Neuve constituent une importante source mondiale renouvelable de nourriture ayant assuré la subsistance des pêches durant des siècles, que ces stocks sont maintenant menacés d’extinction, qu’il est absolument nécessaire que les bateaux de pêche se conforment, tant dans les eaux de pêche canadiennes que dans la zone de réglementation de l’OPAN, aux mesures valables de conservation et de gestion de ces stocks, notamment celles prises sous le régime de la Convention sur la future coopération multilatérale dans les pêches de l’Atlantique nord-ouest, faite à Ottawa le 24 octobre 1978 et figurant au numéro 11 du Recueil des traités du Canada (1979), et que certains bateaux de pêche étrangers continuent d’exploiter ces stocks dans la zone de réglementation de l’OPAN d’une manière qui compromet l’efficacité de ces mesures, déclare que l’article 5.2 a pour but de permettre au Canada de prendre les mesures d’urgence nécessaire pour mettre un terme à la destruction de ces stocks et les reconstituer tout en poursuivant ses efforts sur le plan international en vue de trouver une solution au problème de l’exploitation indue par les bateaux de pêche étrangers.
[Le souligné est le mien]
5.2 Il est interdit aux personnes se trouvant à bord d’un bateau de pêche étranger d’une classe réglementaire de pêcher, ou de se préparer à pêcher, dans la zone de réglementation de l’OPAN, des stocks chevauchants en contravention avec les mesures de conservation et de gestion prévues par les règlements.
[Le souligné est le mien]
6. Le gouverneur en conseil peut, par règlement :
a) prévoir l’autorisation, notamment par licence ou permis :
(i) pour les bateaux de pêche étrangers, de pénétrer dans les eaux de pêche canadiennes aux fins précisées, (ii) pour certaines personnes, d’exercer toute activité visée aux alinéas 4(1)a)
à e), au paragraphe 4(2) ou à l’article 5;
b) régir la délivrance, la suspension et l’annulation des licences ou permis prévus à l’alinéa a), et fixer leur forme, les droits à acquitter pour les obtenir et leurs conditions d’octroi, en sus des conditions que peut spécifier le ministre;
b.1) déterminer comme stock chevauchant, pour l’application de l’article 5.2, les stocks de poissons qui se situent de part et d’autre de la limite des eaux de pêche canadiennes;
b.2) déterminer, pour l’application de l’article 5.2, les classes de bateaux de pêche étrangers;
b.3) déterminer, pour l’application de l’article 5.2, les mesures de conservation et de gestion des stocks chevauchants qui doivent être observées par les personnes se trouvant à bord d’un bateau de pêche étranger d’une classe réglementaire, notamment celles ayant pour but d’éviter que le bateau se livre à une activité qui compromette l’efficacité des mesures de conservation et de gestion des stocks chevauchants sous le régime de la convention mentionnée à l’article 5.1;
b.4) fixer les modalités et les limitées prévues à l’article 8.1;
b.5) déterminer les formules à utiliser, au lieu de la partie XXVIII du Code criminel, dans les poursuites contre les bateaux de pêche prévues par la présente loi ou la Loi sur les pêches;
c) prévoir la nomination ou l’autorisation de personnes chargées d’exercer des pouvoirs de police dans le cadre de la présente loi et de ses règlements;
d) régir la mise en lieu sûr et la garde des bateaux de pêche ou des autres biens saisis en application de la présente loi;
e) prendre toute autre mesure d’application de la présente loi.
[Le souligné est le mien]
[…]
8. Le garde-pêche peut arrêter sans mandat toute personne dont il croit, pour des motifs raisonnables, qu'elle a commis une infraction à la présente loi.
8.1 Le garde-pêche est fondé à employer, conformément aux modalités et dans les limites prévues par règlement, une force qui est soit susceptible de désemparer un bateau de pêche étranger, soit employée dans l'intention de le désemparer, si les conditions suivantes sont réunies_:
a) il procède légalement à l'arrestation du capitaine ou du responsable du bateau;
b) lui-même estime, pour des motifs raisonnables, cette force nécessaire pour procéder à l'arrestation.
9. S'il soupçonne,, pour des motifs raisonnables, qu'il y a eu infraction à la présente loi, le garde-pêche peut saisir_:
a) tout bateau de pêche dont il croit, pour des motifs raisonnables, qu'il a servi ou donné lieu à la perpétration de l'infraction;
b) les biens se trouvant à bord du bateau de pêche, y compris le poisson, les agrès et apparaux, les garnitures, l'équipement, le matériel, les approvisionnements et la cargaison;
c) à la fois le bateau de pêche et les biens se trouvant à bord de celui-ci.
**********
2. Le Règlement (DORS/94-362), le 25 mars 1994 :
2. …
19.3 Le garde-pêche ne peut employer la force en application de l’article 8.1 de la Loi que lorsqu’il procède légalement et de la manière prévue aux articles 19.4 et 19.5 à l’arrestation du capitaine ou du responsable d’un bateau de pêche étranger à l’égard d’une infraction à l’article 3, à l’alinéa 4(1)a) ou à l’article 5.2 de la Loi ou d’une infraction visée au8 sous-alinéa 17a)(ii) de la Loi.
19.4 Avant d’employer la force visée à l’article 19.3, le garde-pêche doit :
a) prendre en considération tous les moyens moins violents qu’il serait raisonnable d’utiliser dans les circonstances pour arrêter le bateau de pêche étranger, y compris monter à bord de celui-ci;
b) être convaincu qu’aucun de ces moyens ne peut réussir à arrêter le bateau de pêche étranger.
19.5 Le garde-pêche qui satisfait aux exigences de l’article 19.4 doit, avant d’employer la force visée à l’article 19.3 :
a) tirer un coup de semonce ou, s’il le juge indiqué, une série de coups de semonce aux alentours du bateau de pêche étranger à une distance sans danger et laisser au capitaine ou à une autre personne à bord la possibilité d’arrêter le bateau;
b) transmettre au bateau de pêche étranger le signal SQ 1 et laisser au capitaine ou à une autre personne à bord la possibilité d’arrêter le bateau.
3. Le même règlement est modifié par adjonction, après l’article 20, de ce qui suit :
21. (1) Pour l’application du présent article, « bateau sans nationalité » s’entend de tout bateau de pêche étranger qui, selon le cas :
a) n’est pas immatriculé ni n’est muni d’un permis sous le régime des lois d’un État ou ne fait l’objet d’aucun document, délivré par un État, l’autorisant à battre pavillon de cet État;
b) ne porte aucune marque visible indiquant son nom ou le nom de son port d’attache;
c) navigue sous le pavillon d’un État sans autorisation;
d) navigue sans aucun pavillon d’un État;
e) navigue sous le pavillon de plus d’un État, selon ce qui s’accommode aux circonstances;
(2) Pour l’application de l’article 5.2 de la Loi :
a) constituent des stocks chevauchants :
(i) dans la division 3L, la division 3N et la division 3O, les stocks de poissons mentionnés au tableau I du présent article,
(ii) dans la division 3M, les stocks de poissons mentionnés au tableau II du présent article;
b) les classes réglementaires de bateaux de pêche étrangers sont respectivement les bateaux sans nationalité et les bateaux de pêche étrangers qui naviguent sous le pavillon d’un État visé au tableau III du présent article;
c) constitue une mesure de conservation et de gestion l’interdiction de pêcher, de se préparer à pêcher ou de prendre et garder les stocks chevauchants.
[Le souligné est le mien]
**********
3. Le Règlement (DORS/95-136), le 3 mars 1995 :
2. Les alinéas 21(2)b) et c) du même règlement sont remplacés par ce qui suit :
b) les classes réglementaires de bateaux de pêche étrangers sont :
(i) les bateaux de pêche étrangers sans nationalité,
(ii) les bateaux de pêche étrangers qui naviguent sous le pavillon d’un État visé au tableau III du présent article,
(iii) les bateaux de pêche étrangers qui naviguent sous le pavillon d’un État visé au tableau IV du présent article;
c) en ce qui concerne les bateaux de pêche étrangers des classes visées aux sous-alinéas b)(i) ou (ii), constitue une mesure de conservation et de gestion l’interdiction de pêcher, de se préparer à pêcher ou de prendre et de garder les stocks chevauchants figurant aux tableaux I ou II du présent article;
d) en ce qui concerne les bateaux de pêche étrangers de la classe visée au sous-alinéa b)(iii), constituent des mesures de conservation et de gestion les mesures visées au tableau V du présent article.
(3) L’article 21 du même règlement est modifié par adjonction, après le tableau III, de ce qui suit :
___________________________________
Tableau IV
______________ÉTATS_______________
Article_____État_____________________
1. Portugal
2._________Espagne__________________
___________________________________
Tableau V
MESURES DE CONSERVATION
_________ET DE GESTION___________
Article__Mesure_____________________
1. Interdiction de pêcher ou de prendre
et de garder du flétan du Groenland
dans la division 3L, 3M, 3N et la
division 3O pendant la période
commençant le 3 mars et se termi-
nant le 31 décembre de chaque
année.
2. Interdictions de pêcher ou de
prendre et de garder :
a) de la plie d’Amérique dans la
division 3L, la division 3N et la
division 3O;
b) de la morue franche dans la
division 3L, la division 3N et la
division 3O;
c) du capelan dans la division 3N
et la division 3O;
d) de la crevette nordique dans la
la division 3L, la division 3N et la
division 3O;
e) de la plie grise dans la division
3N et la division 3O;
f) de la limande à queue jaune
dans la division 3L, la division 3N
et la division 3O.
3. Interdiction, lors de la pêche de
tout stock chevauchant figurant à
la partie A du tableau I ou au
tableau II, d’avoir à bord du bateau
de pêche ou de pêcher avec un
chalut dont le maillage, en quelque
partie que ce soit, est inférieur :
a) à 120 mm, dans le cas d’un
chalut en Caprolan, Dederon ou
Kapron;
b) à 130 mm, dans les autres cas.
4. Interdiction de pêcher avec un
chalut dont l’une de ses mailles est
obstruée autrement que des façons
permises aux termes de l’article 31
du Règlement de pêche (disposi-
tions générales).
5. Interdiction, dans la division 3L, la
division 3N et la division 3O,
d’avoir à bord du bateau de pêche
étranger :
a) la morue franche d’une longueur
à la fourche de moins de 41 cm;
b) la plie d’Amérique ou la limande
à queue jaune d’une longueur totale
de moins de 25 cm.
6. Obligation de tenir un registre
quotidien indiquant de façon pré-
cise ce qui soit, et de le produire
sur demande d’un garde-pêche :
a) toutes les prises, par espèce et
par zone de capture;
b) toute la production, par espèce
et par produit.
7. Interdiction d’enlever les engins de
pêche de l’eau pendant les 30
minutes après que le signal SQ 3
a été donné au beau de pêche
_______étranger par un bateau de l’État.___
3. Les articles 1 et 2 entrent en vigueur avant leur publication dans la Gazette du Canada.
[7] Before turning to the facts of the case, it is important at this stage to point out that Greenland halibut is a stock of fish which is set out in both Tables I and II of paragraph 21(2) of the Regulations. In other words, for the purposes of section 5.2 of the Act, Greenland halibut is a “straddling stock”, i.e. a prescribed stock of fish.
[8] A review of the facts will be helpful to a proper understanding of the issues raised by the appeal and the cross-appeal. More particularly, a review of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization and the legislative scheme in place as of March 3, 1995 will provide the necessary background to the events of March 9, 1995.
THE FACTS
A. The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization:
[9] The Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (the “Convention”), which Canada ratified on November 30, 1978, came into force on January 1, 1979. Pursuant thereto, the contracting parties established an international organization known as the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (“NAFO”), whose headquarters are in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. The primary objective of the Convention is to encourage international cooperation and consultation with respect to the conservation and optimum utilization of the fisheries resources of the Northwest Atlantic area.
[10] The Convention provides for the establishment of a scientific council, whose raison d’être is to provide consultation among contracting parties and to provide scientific advice to, inter alia, the Fisheries Commission (the “Commission”), a body established by the Convention responsible within NAFO for the management and conservation of the fishery resources of the “Regulatory Area”. For present purposes, suffice it to say that the “Regulatory Area” is that part of the “Convention Area” which lies beyond the 200 nautical miles in which coastal states exercise fisheries jurisdiction. The “Convention Area” is divided into seven fisheries Subareas, each divided into a further number of Subareas. The events which have given rise to the appeal and the cross-appeal occurred in Subarea 3L, which is partly within Canadian fisheries waters and partly outside those waters, and in Subarea 3M, which is entirely outside Canadian fisheries waters.
[11] In carrying out its functions, the Commission may establish quotas that limit the annual catch of various species of fish by contracting parties and the allocation of the established annual catches to contracting parties. Until the end of 1994, the Commission had not set a quota with respect to the annual catch of Greenland halibut and, hence, there were no limits imposed on the contracting parties. However, at the Commission’s annual meeting held in September 1994, a proposal was made by one of its members, Norway, that the total allowable catch (the “TAC”) for Greenland halibut in NAFO Subareas 2 and 3 be fixed at 27,000 tonnes for the year 1995. This proposal was adopted by the Commission and, as a result, submitted to the contracting parties.
[12] I should point out that Canada supported Norway’s proposal that the TAC for Greenland halibut in NAFO Subareas 2 and 3 for 1995 be limited to 27,000 tonnes. However, the European Union (the “E.U.”), a contracting party to the Convention whose 12 member states included Portugal and Spain, abstained with respect to the 27,000 TAC proposal, after its representative had proposed a TAC of 40,000 tonnes.
[13] As required by article XI (6) of the Convention, Norway’s proposal with respect to the 27,000 tonne TAC was sent by NAFO’s Executive Secretary to all contracting parties. Pursuant to article XI(7) of the Convention, such a proposal becomes a measure binding on all contracting parties to enter into force on a date determined by the Commission, failing the presentation by a contracting party of an objection thereto within the time prescribed by the provision. In the event, none of the contracting parties objected to the proposal that the Greenland halibut TAC for the year 1995 be fixed at 27,000 tonnes.
[14] Following the adoption by NAFO of Norway’s proposal, there remained the allocation of the TAC to contracting parties. The Commission met in Brussels on January 30 and February 1, 1995, the principal item on its agenda being the allocation to contracting parties of 1995 quotas for Greenland halibut in NAFO Subareas 2 and 3.
[15] During the meeting, the representative for Cuba put forward the following proposal: Canada – 16,300 tonnes, or 60.37%; the E.U. – 3,400 tonnes, or 12.59%; Russia – 3,200 tonnes, or 11.85%; Japan – 2,600 tonnes, or 9.63%; others – 1,500 tonnes, or 5.6%. Cuba’s proposal was adopted, with 6 parties in favour (Canada, Cuba, Iceland, Japan, Norway, Russia), 2 parties abstaining (Denmark, on behalf of the Faroe Islands, and the Republic of Korea), and 5 parties opposing (Estonia, the E.U., Latvia, Lithuania, Poland).
[16] On February 6, 1995, Canada’s Minister of Fisheries and Oceans wrote to the E.U. Commissioner for Fisheries, indicating that Canada was willing to transfer part of its Greenland halibut allocation for 1995 to the E.U., “… on the understanding that the E.U. will not invoke the objection procedure”. Canada’s offer was not accepted by the E.U.
[17] On March 3, 1995, the E.U., acting in accordance with article XII(1) of the Convention, objected to the proposal made by Cuba, and adopted by the Commission, for individual quotas for 1995 of Greenland halibut in NAFO Subareas 2 and 3. Not only did the E.U. object to the proposed allocation, but it unilaterally fixed its own quota for Greenland halibut in the NAFO Regulatory Area at a level (i.e. 18,630 tonnes) far in excess of the quota which had been allocated to it by the Commission at its January 30 and February 1, 1995 meeting in Brussels.
[18] There can be no doubt whatsoever that the foregoing events led to the March 3, 1995 amendments to the Regulations. I now turn to a brief review of the legislative history of the Act and the Regulations.
B. Legislative History:
[19] Prior to May 25, 1994, the Act regulated the activities of foreign fishing vessels in Canadian fisheries waters, which included all coastal waters of Canada out to the two hundred mile limit of Canada’s economic zone. On May 25, 1994, amendments to the Act came into force. The major change brought about by the amendments was that Canada would now regulate straddling stocks of fish not only within Canadian waters, but outside the 200-mile limit.
[20] The expressions “NAFO Regulatory Area” and “straddling stock” were added to the definitions of section 2 of the Act. Further, sections 5.1 and 5.2 were added to the Act. By section 5.1, Parliament declared that the purpose of section 5.2 was to enable it to take those actions that were necessary to prevent the destruction of straddling stocks on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and “… to permit their rebuilding, while continuing to seek effective international solutions to the situation referred to in paragraph (d)”, i.e. that foreign fishing vessels were fishing straddling stocks in the NAFO Regulatory Area in a way which undermined the effectiveness of sound conservation and management measures. By section 5.2, Parliament prohibited the fishing of such straddling stocks in the NAFO Regulatory Area by “foreign fishing vessels of a prescribed class”.
[21] Further, paragraphs b.1 to b.5 were added to the regulation-making authority of the Governor in Council found in section 6 of the Act, so as to enable the Governor in Council, inter alia, to prescribe as straddling stocks, for the purposes of section 5.2 of the Act, stocks of fish occurring both within Canadian fishing waters and in areas beyond those waters, to prescribe classes of foreign fishing vessels, for the purposes of section 5.2., and to prescribe measures for the conservation and management of straddling stocks to be complied with by persons aboard foreign fishing vessels of a prescribed class.
[22] Pursuant to the authority of the amended legislation, the Regulations were amended on May 25, 1994 (PC 1994-836, 25 May 1994, registered as SOR/94-362). The Regulations extended the authority of “protection officers” outside Canadian fisheries waters to “vessels without nationality”, a defined term, and to foreign fishing vessels flying the flags of Belize, Cayman Islands, Honduras, Panama, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Sierra Leone, with respect to “straddling stocks”, defined to include Greenland halibut in NAFO Subareas 3L, 3M, 3N and 3O. Further, the Regulations declared that a prohibition against fishing for straddling stocks, preparing to fish for straddling stocks or catching and retaining straddling stocks constituted a prescribed conservation and management measure for the purposes of section 5.2 of the Act.
[23] On March 3, 1995, the Regulations were again amended (P.C. 1995-372, registered as SOR/95-136). In addition to maintaining the restrictions on foreign fishing vessels without nationality and foreign fishing vessels flying flags of convenience, the Regulations now provided, for the purposes of section 5.2 of the Act, that the vessels of Spain and Portugal fell in a prescribed class and that, as a result, these vessels could not fish, catch or retain Greenland halibut in the NAFO Subareas 3L, 3N and 3O.
[24] Although these amending Regulations were not published in the Canada Gazette until March 22, 1995, notice of the enactment of the amendments was given to the E.U. As a result, Spain withdrew its fishing vessels from the fisheries Subareas over which the amending Regulations sought to extend Canada’s jurisdiction to regulate fisheries. In due course, prior to March 9, 1995, Spain’s fishing vessels returned to fishing within the fisheries Subareas subject to the amending Regulations. Among those vessels was the ESTAI.
[25] I now turn to the events of March 9, 1995.
C. The Arrest, Detention and Voyage of the ESTAI to Saint John’s:
[26] In his reasons, the Trial Judge carefully reviewed these events and, hence, I can do no better than reproduce paragraphs 1 to 16 of his reasons:
[1] On the 9th of March, 1995, at or about 18:15 (6:15 p.m.), armed boarding parties from three (3) or four (4) Canadian vessels boarded the Spanish deep-sea freezer-trawler ESTAI (the "ESTAI") within the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization ("NAFO") Regulatory Area, which is to say outside Canadian fishery waters or, put another way, on the high seas. The boarding parties, which may have included members of a Royal Canadian Mounted Police ("RCMP") emergency response team, arrested the ESTAI. They requested that the Master of the ESTAI cooperate and take his vessel to St. John's, Newfoundland. They advised him that if he did not cooperate, they would take his vessel to St. John's in any event. Enrique Davila Gonzalez ("Captain Davila"), a co-plaintiff and Master of the ESTAI, agreed to cooperate. The ESTAI, accompanied by a number of Canadian vessels, proceeded toward St. John's at full speed. The events of the 9th of March, 1995 leading up to the arrest of the ESTAI are of interest. Based on the testimony of the Master of one of the Canadian vessels taking part in the boarding and arrest, they will briefly be recited here.
[2] Very early on the morning of the 9th of March, 1995, the two hundred and five (205) foot Canadian fisheries patrol vessel Cape Roger, was steaming east in Canadian fishery waters in the NAFO Convention Area, close to the demarcation line between Canada's two hundred (200) mile fishery zone and waters outside that zone. For ease of reference, an outline map is attached to these reasons as Annex I. The map depicts the east coast of Canada, and the Northern United States, the west coast of Greenland and the NAFO Convention Area of the adjacent seas, divided into fishery subareas. The map also indicates the outside limit of Canada's fishery zone. The Cape Roger was accompanied by the Leo