The defendants were convicted under the Conservation Authorities Act and sentenced to fines, incarceration, and a rehabilitation order.
They sought a stay of these orders pending appeal.
The court applied the test from R. v. Smug, considering whether the appeal was frivolous, whether continuation of the sentence was necessary in the public interest, and whether granting a stay would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.
The court granted a stay of the incarceration and rehabilitation order but refused to stay the payment of fines, finding that the defendants had not demonstrated sufficient hardship and that allowing them to avoid payment would undermine public confidence given their history of similar violations and ongoing apparent non-compliance.
