H.J. Wruck

The appellant was charged under s. 33(2) of the Fisheries Act after spilling 3,000 gallons of diesel fuel into tidal waters.

The appellant sought an order of prohibition, arguing that s. 33(2) was ultra vires the federal Parliament as it related to general water pollution rather than fisheries, and that the information was multiplicitous.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 33(2) is intra vires as its true nature and character is the protection and preservation of fisheries, a valid exercise of federal power under s. 91(12) of the B.N.A. Act.

The Court also found the information was not multiplicitous, as the accused was not prejudiced in preparing a defence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was charged under s. 33(3) of the Fisheries Act for depositing logging debris into a stream that flowed into fish-bearing waters.

The trial judge acquitted the appellant, finding the subsection ultra vires the federal Parliament.

The County Court and Court of Appeal upheld the legislation as valid under the federal power over sea coast and inland fisheries.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that s. 33(3) is a blanket prohibition of activities subject to provincial jurisdiction without linking the proscribed conduct to actual or potential harm to fisheries.

Therefore, it is not necessarily incidental to effective fishery legislation and is ultra vires.