Court File and Parties

CITATION: R. v. Sutherland, 2011 ONCA 239

DATE: 20110325

DOCKET: C52147

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Doherty, LaForme and Epstein JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

and

William Sutherland

Appellant

William Sutherland, appearing in person

B. Gluckman, for the respondent

Heard: March 24, 2011

On appeal from the conviction entered by Justice E. Koke of the Superior Court of Justice dated April 27, 2010.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] This is not a case for leave to appeal.

[2] The first issue purports to raise the interpretation of s. 49(1) and s. 49.1 of the Fisheries Act. The Summary Conviction Appeal Court applied the established case law to the facts as found by the trial judge. There was no legal dispute. The dispute was over whether the first visit was an “inspection” per s. 49(1). That factual issue was decided against the appellant.

[3] The second issue arises out of the expert evidence of Ms. Hallett. There can be no doubt about the legal admissibility of her evidence. This weight was for the trial judge.

[4] The third issue, the officially induced error defence, again turned on a factual issue. The trial judge accepted Mr. McLeod’s evidence. That evidence effectively negated the defence.

[5] The fourth issue, the due diligence defence, was addressed at trial and on appeal. The appellant has not convinced us that there is arguably an error in law arising out of the Summary Conviction Appeal Court’s treatment of that defence.

[6] The appellant will pay the amounts ordered ($5,000 and $5,000) within 30 days of today. The applicant will submit the plan required by the trial judge’s order no later than June 1, 2011. The applicant will complete the work ordered by the trial judge no later than September 1, 2011.