Peter L. Rubin

The respondents' fish were lawfully seized and sold by the Crown under the Fisheries Act.

After the respondents' convictions were overturned and proceedings stayed, the Crown returned the net proceeds of the sale but refused to pay interest.

The respondents claimed interest based on unjust enrichment, fiduciary duty, and trust.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Fisheries Act constitutes a complete code for the return of seized property and does not require the payment of interest.

The claims for unjust enrichment, fiduciary duty, and trust were dismissed.

The respondent's liquor licence was suspended by the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch.

The respondent appealed to the Liquor Appeal Board, which upheld the suspension.

The Court of Appeal set aside the Board's decision, finding that its members lacked sufficient independence because they were appointed 'at pleasure'.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the degree of independence required of an administrative tribunal is determined by its enabling statute.

Since the legislature unequivocally provided for 'at pleasure' appointments, there was no room to import common law doctrines of independence.