.

Home page

Text size

E-mail this page

SOMBA K'E/YELLOWKNIFE - The Supreme Court of the NWT heard arguments on Tuesday in an appeal concerning fishing nets and whether or not they can be considered fishing gear.

Crown prosecutors are appealing the case against dog musher Brent Beck. On Sept. 19, 2006, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans charged Beck with setting unmarked fishing nets in Yellowknife Bay.

The wording on his court summons referred to fishing "gear."

Crown prosecutor Glen Boyd argued that at Beck's original trial in December 2007, Chief Judge Brian Bruser erred in his ruling that fishing nets were not fishing gear, but were instead "an apparatus."

"The ambiguity here lies with the English version of the (Fisheries) Act," Boyd said.

He said it is clear in the French version of the act that the term "gear" refers to nets.

"One wonders if it had been pointed out to (Bruser) 'Look, in French, it's the same word'," said Justice Louise Charbonneau.

Defence lawyer Austin Marshall argued Bruser was right in his ruling that nets were not to be considered gear. He said in the French version of the fishing regulations, there are separate words in French for "gear" and "apparatus."

Marshall said the Crown's case was resting largely on the admission from Beck that the nets belonged to him. When the nets were originally seized by DFO officers, Beck tried to claim them.

The statute of limitations for the offence of setting unmarked fishing nets is two years. Bruser originally ruled the Crown could not prove when the nets had been set, which Marshall pointed out during the appeal hearing. Charbonneau reserved her decision in order to consider the arguments from both the Crown and defence.

"I know this has been going on for a very long time," she said. "I'll have a written decision as soon as I can."

If Charbonneau rules in favour of the Crown, she could order a new trial.