FISHERIES |
Tucker v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans)
T-159-98
Rothstein J.A.
16/11/00
12 pp.
Action for damages arising from Minister of Fisheries and Oceans' decision requiring plaintiff to elect to utilize either inshore fishing licence for groundfish or offshore fishing licence for turbot--In 1990 Minister issuing press release announcing developmental program designed to encourage development, exploration of under-utilized groundfish stocks in Atlantic Canada--In 1992 plaintiff obtained offshore licence under developmental program--At same time had inshore licence independent of program--Although not using inshore licence that year, not told could not use both licences at same time--In 1993 did not obtain offshore licence--In 1994 plaintiff had inshore licence for groundfish, offshore licence for turbot in previous developmental area--In 1995 obtained inshore licence--Subsequently obtained offshore licence for turbot--Advised inshore licence could not be used at same time--Plaintiff continued to fish using both licences--In 1996 no offshore licence issued to him--Plaintiff alleging Minister's decision requiring him to elect to fish under one licence patently unreasonable exercise of discretion under Fisheries Act, s. 7, giving Minister absolute discretion to issue fishing licences--Action dismissed--Standard of review patent unreasonableness--S. 7 placing no restrictions on Minister in exercise of discretion--Minister charged with management of fishery and conservation, polycentric considerations requiring Minister to take wide variety of interests into account--Management of fishery directed towards discouraging concentration in industry--Not for Court to judge wisdom of anti-concentration policy, or whether less restrictive licensing approach might still be consistent with policy--Limiting concentration within ambit of management of fishery; restricting licences means of achieving objective--Having regard to Minister's duty to manage fishery, unlimited breadth of s. 7 discretion in respect of licensing, nothing patently unreasonable about Minister refusing plaintiff opportunity to utilize both inshore, offshore licences at same time--Not necessary to analyze in detail Minister's "single species", "fleet separation" policies included in Commercial Fisheries Licensing Policy because policies, not law--Policy cannot fetter Minister's discretion--Refusal to allow utilization of both inshore, offshore licences at same time by plaintiff, not exercise of discretion contrary to single species or fleet separation policies--Fisheries (General) Regulations, s. 10 providing unless otherwise specified, document expires on December 31 where issued for calendar year--No time specified in licences issued to plaintiff, all licences issued for calendar years--At end of each calendar year, licences expired--Minister not under obligation to reissue same licence following year or permit utilization of inshore, offshore licences at same time because permitted in prior year--Alternatively plaintiff alleging Minister negligently represented through press releases, actions in 1992, 1993, 1994, plaintiff could utilize both licences at same time and plaintiff relied on such misrepresentations to his detriment--Plaintiff neither demonstrating duty of care based on special relationship between Minister, plaintiff nor showing Minister acted negligently in making representation or relied to his detriment on anything Minister said, in press releases, contracts, or in any other manner--Even if cause of action characterized as estoppel, no evidence of reliance by plaintiff to his detriment on anything said or done by Minister--Fisheries Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-14, s. 7--Fisheries (General) Regulations, SOR/93-53, s. 10.