6 result(s)
-
1.
R. v. A.L.S Fisheries Ltd. 2023 NSPC 43 - 2023-08-08
Provincial Court - Decision[122] Under s. 718.21 (d), I am required to consider any impact that the sentence would have on the economic viability of the organization and the continued employment of its employees. [...] That would also have some economic impact on the company and its employees. It is not clear how many people Law Fisheries employs but it is a reasonable inference that a licence suspension would negatively affect the continued employment of any captains and crew it employs, at least during the period of the suspension. [...] However, the principle of totality applies in a modified form to regulatory offences where fines are imposed (Alberta Health services vs. Bhanji, 2017 ABCA 126, para. 48). In that context, it means that, cumulatively, the fines for each offender should reflect the gravity of the whole of the offending conduct.
-
2.
Bancroft v. Nova Scotia (Lands and Forestry) - 2021 NSSC 234 - 2021-07-26
Supreme Court - Decision(b) environmentally sustainable economic development that recognizes the economic value of the Province’s environmental assets is essential to the long-term prosperity of the Province; [...] (a) establish clear goals that foster an integrated approach to environmental sustainability and economic well-being; and (b) work towards continuous improvement in measures of social, environmental and economic indicators of prosperity. [...] It could also require permits from the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Navigation Protection and Transport Canada. For DNR, the permit process can up (sic) to 6 months, but it would depend on the scope of the project (wharf vs. marina).
-
3.
Palmer Estate v. MacInnis - 2013 NSSC 391 - 2013-12-03
Supreme Court - Decision1972 Rules vs. 2009 Rules [15] This action was commenced under the Nova Scotia Civil Procedure Rules (1972). [...] [26] Although the concept is a flexible one, "[i]nherent jurisdiction does not bestow an unfettered right to do what, in the judge's opinion, is fair as between the parties": Ocean v. Economical Mutual Insurance Co., 2009 NSCA 81 at para. 77. As Justice Farrar noted in Lord, "[inherent jurisdiction] must be exercised
-
4.
R. v. Henneberry - 2009 NSSC 95 - 2009-03-30
Supreme Court - Decisionlegal fees in excess of hundreds of thousands of dollars; increased scrutiny and modification of licence conditions by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) causing increased expenses; inability to transfer licences; harm to reputation, sale of assets, demotions, uncertainty, anxiety, stress, and economic hardship. [...] (Bottrell v. Bottrell (1994), 91 B.C.L.R. (2d) 300; Winnipeg South Child & Family Services Agency vs. S.(R.) (1986), 40 Man.R. (2d) 64; Samuel v. Chrysler Credit Canada Limited, [2007] B.C.C.A. 431). [...] [154] In R. v. Ross (1990), 96 N.S.R. (2d) 444 (Co. Ct.), Freeman, J. (as he then was) considered the sanction that would be appropriate to reflect the need for deterrence under the Fisheries Act. He referred to Thompson Newspapers Ltd. vs. Director of Investigation in Research Combines Investigation Act et al [1990] 1
-
5.
Eastern Canada Coal Gas Venture Ltd. v. Cape Breton Development Corporation - 2001 NSSC 196 - 2001-12-18
Supreme Court - Decisionc. the evidence I accept was that the economics of the technique, even if it could be applied successfully in practice, were such that it would not have been economically viable for Venture’s project; [...] The insufficiency related both to the volume of gas available from Phalen Colliery, and to the choices made by Venture in selecting its generation plant (technical choices in relation to reciprocating engine(s) vs. a simple turbine vs. a turbine with the increased efficiency of combined cycle). [...] The only way the flooding could be controlled was by pumping the water directly into the ocean. The environmental implications of such pumping were unacceptable.
-
6.
R. v. Henneberry - 2001 NSPC 25 - 2001-10-05
Provincial Court - Decisionvs MARCEL HENNEBERRY WESLEY HENNEBERRY (Cite as:R. v. Henneberry, 2001 NSPC 25) [...] In the summer of 1999, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans(DFO), the regulatory body, became aware that Canada had reached the national quota for swordfish as their landings were higher than was anticipated. [...] The purpose and objective of the general overrun was to permit tuna fishers to have and to receive an economic opportunity that would otherwise be unavailable. Thus, the individual quota was critical for the management of fish stocks.