Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

In April 1988 a quantity of herring spawn on kelp was seized from the Respondent members of the Heiltsuk Nation aboriginal people by Fisheries officers under s. 58(1) of the Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. F-14, as amended (the “Act”). It was subsequently sold pursuant to the provisions of the Act and the proceeds of $137,079.50 were credited to the Receiver General of Canada. The Respondents were prosecuted for offences under the Act, and they appealed their convictions for two counts of offering and attempting to sell herring spawn on kelp all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. That Court returned a sole count of attempting to sell, to trial, for a determination of whether the right of the Respondents as Heiltsuk people to sell herring spawn on kelp for sustenance had been infringed, and if so, whether the infringement had been justified. In 1996 the Crown stayed the count, and remitted the amount of $137,079.50 to the Respondents.

The Respondents brought an action to recover interest or fair compensation on the proceeds repaid to them. They based their claim on unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary obligation, breach of trust, and breach of the obligations arising from the relationship between the Crown and aboriginal peoples. It was their position that the Crown had been a trustee of the proceeds. They also argued that the fiduciary relationship between the Aboriginal people and the Crown should be considered in determining whether the Crown should be obliged to pay interest. The Crown argued that the Act was a complete code and that unless there was a provision in the Act requiring that interest be paid, none was payable. The Crown denied that the question triggered any fiduciary obligations. The parties agreed that the interest, if payable, would be in the amount of $132,000.00 The parties submitted the following question for the determination of the court:

“When “fish” has been lawfully seized and disposed of under the provisions of the Act and the proceeds of disposition are later returned pursuant to s. 73.1 of the Act; is the Crown obligated to pay to the person(s) from whom the “fish” was seized any monies in addition to the net proceeds realized from the said disposition."

The Supreme Court of British Columbia answered the question in the negative and dismissed the Respondents’ action. The Court of Appeal for British Columbia allowed the appeal, set aside the lower court judgment, and ordered the Appellant to pay $132,000.00 in interest to the Respondents.