Court of Appeal

Decision Information

R. v. Rayner

Court Court of Appeal
Date 2000-12-12
Citation 2000 NSCA 143
Docket CAC 162993
Judge/Registrar/Adjudicator Saunders, Jamie W. S. (Honourable Justice) (CA); Roscoe, Elizabeth A. (Honourable Justice) (CA); Freeman, Gerald B. (Honourable Justice) (CA)
Document Type Library Sheet
Relations Decision - R. v. Rayner - 2000 NSCA 143 - 2000-12-12 - Decision

Decision Content

CASE NO.                                     VOL. NO.                                            PAGE

 

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN                                                            DOUGLAS V. RAYNER

[appellant]                         - and -                                                                                 [respondent]

                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                                                                                                           

CAC162993                                             Halifax, N.S.                                   SAUNDERS, J.A.

                                                                                                                                                           

                                           [Cite as: R. v. Rayner, 2000 NSCA 143]

 

APPEAL HEARD:                                 September 26, 2000

 

JUDGMENT DELIVERED:                 December 12, 2000

 

 

 

SUBJECT:         Expert Evidence

 

SUMMARY:        The accused, an experienced lobster fisherman, was charged with unlawfully possessing female crab, contrary to s. 53(a) of the Atlantic Fishery Regulations, 1995, S.O.R. 86-21 and the Fisheries act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14. He was acquitted in the Nova Scotia Provincial Court because the trial judge was not satisfied that the two fishery officers had sufficient expertise to prove the gender of the crabs beyond a reasonable doubt. The Crown appealed pursuant to s. 830 of the Criminal Code.

 

RESULT:            Appeal allowed and new trial ordered before a differently-constituted  Provincial Court.   By insisting that there be “scientific evidence”, the trial judge erred in law in misconstruing the requirements for opinion evidence, thereby failing to give proper consideration to the testimony of the two fishery officers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

        This information sheet does not form part of the court’s judgment.  Quotes must be from the judgment, not this cover sheet.  The full court judgment consists of 18 pages.

 

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.