|
Short
title |
Gladstone v Canada |
|
|
Parties |
Donald and
William Gladstone |
|
| v |
|
|
Attorney-General of Canada |
|
|
Forum |
Supreme Court of Canada |
|
|
Date |
21 April 2005 |
|
|
Reported |
2005 SCC 21 |
|
|
Casenote |
IFLPR 2(3) |
|
|
Abstract |
|
|
In 1988, the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans lawfully seized and sold herring spawn on kelp which the
respondents had harvested allegedly in violation of Canadian
legislation. The Crown held the proceeds until the outcome of
litigation, which was not resolved until 1996, when the Crown
stayed proceedings against the accused (the respondents in the
appeal) and paid the net proceeds to the accused/respondents. The
respondents claimed that the Crown should also pay interest or
some other some on the proceedings. The claim was dismissed at
first instance but allowed on appeal. The Supreme Court allowed
the appeal by the Attorney-General, stating that the Crown did not
owe any additional amount. In particular, the Fisheries Act
constituted a complete code dealing with the disposition and
return of seized property and the Act imposed no obligation on the
Crown to pay any other amount to that which was expressly provided
for in the Act.
|
|
| |
Bibliographic references |
|
| |
- |
|
|
|
