• Ron Thompson v. Regional Manager

    Decision Date:
    File Numbers:
    Decision Numbers:
    Third Party:


    Decision Date: February 21, 2000

    Panel: Marilyn Kansky

    Keywords: Wildlife Act – ss. 19(1), 49, 52, and 61; Angling and Scientific Collection Regulation – ss. 10(1), 11(1), 13(3), 19(c) and Schedule A; Wildlife Act Permit Regulation – s. 1(s); Angling Guide Operating Plan; Angling Use Plan; angler guide days

    This was an appeal by Ron Thompson of a decision of the acting Regional Manager, with respect to Mr. Thompson’s Angling Guide Operating Plans and Angling Guide Licences for 1999/2000. Mr. Thompson argued that the Regional Manager erred in limiting his guiding activities on the Chilcotin River to “below Hanceville”, in allocating him 600 days on the West Road River when he asked for 1040 days, and in refusing to grant him a quota of 50 angling days for the Nazko, Euchiniko and Baezaeko Rivers as unclassified waters. He also argued that the seasonal distributions added to his Operating Plans were unreasonable.

    The Panel found that the “below Hanceville” restriction was based, in part, on information resulting from a public consultation process that was flawed, and on an unreliable Angling Use Plan and referred this matter back to the Regional Manager for a new consideration. Regarding the West Road River quota, the Panel noted that the total days to be allocated for that river is set out in Schedule A of the Angling and Scientific Collection Regulation. Since those days were fully subscribed, the Regional Manager did not err in limiting Mr. Thompson to 600 days. Further, as unspecified tributaries of the West Road River, the Panel found that the Nazko, Euchiniko and Baezeko Rivers, are classified waters within the meaning of the legislation, and no additional days could be allocated to him. However, Mr. Thompson could operate on those rivers as part of his West Road River allocation.

    Finally, the Panel concluded on the evidence that there was no expectation that the seasonal distribution would be complied with, yet it could be enforced under the Act. The Panel found that it was unreasonable to include terms and conditions that are not expected to be complied with and ordered that the distribution be deleted from Mr. Thompson’s Operating Plans. The appeal was allowed, in part.