Mr. Calfountzos appealed the decision of the Deputy Director of Wildlife (“Deputy Director’), canceling Mr. Calfountzos’ hunting licence for one year and requiring him to successfully complete the Conservation and Outdoor Recreation Education (“CORE”) examinations before he may reapply for hunting privileges. In 1998, Mr. Calfountzos had killed a Roosevelt elk in a hunting area for which he did not possess a licence. In 2000, a court convicted Mr. Calfountzos of being in possession of dead wildlife without authorization under a licence contrary to section 33(2) of the Wildlife Act. The parties agreed that Mr. Calfountzos had not intended to hunt in the wrong area.
The Board first addressed whether the Deputy Director’s licence cancellation was excessive in the circumstances. The Board found that in addition to his mistake about the location of the authorized hunting area, Mr. Calfountzos had violated at least two other sections of the Wildlife Act. Consequently, the Board found that the licence cancellation was reasonable in the circumstances.
The Board also considered whether there had been an unreasonable delay by the Deputy Director in imposing the cancellation, thereby rendering the decision unfair. Although it shared Mr. Calfountzos’ concern about the unexplained 14-month delay between the date of his conviction and the date of the Deputy Director’s decision, the Board found that there were no grounds to conclude that there had been a lack of procedural fairness or substantial prejudice due to that delay. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.