• Carmen Nyuli v. Regional Manager

    Decision Date:
    File Numbers:
    Decision Numbers:
    Third Party:
    Thomas Fox and Fox Lake Outfitters Ltd., Third Parties


    Decision Date: June 6, 2003

    Panel: Lorraine Shore

    Keywords: Wildlife Act – ss. 24(5), 25(1), 51, 54, 61, 108(2)(p); Wildlife Act General Regulation – ss. 7.04, 7.05; guide outfitter licence; jurisdiction; period of ineligibility

    Carmen Nyuli appealed the decision of the Regional Manager that made him ineligible to obtain or hold a guide outfitter licence or assistant guide licence for a specified period of time, as well as suspended his guide outfitter certificate for a specified time, and placed restrictions on the transferring of that certificate.  He also submitted a motion arguing that the Regional Manager did not possess the jurisdiction under section 61 of the Wildlife Act to order periods of ineligibility for guide outfitter licences and assistant guide outfitter licences.  He wanted the parts of the decision dealing with ineligibility to be rescinded, and stated that if they were, he would withdraw his appeal.

    A hearing of the preliminary issue of jurisdiction resulted in an interim decision with full reasons to follow, (Appeal No. 2002-WIL-011(a), May 16, 2003), after which Mr. Nyuli withdrew his appeal.  These are the full reasons for the interim decision.

    The Board decided that the authority to impose periods of ineligibility could be implied from section 61(1)(a) of the Wildlife Act, which authorizes the Regional Manager to “suspend, cancel, or refuse to renew” a licence.  The Board found that the words “ineligible” and “refuse to renew” are used in combination throughout the Wildlife Act, and that the words “refuse to renew” operate into the future and allow the Regional Manager to prescribe a period of ineligibility.

    The Board held that interpreting section 61 in a way that precluded making orders for periods of ineligibility would limit the ability of the Regional Manager to issue appropriate discipline, and would be inconsistent with the purpose of the provision.

    The Board also found that to suspend a licence is, in substance, to impose a period of time where a person is not eligible to have a licence.

    The Board also found that a broad interpretation of section 61 did not fetter the discretion of other regional managers to issue licences in the future.

    The Board found that the Regional Manager had jurisdiction to impose the periods of ineligibility.  Mr. Nyuli’s application was denied.