Keywords:Wildlife Act – s. 24; hunting licence; period of ineligibility; double jeopardy
Robert Micatovich appealed a decision of the Deputy Director of Wildlife (the “Deputy Director”) to cancel his hunting licence and to declare him ineligible to hunt or obtain a hunting licence for two years. Mr. Micatovich exceeded his bag limit for mule deer and attempted to mislead Conservation Officers by telling them that another person had shot the deer.
Mr. Micatovich appealed on the basis that the penalties imposed by the Deputy Director amounted to “double jeopardy,” or being punished twice for one incident, because he had already been convicted by the Provincial Court of three offences arising from the incident and had been sentenced to a one-year period of ineligibility.
The Board considered whether the licence should have been cancelled and whether the two-year period of ineligibility was excessive in the circumstances. The Board found that Mr. Micatovich’s behaviour required both specific and general deterrence, and the punishment imposed by the Deputy Director was appropriate. On the issue of double jeopardy, the Board held that the administrative penalty was imposed to ensure the proper management and conservation of wildlife rather than as a punishment for the commission of an offence. The Board found that the processes for determining judicial and administrative penalties are separate and that the Deputy Director was entitled to impose additional penalties.
The Board also considered the delay in imposing the licence cancellation and period of ineligibility, and found that there was no prejudice resulting from the delay and that Mr. Micatovich’s right to natural justice had not been breached.