Keywords: Wildlife Act – s.49(3), s.55, s.62; test for proper exercise of discretion
In September 1995, Mr. Shendruk organized a hunt in his licence area, but it was later discovered that he had failed to complete the proper forms for the hunters, and that he had been absent during the hunt, which was managed by his assistant guides. The Deputy Director held a s.62 hearing as a result of Mr. Shendruks licence violations, and decided to suspend Mr. Shendruks guide outfitter licence and certificate for one year commencing November 1, 1996. Mr. Shendruk appealed this decision on the grounds that the term of the suspension is too long because the Deputy Director did not consider the fact that Mr. Shendruk did not hunt in the Spring of 1996.
The Board found that the Deputy Directors decision was made properly; it was made in good faith, not arbitrarily or illegally, and the Deputy Director only considered relevant factors. The Board found that Mr. Shendruk did not apply for a guide outfitters licence in the spring of 1996 because he was under the mistaken impression he would not be issued a licence. He did hunt in August 1996. The Deputy Director considered the fact that the appellant had booked hunters in the fall of 1996, and still felt the circumstances were serious enough to warrant a one year suspension. The Board found no errors in the Deputy Directors decision. The appeal was dismissed.