INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

Certificates issued by the Minister of Foreign Affairs or under the Oceans Act stating that a location was in a Canadian fishing zone are considered conclusive proof in proceedings related to an offence.

SECTION WORDING

477.4(3) In proceedings in respect of an offence, (a) a certificate referred to in subsection 23(1) of the Oceans Act, or (b) a certificate issued by or under the authority of the Minister of Foreign Affairs containing a statement that any geographical location specified in the certificate was, at any time material to the proceedings, in an area of a fishing zone of Canada that is not within the internal waters of Canada or the territorial sea of Canada or outside the territory of any state, is conclusive proof of the truth of the statement without proof of the signature or official character of the person appearing to have issued the certificate.

EXPLANATION

Section 477.4(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada deals with the admissibility of certificates in proceedings related to fishing zone violations. This section establishes that a certificate issued by the Minister of Foreign Affairs or a certificate under subsection 23(1) of the Oceans Act that states a geographical location was within a Canadian fishing zone, but not within the internal waters or territorial sea of Canada, is conclusive proof of the statement's accuracy without the need to prove the signature or official character of the person issuing the certificate. This provision is intended to make it easier for prosecutors to prove that a violation of fishing laws occurred within a Canadian fishing zone. It provides certainty and efficiency in proceedings where evidence of a vessel's location is needed but may be difficult or impossible to obtain. For example, if a vessel is intercepted outside of Canada's internal waters and territorial sea, evidence of its location may be challenging to gather. However, a certificate issued under this provision can establish that the vessel was located in a Canadian fishing zone, eliminating the need for further proof. In summary, section 477.4(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada helps prosecutors establish that a fishing violation occurred within a Canadian fishing zone by allowing certificates to serve as conclusive proof of the vessel's location. This provision contributes to the efficient and effective enforcement of Canada's fishing laws.

COMMENTARY

Section 477.4(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada deals with the use of certificates in legal proceedings related to fishing zones. Specifically, it states that a certificate issued under the authority of the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the Oceans Act can be considered conclusive proof of the truth of any statement it contains without requiring further proof of the issuing party's signature or official status. The purpose of this section is to create a simplified process of evidence presentation and to streamline legal proceedings involving fishing zones. By making these certificates admissible in court as conclusive proof of their contents, the legislation aims to reduce delays and costs associated with gathering and presenting this evidence through other means. It is important to note that the certificates outlined in section 477.4(3) are not admissible as evidence of the ultimate fact at issue in the case, but rather as supporting evidence. For example, the certificate can be used to establish the geographical location of a fishing vessel, which is a fact relevant to the specific charge. However, the certificate cannot be used to establish whether or not the accused individual actually fished illegally in that location. The Oceans Act referred to in this section is a federal statute that governs the management and protection of Canada's marine environment and resources. It includes provisions related to the establishment and regulation of fishing zones and the allocation of fishing quotas. The Minister of Foreign Affairs issues certificates under this act that confirm the location of a vessel in relation to a fishing zone. There are several benefits to using certificates as conclusive proof in legal proceedings related to fishing zones. First, it saves time and resources that would otherwise be spent gathering additional evidence to support the statements contained in the certificate. Second, it can provide a level of certainty in legal proceedings, as the certificate is issued by a reputable authority and is considered to be highly reliable. However, there are also potential drawbacks to using certificates as conclusive evidence. For example, if a certificate is improperly issued or contains inaccurate information, it may create a false sense of certainty that could lead to an unjust outcome in legal proceedings. Additionally, the use of certificates as conclusive evidence may discourage parties from challenging their accuracy or validity, potentially limiting the effectiveness of the justice system. In conclusion, section 477.4(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides a simplified process for presenting evidence related to fishing zones in legal proceedings. While there are benefits to using certificates as conclusive evidence, it is important to remain cautious and vigilant to ensure that they are accurate and reliable. Legal professionals should carefully evaluate each certificate to determine its relevance and reliability before presenting it as conclusive proof in court.

STRATEGY

Section 477.4(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides a mechanism for the prosecution to produce conclusive proof of the geographical location of the offence. The section creates two types of certificates that the prosecution can rely on: a certificate under subsection 23(1) of the Oceans Act or a certificate issued by or under the authority of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. These certificates are admissible without proof of the signature or official character of the issuer and are treated as conclusive proof of the truth of the statement regarding the location of the offence. However, it is important to note that the certificates produced under this section only provide conclusive proof of the location of the offence. They do not provide any evidence about the guilt of the accused or the circumstances of the offence. Therefore, it is necessary to consider this limitation when dealing with this section of the Criminal Code and to develop strategies to deal with it. One strategy that could be employed is to challenge the validity of the certificate. While the certificate is admissible without proof of the signature or official character of the issuer, it must still be shown that the certificate was issued in accordance with the relevant legislation and that it accurately reflects the location of the offence. Therefore, if there are grounds to challenge the validity of the certificate, it may be possible to undermine the prosecution's case. Another strategy that could be employed is to challenge the relevance of the certificate. It may be possible to argue that the geographical location of the offence is not a relevant issue in the case or that the certificate does not establish the guilt of the accused. Depending on the specific circumstances of the case, this may be an effective strategy to challenge the prosecution's case and to create doubt in the minds of the court. Finally, it is important to consider the use of expert evidence when dealing with this section of the Criminal Code. Expert evidence can be used to challenge the validity of the certificate or to provide alternative explanations for the location of the offence. Experts may be able to provide evidence about the tides, currents, and other factors that could affect the location of the offence and to challenge the prosecution's case based on scientific evidence. In conclusion, while Section 477.4(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides a mechanism for the prosecution to produce conclusive proof of the geographical location of an offence, it is important to consider the limitations of this section and to develop effective strategies to deal with it. These strategies may include challenging the validity or relevance of the certificate or using expert evidence to challenge the prosecution's case.