Decision Date: July 10, 2014

Panel: Alan Andison

Keywords: Wildlife Act – s.60; guide outfitter; bull moose; mountain goat; bighorn sheep; grizzly bear; quota; allocation; policy application; no evidence

Vince Cocciolo appealed two decision of the Regional Manager, Recreational Fisheries and Wildlife Program (the “Regional Manager”), Kootenay Boundary Region, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (the “Ministry”), with respect to the annual quota and five-year allocation of bull moose, bighorn sheep, mountain goats, and grizzly bears issued with his 2013-2014 guiding licence. These decisions were made by the Regional Manager for two different guide territories in which Mr. Cocciolo operates. Mr. Cocciolo is a guide outfitter who operates Total Outdoor Adventures Ltd. in two guide territories located in the Kootenay Boundary Region of British Columbia. Total Outdoor Adventures Ltd. guides hunters who pay to take part in a hunt for particular species of wildlife.

Mr. Cocciolo’s annual guide outfitter licences are issued with a one-year quota and a five-year allocation, which specify the maximum number of individuals of a specific wildlife species that Mr. Cocciolo’s clients may kill within each of his guiding territories.

In two separate decisions, issued in January 2013, the Regional Manager issued Mr. Cocciolo’s guide outfitter licence for the 2013/2014 season with the following quotas and allocations for his two guiding territories. In respect of guiding territory 422G004, the Regional Manager issued: one-year quotas of three bull moose, four mountain goats, and zero grizzly bear; and, five-year allocations for 2012-2016 of four bull moose, thirteen mountain goats, and zero grizzly bear. In respect guiding territory 422G005, the Regional Manager issued: one-year quotas of three bull moose, one bighorn sheep, three mountain goats, and zero grizzly bear; and, five-year allocations for 2012-2016 of three bull moose, one bighorn sheep, nine mountain goats, and zero grizzly bear. The Regional Manager provided Mr. Cocciolo with a brief explanation that the reductions in his five-year allocations from previous allocation periods were the result of Ministry’s full implementation of policies and procedures that it introduced in 2007 and gradually implemented during a transitional period of several years, and declines in annual allowable harvest of some of the species in question.

Mr. Cocciolo appealed the decisions on the grounds that they were unfair and unreasonable. Mr. Cocciolo submitted that the Regional Manager failed to follow and apply the Ministry’s harvest allocation policies and procedures to correctly determine his quota and five-year allocation. Further, Mr. Cocciolo submitted that the Regional Manager failed to take into consideration appropriate factors, including the policies and procedures, and therefore failed to reach a reasonable and supportable decision. Finally, Mr. Cocciolo submitted that the Regional Manager’s decision would cause him significant financial and economic hardship, contrary to the Ministry’s policies and procedures. However, Mr. Cocciolo did not make any submissions in support of his appeals; he only identified his grounds for appeal and the remedies sought.

Mr. Cocciolo sought an order from the Board increasing his quotas and allocations in accordance with the Ministry’s policies and procedures. In the alternative, he requested that the matter be sent back to the Regional Manager with directions to properly follow the Ministry’s harvest allocation policies and procedures, and to increase his allocations and quotas accordingly.

The Board noted that, in an appeal, the appellant has the ultimate burden of proving his or her case on a balance of probabilities. To meet this burden, the appellant is obliged to lead some evidence that either the order was wrong in law or fact, or that the process leading to the order was flawed in some way. The Board held that it is not enough to come to the Board with a mere complaint that the appellant did not like the decision that was made.

The Board found that Mr. Cocciolo did not meet the burden of proof in this case. The Board found that Mr. Cocciolo needed to describe which policies and/or procedures should have been applied, and why they applied to his situation. However, Mr. Cocciolo provided no information, let alone evidence, to support his claim that the Regional Manager erred, or that the remedy sought was justified in the circumstances. Although the Board could have dismissed the case on the basis of no evidence, it decided to consider the Regional Manager’s decision-making process.

The Board found no basis to vary Mr. Cocciolo’s quota or five-year allocation based on the Regional Manager’s decision-making process. The Board could not find any clear errors in the Regional Manager’s calculation, or any improper consideration that would warrant a change in the quota or allocation. Also, the Board found no legal flaw in the decision or decision-making process sufficient to conclude that the Regional Manager should have made another decision.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.