Decision Date: December 2, 2020

Panel: Darrell Le Houillier

Keywords: Wildlife Act – s. 61(1.1); Administrative Tribunals Act – s. 47(1); assistant guide; prohibition; application for costs

Richard Todd Bunnage appealed a decision prohibiting him from acting as an assistant guide in British Columbia for five years (the “Decision”). The Decision was made under section 61 of the Wildlife Act by the Regional Manager of Recreational Fisheries and Wildlife Programs, Omineca Region, Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development (the “Ministry”).

The process that led to the Decision was initiated after the Ministry became aware of the Appellant’s conviction in July 2018 of several offences under the Alberta Wildlife Act for hunting and guide outfitting contraventions that occurred in Alberta in 2014 and 2015. In July 2019, the British Columbia Conservation Officer Service (the “COS”) recommended that the Regional Manager conduct a hearing under section 61 of the British Columbia Wildlife Act regarding the Appellant’s assistant guiding activities in British Columbia. According to evidence prepared by the COS, the Appellant was employed as an assistant guide in British Columbia.

In January 2020, the Regional Manager notified the Appellant that he would be holding a hearing under section 61 to determine whether the Appellant should be prohibited from working as an assistant guide in British Columbia due to his convictions in Alberta.

In March 2020, the Regional Manager held a written hearing and considered submissions from the COS and the Appellant’s legal counsel. Among other things, the Appellant’s legal counsel submitted that the Appellant “has not been convicted under the Wildlife Act of British Columbia. He has worked as an Assistant Guide for 4 years with no Charges or Convictions. This is evidence you should have.”

On June 3, 2020, the Regional Manager issued the Decision.

The Appellant appealed the Decision to the Board on the grounds that section 61 of the Wildlife Act did not apply to his circumstances. The Appellant submitted that section 61 contains a one-year “limitation period”, and his convictions in Alberta occurred more than one year before he received notice of the hearing before the Regional Manager. He also submitted that he neither held nor applied for an assistant guide licence, and was not guiding, in the year before he received the notice of the hearing before the Regional Manager, and those things are conditions precedent to a hearing under section 61. The Appellant asked the Board to find that the Decision was null and void, and to order the Regional Manager to pay the Appellant’s costs associated with the appeal.

The Board found that it was irrelevant that the Appellant did not hold, or apply for, a guiding licence in British Columbia in the year prior to the January 2020 notice of hearing, because the British Columbia Wildlife Act does not require assistant guides to hold a licence. Consistent with that, the precondition in section 61(1.1) of the Wildlife Act is simply whether the Appellant was “guiding as an assistant guide or was guiding as an assistant guide in the past year” prior to the January 2020 notice of hearing.

The Board found that the evidence did not support the Appellant’s assertion that he was not acting as an assistant guide in the year prior to the January 2020 notice of hearing. Specifically, his legal counsel’s March 2020 submission to the Regional Manager stated that the Appellant “has worked as an Assistant Guide for 4 years with no Charges or Convictions.” Based on that evidence, the Board concluded that the Appellant had worked as an assistant guide in British Columbia for four years prior to the March 2020 submission, and therefore, he was working as an assistant guide in British Columbia “in the past year” prior to January 2020.

Next, the Board found that the phrase “is convicted of an offence under this Act, or for another cause that the regional manager considers reasonable” in section 61(1.1) is not subject to the phrase “in the past year”. The Board also held that the phrase “another cause” in section 61(1.1) includes any cause, other than a conviction under the British Columbia Wildlife Act, that is consistent with the purposes of that Act and is relevant to the purpose of section 61(1.1); i.e., whether a person should be able to act as an assistant guide in British Columbia. The Board found that convictions related to hunting and guide outfitting in another jurisdiction are relevant to the purpose of section 61(1.1). Given that the Appellant did not contest either the facts around his convictions in Alberta for hunting and guide outfitting offences, or the Regional Manager’s findings regarding the appropriate period of prohibition, the Board confirmed the five-year prohibition.

Finally, the Board concluded that there are no special circumstances that would warrant ordering the Regional Manager to pay the Appellant’s costs. Neither party made arguments that were frivolous or vexatious, and neither party behaved in a manner that was unreasonable, abusive, or prejudicial to the other party.

Accordingly, the Board dismissed the appeal, and denied the Appellant’s application for costs.