Question Period Note: Robinson And Martell Judicial Review

• Fisheries and Oceans Canada is committed to preserving the independence of owner-operator fish harvesters on Canada’s East coast.
• If a licence holder is unable to fish due to medical reasons, the Department can authorize a substitute operator for a maximum of five years during their career, after which the licence holder is expected to personally fish or make arrangements to exit the fishery.
• The current matter is before the courts and we will wait until that ruling is rendered prior to publically commenting on any specifics.

Martell
• On April 2, 2019, Lester Martell filed an application for Judicial Review (JR) against the Attorney General of Canada (AGC) in the Federal Court.
• The Applicant is challenging a decision made by the Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DM) on March 6, 2019, pursuant to s. 23(2) of the Fishery (General) Regulations (FGR) and s. 11 of the Commercial Fisheries Licencing Policy for Eastern Canada, 1996 (the Policy), denying the Applicant his request for use of a medical substitute operator authorization (MSO). The Applicant’s case was previously heard by the Atlantic Fisheries Licensing Appeal Board (AFLAB), which made a recommendation to the DM to deny his request for the MSO.
• [Information was severed in accordance with the Access to Information Act.]
He had been authorized to be replaced by a MSO since 2009. Although Mr. Martell’s physical condition would not allow him to resume fishing activities as required under the owner-operator policy, he wished to retain the licence as a mean to generate income akin to a retirement benefit.
• [Information was severed in accordance with the Access to Information Act.]
The hearing is scheduled for September 10, 2020 and will be heard at the same time by the same judge as the Robinson case (see below).
Robinson
• On April 2, 2019, Dana Robinson filed an application for JR against the AGC in Federal Court. The Applicant is challenging a decision made by the DM, pursuant to s. 23(2) of the FGR and s. 11 of the Policy, denying the Applicant his request for use of a MSO.
• After obtaining the licence in 2007, the Applicant had been authorized to be replaced by a MSO since 2009. The Applicant’s case was heard by the AFLAB, which made a recommendation to the DM to deny his request for MSO. The DM accepted the recommendation. The hearing is scheduled for September 10, 2020.

None