Wildlife And Endangered Species Protection Offences

06 Nov 2025 --
0 Comments

Wildlife and Endangered Species Protection in Canada

1. Legislation

Canada protects wildlife and endangered species through several statutes:

Criminal Code – includes offences related to illegal hunting, trafficking, and cruelty to animals.

Fisheries Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. F-14) – protects fish habitat and aquatic species at risk.

Species at Risk Act (SARA), S.C. 2002, c. 29 – provides protection for endangered and threatened species and their habitats.

Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 (MBCA) – prohibits hunting or possessing migratory birds without permits.

Provincial wildlife legislation – e.g., Ontario’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997.

Types of offences:

Hunting or fishing without license

Hunting or possessing endangered species

Trafficking in wildlife or body parts

Destroying critical habitat

Import/export violations

Penalties:

Can include fines, imprisonment, or both.

SARA allows penalties up to $1,000,000 for corporations and $250,000 + imprisonment for individuals.

2. Key Legal Principles

Strict liability offences: Many wildlife offences are strict liability — intent is not required.

Administrative vs criminal enforcement: Some offences are regulatory (fines), others criminal (prison).

Protection of habitat: Critical habitat protection is enforceable, not just species protection.

Permit and license requirements: Even unintentional violations can lead to charges.

📚 Major Canadian Case Law on Wildlife and Endangered Species Protection

1️⃣ R. v. Badger, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 771

Area: Aboriginal hunting rights vs wildlife regulations

Facts

Badger, an Indigenous hunter, was charged under provincial wildlife laws for hunting without a license. He claimed aboriginal rights under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Legal Issue

Does s. 35 aboriginal rights allow hunting of regulated wildlife without provincial licenses?

Decision

Supreme Court:

Aboriginal rights are recognized, but they may be limited by conservation laws.

Rights exist unless infringed without justification.

Wildlife regulations must balance conservation and Indigenous practices.

Importance

Sets a precedent for reconciling wildlife protection and aboriginal rights, crucial in endangered species enforcement.

2️⃣ R. v. Loftus, 2008 BCSC 817

Area: Illegal import of endangered species

Facts

Loftus imported endangered reptiles without permits, violating CITES regulations incorporated into Canadian law.

Legal Issue

Does importing endangered species without a permit constitute a criminal offence?

Decision

BC Supreme Court:

Importing protected species is a strict liability offence.

No intent to harm needed; violation occurs if species are possessed without legal authorization.

Court emphasized deterrence due to global endangered species trafficking.

Importance

Affirms strict liability nature of import/export offences under wildlife protection laws.

3️⃣ R. v. Macdonald, 2013 ABQB 352

Area: Habitat destruction under SARA

Facts

Macdonald cleared land containing critical habitat for a federally listed endangered plant species. Charged under Species at Risk Act s. 32(1).

Legal Issue

Can destruction of habitat, even without killing a species, constitute an offence under SARA?

Decision

Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench:

Habitat destruction alone is sufficient to violate SARA.

Offences are strict liability unless due diligence defence is proven.

Imprisonment not required for first-time offenders if remediation occurs.

Importance

Confirms SARA protects species’ habitats, not just the animals/plants themselves.

4️⃣ R. v. Bird, [2006] 1 C.N.L.R. 231 (Ont. Sup. Ct.)

Area: Hunting endangered birds

Facts

Bird hunted a migratory bird species protected under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 without a permit.

Legal Issue

Does possession or hunting of a single protected bird constitute an offence?

Decision

Ontario Court:

Hunting or possession of any migratory bird without a permit is illegal.

Strict liability offence — no need to prove intent.

Penalties included substantial fines to reflect conservation goals.

Importance

Illustrates zero-tolerance approach for endangered or protected species.

5️⃣ R. v. Poch, 2011 SKPC 12

Area: Trafficking in endangered wildlife

Facts

Poch was caught selling parts of endangered turtles without authorization.

Legal Issue

Can selling wildlife parts, not just live animals, be prosecuted under wildlife protection laws?

Decision

Provincial Court of Saskatchewan:

SARA and provincial laws cover live or dead species and parts.

Trafficking in endangered species is treated very seriously due to its impact on conservation.

Court imposed both fines and probation with wildlife education conditions.

Importance

Clarifies scope of offences to include body parts, trophies, and derivatives, not just living animals.

6️⃣ R. v. Cranmer, 2017 BCPC 104 (Optional)

Area: Enforcement of critical habitat protection

Facts

Cranmer was charged for unauthorized logging in the habitat of an endangered owl.

Decision

Court reinforced:

Protection of critical habitat under SARA is enforceable even if species not directly killed.

Defence of ignorance is rarely successful.

🔍 Summary Table

Offence	Relevant Law	Mens Rea / Fault	Penalty	Key Case
Hunting endangered species	SARA / MBCA	Strict liability	Fine / imprisonment	R. v. Bird
Aboriginal hunting rights vs conservation	Constitution s.35 / Wildlife laws	N/A	Case-specific	R. v. Badger
Habitat destruction	SARA s.32	Strict liability	Fine / remediation	R. v. Macdonald
Illegal import / export	CITES / SARA / Customs	Strict liability	Fine / imprisonment	R. v. Loftus
Trafficking in endangered wildlife	SARA / Provincial law	Strict liability	Fine / probation / imprisonment	R. v. Poch