Maynes v. British Columbia (Environment.

Dennis Maynes is a falconer. On November 1, 2007, a conservation officer for the Ministry attended at Mr. Maynes’ commercial premises. Mr. Maynes admitted to working with the raptors without a permit authorizing him to possess, transport, and traffic the birds and the birds were seized. Mr. Maynes applied to Provincial Court for the return of his confiscated birds under s. 97.6 of the Act. His application was refused on September 22, 2008. The trial judge held that Mr. Maynes did not have a permit, without which he was not "lawfully entitled to the wildlife". Mr. Maynes appeals from that decision in accordance with s. 97.6(5), accepting that he requires a permit for the eagle and one of the falcons: the peregrine falcon, but maintaining that the remainder of the confiscated birds (three Harris hawks and a hybrid falcon) are non-indigenous, domestically bred birds that fall outside the jurisdiction of the Act and its requirement for compliance with the Regulations. The Court held: The definition of “raptors” in s. 1, which includes hawks and falcons, clearly applies to the confiscated birds of which Mr. Maynes seeks the return. As the definition of “wildlife” in s. 1 clearly includes raptors, it follows that hawks and falcons are wildlife, as that term is used under the Act. As per ss. 2(1) and (2), ownership in all wildlife in British Columbia is vested in the Crown and a person does not acquire a right of property in any wildlife except in accordance with a permit or licence issued under the Act. Thus, it is illegal for a person to have wildlife in his or her possession in B.C., other than as authorized under a licence or permit, or as provided by regulation. As Mr. Maynes does not hold a valid permit or licence, he has no legal entitlement to the confiscated birds.