N.S. appeal court orders details of alleged lobster conspiracy

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal has ordered a fisheries alliance and two commercial fishers to spell out the facts behind their lobster-conspiracy lawsuit, ruling that the defendants should not have to prepare a defence to vague allegations.

In Independent Fisheries Limited v. Unified Fisheries Conservation Alliance, 2026 NSCA 74, released October 15, 2026, the court granted leave to appeal and overturned a refusal to order further particulars. Justice Bourgeois wrote the unanimous reasons, with Chief Justice Wood and Justice Van den Eynden concurring.

The ruling requires the Unified Fisheries Conservation Alliance (UFCA), Michael Larkin and Bernie Berry to answer specified requests within 30 days of the release of the court’s order. It does not decide whether the alleged conspiracy occurred, whether lobster was illegally caught or traded, or whether the plaintiffs are entitled to damages.

What the lawsuit alleges

The UFCA describes itself as an association of commercial fisheries stakeholders. It is not licensed to fish, buy, sell or process lobster in Nova Scotia. Larkin and Berry hold commercial harvesting licences in Lobster Fishing Area 34, off the province’s southern tip.

Independent Fisheries buys and sells lobster and operates a plant in Sable River. Xiaoming Mao is a director and shareholder. They are among the defendants accused in the lawsuit of participating in one or more conspiracies to transport, deliver, process and sell illegally caught lobster.

The plaintiffs allege that lobster moved from the government wharf in Saulnierville to the plant, including through truck deliveries in September and October 2024. They claim economic losses exceeding $10 million and continuing to grow. That figure is an allegation in the pleadings, not a court assessment or award.

Independent Fisheries and Mao demanded more detail about the alleged participants, transactions, conduct and losses. The plaintiffs declined most requests, arguing that they had already pleaded sufficient material facts, that some information was evidence to be obtained through discovery, or that the defendants already knew it.

Justice Peter Rosinski dismissed the defendants’ motion to compel answers in 2026 NSSC 3. They appealed, saying they needed the missing particulars to understand the case and prepare their defence.

Serious allegations require detailed facts

The appeal court distinguished material facts, which identify the case being advanced, from the evidence used to prove those facts. Nova Scotia’s pleading rules require the former but generally exclude the latter.

Rule 38.03(3) also imposes a heightened obligation to provide full particulars when alleging unconscionable conduct. Civil conspiracy falls within that requirement. Applying established authorities, the court said the pleading must identify the alleged conspirators and their relationships, describe the agreements and their purposes, particularize each participant’s alleged acts, and set out the resulting injury and monetary losses.

Those requirements serve more than a technical purpose. Publicly filed allegations can call someone’s integrity or the legality of their conduct into question before they have been tested. Clear particulars also help define the dispute and avoid unnecessary motions, confused discovery and delay.

A defendant’s possible knowledge of what actually happened does not answer the problem: the defendant is entitled to know the particular case the plaintiff intends to prove.

Two errors justified intervention

The appeal court found that the motion judge had referred to the governing authorities but had not applied them. Information he treated as unnecessary was the kind of detail the rules and case law required for a conspiracy allegation.

The plaintiffs argued on appeal that other authorities supported a more contextual, less rigid approach. Bourgeois rejected that submission. The motion judge’s reasons did not show that he had adopted a different line of authority, and he was in any event bound by the rule and the appeal court’s direction.

The judge had also relied partly on an unsupported finding that the plaintiffs did not know the requested information. Their responses had not claimed lack of knowledge. The appeal court noted that the alliance had conducted surveillance and asserted a calculation of losses above $10 million.

The resulting gaps were substantial. The pleadings did not clearly identify whether the defendants faced one conspiracy or several, who allegedly participated, what Mao personally did, or how the claimed damages related to the asserted economic loss. Without identifying the fishers involved, the defendants could not meaningfully try to establish that the lobster had been legally caught.

Who must be identified, and what remains open

The court ordered answers to the disputed requests reproduced in paragraph 15 of its reasons, with one exception: the plaintiffs need not provide a complete list of all UFCA members. They must identify the members on whose behalf damages are being claimed.

Costs awarded below were reversed and made payable to the appellants. The UFCA, Larkin and Berry must also pay $2,000 in appeal costs, including disbursements. The civil claims remain to be determined.

Separately, the provincial government announced on October 16 that Independent Fisheries faces two charges under the Fisheries and Coastal Resources Act concerning allegedly illegal fish purchases or possession. The government said the allegations had not been proven in court. Those charges are separate from the civil pleading issue decided by the Court of Appeal.