A Nova Scotia court has mandated that a commercial fishing group, the Unified Fisheries Conservation Alliance, provide detailed disclosures in a lawsuit seeking $10 million in damages tied to alleged illegal lobster buying. The alliance represents a multitude of independent, multi-species commercial fishers and associations throughout the Maritimes. The lawsuit was filed against Independent Fisheries Ltd. and its president, Xiaoming (Mark) Mao, alongside the owners and operators of Fisher Direct Ltd. and Seawell Holdings Ltd.
The allegations stem from an investigation claimed by the alliance, indicating that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy involving the transport, processing, and sale of illegally caught lobster. This purported operation is believed to have negatively impacted lobster stocks in St. Marys Bay, a crucial fishing ground in southwestern Nova Scotia, resulting in damages of $10 million for the alliance's members.
The defense, represented by Lockeport, N.S.-based Independent Fisheries and Mao, contended that the alliance's claims were insufficiently detailed. They requested the court to compel the alliance to disclose the identities of all lobster harvesters allegedly harmed by the actions, as well as the names of conspirators, including specific dates, times, and supporting facts related to Mao's liability. The defense argued that this information was necessary for effectively preparing their response to the allegations.
In January, a judge dismissed the motion, stating that Mao and his company would have opportunities for disclosure and discovery as the case progressed. However, a subsequent ruling by the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal on October 15, 2026, overturned much of this initial decision, emphasizing that the alliance's claims were overly vague, hindering the defendants' understanding of the specific allegations. Justice Cindy A. Bourgeois, representing the three justices, questioned whether there were multiple conspiracies and if the accomplices varied in each case. This ruling highlighted the necessity for the alliance to clarify the identities of the fishers involved to support its claims.
The court has granted the alliance a 30-day period to provide specific details supporting its allegations. While the alliance must reveal the identities of affected harvesters, it is not required to disclose the names of every member within the organization. A representative from Independent Fisheries expressed satisfaction with the court's decision, noting that it required the alliance to furnish the very information that had been requested back in 2024. In response, a representative for the alliance affirmed their willingness to comply with the ruling and provide the requested details.
Additionally, Independent Fisheries was one of two companies accused by the Nova Scotia government of engaging in the purchase of illegally caught lobsters, with the company denying any wrongdoing. They assert that they operate under a rigorous due diligence process that ensures lobster is sourced legally and in-season and mandate proof of origin for each transaction.
Alongside this lawsuit, the alliance is involved in another legal case concerning lobster fishing in St. Marys Bay. In 2024, they attempted to seek a ruling from the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, claiming that members of the Sipekne’katik First Nation do not possess treaty rights allowing them to fish lobster out of season without commercial licenses. This followed Sipekne’katik's declaration in 2020 to establish a self-regulated fishery.
The alliance alleged that the Sipekne’katik fishery was unauthorized and negatively affected lobster stocks, asserting that some fishers were compelled to sell their licenses or find alternative fishing locations. They sought a judicial declaration that the federal Fisheries Act and accompanying regulations were constitutionally valid and did not infringe on any treaty rights owned by Sipekne’katik. However, this case was dismissed in August when the court concluded that the alliance did not possess the standing to contest issues related to Indigenous fishing rights. The group has indicated plans to appeal this ruling.
