R. v. Acker (K.J.), (2004) 281 N.B.R.(2d) 275 (PC)

• Judge: LeBlanc, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of New Brunswick (Canada)
• Case Date: September 23, 2004
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (2004), 281 N.B.R.(2d) 275 (PC);2004 NBPC 24

R. v. Acker (K.J.) (2004), 281 N.B.R.(2d) 275 (PC);

    281 R.N.-B.(2e) 275; 736 A.P.R. 275

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2004] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. OC.003

Her Majesty the Queen v. Kimbal John Acker

(12784713; 2004 NBPC 24)

Indexed As: R. v. Acker (K.J.)

New Brunswick Provincial Court

Judicial District of Miramichi

LeBlanc, P.C.J.

September 23, 2004.

Summary:

The accused was charged with failing to produce a licence to hunt as required by s. 94(2) of the Fish and Wildlife Act. The accused admitted to hunting duck without being in possession of a provincially-issued duck-hunting licence. However, he argued that he had an aboriginal right to hunt ducks for personal consumption.

The New Brunswick Provincial Court held that the accused failed to establish his right as an aboriginal. The court found the ac­cused guilty.

Constitutional Law - Topic 6351

Federal jurisdiction (s. 91) - Indians and lands reserved for Indians - Indian defined - The New Brunswick Provincial Court considered the test for recognition of an individual as an "Indian" as used in s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 - The court refused to set out a comprehensive defini­tion of who was an "Indian" for the pur­poses of s. 35, but adopted the approach in R. v. Powley (S.) (S.C.C.) of identifying the three broad factors of self-identifica­tion, ancestral connection and com­munity acceptance for the purpose of claiming rights as an Indian under s. 35 - The court stated that a case-by-case ap­proach was mandated, taking into consid­eration the value of community self-defini­tion and the need for this process to be objectively verifiable - See paragraphs 24 to 42 and 74.

Constitutional Law - Topic 6351

Federal jurisdiction (s. 91) - Indians and lands reserved for Indians - Indian defined - The New Brunswick Provincial Court held that the accused failed to prove that he was an "Indian" for the purposes of claiming a right under s. 35 of the Consti­tution Act, 1982 - The accused had an ancestral connection to the Mi'kmaq through his paternal grandmother, a full-blooded Indian - However, he failed to prove that he self-identified as an Indian - He became aware of his Indian ancestry after age 40 and, although he asserted that he now considered himself Mi'kmaq, there was no evidence that he adopted an ab­original lifestyle, made an effort to under­stand an Indian way of life or had as­sociated with or been recognized by any native community - Further, he failed to prove that there was a solid bond of past and present mutual identification and rec­ognition of common belonging between the accused and other members of the rights-bearing community (community accept­ance) - In particular, there was no evidence of an "ongoing participation in a shared culture" or in any of the "customs and traditions" that made up any particular community's identity.

Fish and Game - Topic 824

Indian, Inuit and Métis rights - Definitions - Indian defined - [See both Constitu­tional Law - Topic 6351 ].

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 2

General - Indian defined - [See both Con­stitutional Law - Topic 6351 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Van der Peet (D.M.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507; 200 N.R. 1; 80 B.C.A.C. 81; 130 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 12].

Delgamuukw et al. v. British Columbia et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010; 220 N.R 161; 99 B.C.A.C. 161; 162 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 12].

Mitchell v. Minister of National Revenue, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 911; 269 N.R. 207, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075; 111 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Adams (G.W.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 101; 202 N.R. 89; 138 D.L.R.(4th) 657, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Fowler (J.) (1993), 134 N.B.R.(2d) 361; 342 A.P.R. 361 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Harquail (L.) (1993), 144 N.B.R.(2d) 146; 368 A.P.R. 146 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Chiasson (O.) (2001), 239 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 619 A.P.R. 1; 2001 NBPC 5, refd to. [para. 27].

Eskimos, Re, [1939] 2 D.L.R. 417 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Grumbo (J.) (1998), 168 Sask.R. 78; 173 W.A.C. 78; 159 D.L.R.(4th) 577 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Chevrier, [1989] 1 C.N.L.R. 128 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Ferguson, [1993] 2 C.N.L.R. 148 (Alta. Prov. Ct.), affd. [1994] 1 C.N.L.R. 117 (Alta. Q.B.), refd to. [paras. 33, 35].

R. v. Desjarlais, [1995] A.J. No. 1320 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Powley (S.) et al., [2003] 2 S.C.R. 207; 308 N.R. 201; 177 O.A.C. 201, appld. [para. 37].

R. v. Bernard (J.) (2003), 262 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 688 A.P.R. 1; 2003 NBCA 55, refd to. [para. 60].

Statutes Noticed:

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 35(2) [para. 26].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (2003), p. 621 [para. 30].

Counsel:

William B. Richards, for the Crown;

Ann E. Smith, for Acker.

This matter was heard on February 3-5, 10 and August 25-26, 2003, and February 17-18, 2004, by LeBlanc, P.C.J., of the New Brunswick Provincial Court, Judicial District of Miramichi, who delivered the following decision on September 23, 2004.