R. v. Bernard (A.), (2002) 200 N.S.R.(2d) 352 (CA)

JudgeRoscoe, Flinn and Cromwell, JJ.A.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
Case DateOctober 05, 2001
JurisdictionNova Scotia
Citations(2002), 200 N.S.R.(2d) 352 (CA);2002 NSCA 5

R. v. Bernard (A.) (2002), 200 N.S.R.(2d) 352 (CA);

 627 A.P.R. 352

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. FE.010

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Allison Bernard, Jr. (respondent)

(CAC 169702; 2002 NSCA 5)

Indexed As: R. v. Bernard (A.)

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

Roscoe, Flinn and Cromwell, JJ.A.

January 15, 2002.

Summary:

The accused aboriginal appealed his con­viction for hunting with a light (Wildlife Act, s. 68).

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, in a de­cision reported 191 N.S.R.(2d) 353; 596 A.P.R. 353, allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused on the basis that s. 68 unjusti­fiably infringed the accused's aboriginal right to hunt. The Crown appealed.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the Summary Conviction Appeal Court and re­stored the conviction and sentence ordered by the trial judge.

Fish and Game - Topic 805.1

Indian, Inuit and Métis rights - General principles - Scope of rights - Limitations - Safety - An aboriginal (Bernard) was caught shining high-powered flood lights into a field in a rural residential area at night - He had a gun with him - He was charged with hunting with a light (Wildlife Act, s. 68) - The Crown acknowledged Bernard's unextinguished aboriginal right to hunt for food (Constitution Act, 1982, s. 35(1)) - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal held that the limitation on the aboriginal right to hunt for food contained in s. 68 was not unconstitutional - Section 68 pro­hibited a practice which on the pre­ponderance of the evidence and case au­thorities was inherently unsafe - The legis­lative purpose of s. 68 was at least partial­ly to prohibit unsafe hunting - Bernard failed to prove that the Mi'kmaq generally or his band or community specifically would suffer undue hardship if prohibited from night hunting with a light or that it was a preferred means of hunting at a community level - Alternatively, s. 68 was a justified infringement - See paragraphs 36 to 54.

Fish and Game - Topic 843

Indian, Inuit and Métis rights - Right to hunt for food - Extent of right - [See Fish and Game - Topic 805.1 ].

Fish and Game - Topic 2401

Hunting offences - With a light - General - [See Fish and Game - Topic 805.1 ].

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 5

General - Interpretation of legislation - An aboriginal (Bernard) was convicted of hunting with a light (Wildlife Act, s. 68) - The Crown acknowledged Bernard's unex­tinguished aboriginal right to hunt for food (Constitution Act, 1982, s. 35(1)) - The summary conviction appeal court judge (ap­peal judge) held that safety was not the primary legislative objective of s. 68 - Given the ambiguous purpose, s. 68 had to be interpreted in a manner which enhanced rather than restricted aboriginal rights as required by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Nowegijick case - Therefore, absent the safety consideration, s. 68 infringed Bernard's constitutional right to hunt - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal characterized the appeal judge's application of the Nowegijick principle of statutory interpre­tation as over-extensive - It was unsound to apply this principle of statutory interpre­tation to determine the legislative objective of the Wildlife Act, an Act of general ap­plication - See paragraphs 43 and 46.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6018.1

Aboriginal rights - General - Limitations on - [See Fish and Game - Topic 805.1 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Simon, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 387; 62 N.R. 366; 71 N.S.R.(2d) 15; 171 A.P.R. 15, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Denny et al. (1990), 94 N.S.R.(2d) 253; 247 A.P.R. 253; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 322 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075; 111 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Myran, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 137; 5 N.R. 551, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. McCoy (1993), 141 N.B.R.(2d) 185; 361 A.P.R. 185 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Peter-Paul (T.) (1998), 196 N.B.R.(2d) 292; 501 A.P.R. 292; 124 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Paul - see R. v. Peter-Paul (T.).

R. v. Badger (W.C.) et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 771; 195 N.R. 1; 181 A.R. 321; 116 W.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Gladstone (W.) et al., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723; 200 N.R. 189; 79 B.C.A.C. 161; 129 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Adams (J.R.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 101; 202 N.R. 89, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Seward (J.L.) et al. (1999), 119 B.C.A.C. 306; 194 W.A.C. 306; 133 C.C.C.(3d) 437 (C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed (2000), 253 N.R. 400; 142 B.C.A.C. 319; 233 W.A.C. 319 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 11, 31].

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. 11].

R. v. Marshall (D.J.), Jr., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 533; 247 N.R. 306; 179 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 553 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Nikal (J.B.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 1013; 196 N.R. 1; 74 B.C.A.C. 161; 121 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. N.T.C. Smokehouse Ltd., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 672; 200 N.R. 321; 80 B.C.A.C. 269; 130 W.A.C. 269, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Sutherland, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 451; 35 N.R. 361; 7 Man.R.(2d) 359, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Sundown (J.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 393; 236 N.R. 251; 177 Sask.R. 1; 199 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Paul, [2000] 3 C.N.L.R. 262 (Que. S.C.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Isaac (1975), 13 N.S.R.(2d) 460; 9 A.P.R. 460 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Toney (B.J.J.) (1993), 127 N.S.R.(2d) 322; 355 A.P.R. 322 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 37].

Nowegijick v. Minister of National Reve­nue, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 29; 46 N.R. 41, refd to. [para. 43].

Mitchell and Milton Management Ltd. v. Peguis Indian Band et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 85; 110 N.R. 241; 67 Man.R.(2d) 81, refd to. [para. 47].

Statutes Noticed:

Wildlife Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 504, sect. 68 [para. 3].

Counsel:

William D. Delaney and Kimberly Franklin, for the appellant;

Douglas E. Brown, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on October 5, 2001, before Roscoe, Flinn and Cromwell, JJ.A., of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal. Roscoe, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal on January 15, 2002.

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 practice notes
  • R. v. Morris (I.) et al., (2006) 234 B.C.A.C. 1 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court of Canada
    • December 21, 2006
    ...R. v. Seward (J.L.) (1999), 119 B.C.A.C. 306; 194 W.A.C. 306; 171 D.L.R.(4th) 524 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 128]. R. v. Bernard (A.) (2002), 200 N.S.R.(2d) 352; 627 A.P.R. 352 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied [2002] 3 S.C.R. vi; 301 N.R. 391; 215 N.S.R.(2d) 202; 675 A.P.R. 202, refd to. [para. ......
  • R. v. Morris (I.) et al., 2004 BCCA 121
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
    • March 4, 2004
    ...658, refd to. [para. 162]. R. v. Recollet, [1995] O.J. No. 2162, refd to. [para. 174]. R. v. Bernard (A.), [2002] 2 C.N.L.R. 200; 200 N.S.R.(2d) 352; 627 A.P.R. 352; 2002 NSCA 5, refd to. [para. R. v. Simon, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 387; 62 N.R. 366; 71 N.S.R.(2d) 15; 171 A.P.R. 15; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 3......
  • R. v. Hamelin (S.B.), (2010) 496 A.R. 1 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • August 12, 2010
    ...v. Polchies - see R. v. Sappier (D.M) et al. R. v. Aleck, [2008] B.C.J. No. 1544 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 15]. R. v. Bernard (A.) (2002), 200 N.S.R.(2d) 352; 627 A.P.R. 352; 2002 NSCA 5, refd to. [para. 15]. R. v. Brertton (D.) (1999), 244 A.R. 355; 209 W.A.C. 355; 1999 ABCA 285, refd to. [p......
  • R. v. Morris, [2006] 2 SCR 915
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • December 21, 2006
    ...Prince v. The Queen, [1964] S.C.R. 81; R. v. Nikal, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 1013; R. v. Seward (1999), 171 D.L.R. (4th) 524; R. v. Bernard (2002), 200 N.S.R. (2d) 352, 2002 NSCA 5, leave to appeal refused, [2002] 3 S.C.R. vi; R. v. Pariseau, [2003] 2 C.N.L.R. 260; R. v. Southwind, [1991] O.J. No. 3......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
22 cases
  • R. v. Morris (I.) et al., 2004 BCCA 121
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
    • March 4, 2004
    ...658, refd to. [para. 162]. R. v. Recollet, [1995] O.J. No. 2162, refd to. [para. 174]. R. v. Bernard (A.), [2002] 2 C.N.L.R. 200; 200 N.S.R.(2d) 352; 627 A.P.R. 352; 2002 NSCA 5, refd to. [para. R. v. Simon, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 387; 62 N.R. 366; 71 N.S.R.(2d) 15; 171 A.P.R. 15; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 3......
  • R. v. Morris, [2006] 2 SCR 915
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • December 21, 2006
    ...Prince v. The Queen, [1964] S.C.R. 81; R. v. Nikal, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 1013; R. v. Seward (1999), 171 D.L.R. (4th) 524; R. v. Bernard (2002), 200 N.S.R. (2d) 352, 2002 NSCA 5, leave to appeal refused, [2002] 3 S.C.R. vi; R. v. Pariseau, [2003] 2 C.N.L.R. 260; R. v. Southwind, [1991] O.J. No. 3......
  • R. v. Hamelin (S.B.), (2010) 496 A.R. 1 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • August 12, 2010
    ...v. Polchies - see R. v. Sappier (D.M) et al. R. v. Aleck, [2008] B.C.J. No. 1544 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 15]. R. v. Bernard (A.) (2002), 200 N.S.R.(2d) 352; 627 A.P.R. 352; 2002 NSCA 5, refd to. [para. 15]. R. v. Brertton (D.) (1999), 244 A.R. 355; 209 W.A.C. 355; 1999 ABCA 285, refd to. [p......
  • R. v. Morris (I.) et al., (2006) 355 N.R. 86 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • December 21, 2006
    ...R. v. Seward (J.L.) (1999), 119 B.C.A.C. 306; 194 W.A.C. 306; 171 D.L.R.(4th) 524 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 128]. R. v. Bernard (A.) (2002), 200 N.S.R.(2d) 352; 627 A.P.R. 352 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied [2002] 3 S.C.R. vi; 301 N.R. 391, refd to. [para. R. v. Pariseau, [2003] 2 C.N.L.R. 26......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT