R. v. Bernard (J.),

JurisdictionNew Brunswick
JudgeDaigle, Deschênes and Robertson, JJ.A.
Neutral Citation2003 NBCA 55
Citation2003 NBCA 55,(2003), 262 N.B.R.(2d) 1 (CA),262 NBR (2d) 1,230 DLR (4th) 57,4 CELR (3d) 1,[2003] NBJ No 320 (QL),[2003] 4 CNLR 48,688 APR 1,[2003] N.B.J. No 320 (QL),262 N.B.R.(2d) 1,230 D.L.R. (4th) 57,688 A.P.R. 1,262 NBR(2d) 1,(2003), 262 NBR(2d) 1 (CA)
Date28 August 2003
CourtCourt of Appeal (New Brunswick)

R. v. Bernard (J.) (2003), 262 N.B.R.(2d) 1 (CA);

    262 R.N.-B.(2e) 1; 688 A.P.R. 1

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: [2003] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. SE.003

Joshua Bernard (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) and Union of New Brunswick Indians, Attorney General for the Province of Nova Scotia and Aboriginal People's Council of New Brunswick (interveners)

(113/01/CA; 2003 NBCA 55)

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

New Brunswick Court of Appeal

Daigle, Deschênes and Robertson, JJ.A.

August 28, 2003.

Summary:

Joshua Bernard, a Miramichi Mi'kmaq Status Indian, was charged with unlawful possession of timber cut from Crown lands, contrary to s. 67(1)(c) of the Crown Lands and Forests Act (N.B.). In defence, Bernard invoked the Peace and Friendship Treaty of 1761 and aboriginal title and said that he had lawful possession of the timber.

The New Brunswick Provincial Court, in a decision reported at [2000] 3 C.N.L.R. 184, rejected Bernard's defence and found Bernard guilty. Bernard appealed.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, sitting as a summary convictions appeal court, in a decision reported 239 N.B.R.(2d) 173; 619 A.P.R. 173, dismissed the appeal. Bernard applied for leave to appeal.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal granted leave. The court, Deschênes, J.A., dissenting, allowed the appeal and acquitted Bernard. The majority accepted the treaty defence and found Bernard not guilty. As for the aboriginal title defence, Daigle, J.A., accepted it and Robertson, J.A., did not decide the issue. Deschênes, J.A., dissenting, declined to intervene in the decisions of the lower courts that rejected both defences. The court ordered a stay respecting treaty rights to allow the Provincial government to consult with the aboriginal peoples of New Brunswick before adopting legislation that met the justification test for infringement of a treaty right or reflected any agreement reached with New Brunswick's aboriginal people.

Courts - Topic 127

Stare decisis - Authority of judicial decisions - Courts of superior jurisdiction - Supreme Court of Canada ruling respecting similar statute - Indian Treaty - Bernard, a Miramichi Mi'kmaq Status Indian, was charged with unlawful possession of timber cut from Crown lands, contrary to s. 67(1)(c) of the Crown Lands and Forests Act (N.B.) - Bernard had been participating in an unauthorized commercial wood harvesting operation conducted by aboriginal persons - In defence, Bernard invoked the Peace and Friendship Treaty of 1761 and the interpretation of a similar Treaty in the 1999 Marshall decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, and said that he had a treaty right to harvest and sell trees, subject to the restrictions laid down in the Marshall decisions - In accepting the defence and acquitting Bernard, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal stated that the fact that the Peace and Friendship Treaty in Marshall and in this case were negotiated on common terms and within the same historical context elevated the precedential significance of the two Supreme Court pronouncements to the "binding" category - See paragraph 351.

Forests and Forest Products - Topic 5245

Offences - Illegal cutting, removal or possession of timber - Defences - [See Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6025 ].

Forests and Forest Products - Topic 5246

Offences - Illegal cutting, removal or possession of timber - Removal of timber from Crown lands - [See Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6025 ].

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 4404

Treaties and proclamations - General - Effect of - Source of aboriginal rights - Bernard, a Miramichi Mi'kmaq Status Indian, was charged with unlawful possession of timber cut from Crown lands, contrary to s. 67(1)(c) of the Crown Lands and Forests Act (N.B.) - In defence, Bernard invoked aboriginal title and said that he had lawful possession of the timber - The claim to aboriginal title was said to have three independent sources: (1) Governor Belcher's Proclamation of 1762; (2) the Royal Proclamation of 1763; and (3) exclusive occupation at the time of British sovereignty in 1759 - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal held that Belcher's Proclamation could not be regarded as an independent source of aboriginal title - Assuming without deciding that the Proclamation embraced the Crown lands in question, the court opined that Governor Belcher exceeded his authority in making the purported grant and, therefore, it was ineffectual - As for the Royal Proclamation, it was not an independent source of aboriginal title as it "merely" confirmed existing colonial policy that consistently recognized aboriginal title to land that the natives occupied - The court did not issue a majority ruling on the aboriginal title defence - See paragraphs 136 to 175, 184 to 190, 340 to 346, 354 to 356, 392 to 465.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 4409

Treaties and proclamations - General - Extinguishment - [See Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6018 ].

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 5568

Lands - Land claims - Aboriginal title - Evidence and proof - Bernard, a Miramichi Mi'kmaq Status Indian, was charged with unlawful possession of timber cut from Crown lands, contrary to s. 67(1)(c) of the Crown Lands and Forests Act (N.B.) - The timber was cut from a site near the Little Sevogle River, located 7 km from the Red Bank Indian Reserve and 14 km from the Augustine Mound, an archaeological site attesting to the presence of the Mi'kmaq in the Miramichi region for over 2,500 years - In defence, Bernard invoked aboriginal title - The trial judge rejected the defence and found Bernard guilty - The trial judge ruled that the evidence did not establish: (a) that the Mi'kmaq had used the cutting site on a regular basis in 1759, year that the British acquired sovereignty; and (b) that the Mi'kmaq had capacity to retain exclusive control of the claimed territory - Also, the trial judge interpreted expert evidence as showing that the Mi'kmaq had neither the intent nor the desire to exercise exclusive control - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal held that the trial judge misapprehended the legal test set out in Delgamuukw (S.C.C.) for the proof of both the requisite degree of occupation and the exclusivity of possession of the claimed territory - Moreover, the trial judge misapprehended and overlooked material evidence and thereby committed palpable and overriding errors which were determinative in the assessment of several factual issues and of the balance of probabilities - The court did not issue a majority ruling on the aboriginal title defence - See paragraphs 4 to 190, 293 to 346, 391 to 465.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6017

Aboriginal rights - General - Infringement - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal held that the Crown Lands and Forests Act (N.B.), and more particularly s. 67, constituted an infringement of aboriginal rights respecting the harvesting of wood on Crown lands by the Miramichi Mi'kmaq, contrary to s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 - The court added that the infringement was not justified - See paragraphs 180 to 183, 535 to 548.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6018

Aboriginal rights - General - Extinguishment - Bernard, a Miramichi Mi'kmaq Status Indian, was charged with unlawful possession of timber cut from Crown lands, contrary to s. 67(1)(c) of the Crown Lands and Forests Act (N.B.) - In defence, Bernard invoked the Peace and Friendship Treaty of 1761 and aboriginal title and said that he had lawful possession of the timber - The Crown replied that any treaty right to harvest logs on Crown lands or any right based on aboriginal titles had been extinguished by a series of provincial pre-Confederation statutes - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal held that the pre-Confederation statutes had not revealed a "clear and plain" intention to extinguish aboriginal rights - What was clear was the intent of those statutes to regulate the removal of timber from Crown lands through a licensing regime that granted proprietary rights to those fortunate enough to obtain a licence - The pre-Confederation statutes could not be looked on as an expression of intent to extinguish aboriginal or treaty rights - See paragraphs 176 to 179, 523 to 534.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6025

Particular aboriginal or treaty rights - Harvesting trees - Bernard, a Miramichi Mi'kmaq Status Indian, was charged with unlawful possession of timber cut from Crown lands, contrary to s. 67(1)(c) of the Crown Lands and Forests Act (N.B.) - Bernard had been participating in an unauthorized commercial wood harvesting operation conducted by aboriginal persons - In defence, Bernard invoked the Peace and Friendship Treaty of 1761 and the interpretation of a similar Treaty in the 1999 Marshall decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, and said that he had a treaty right to harvest and sell trees, subject to the restrictions laid down in the Marshall decisions - The Crown responded that the treaty right to trade did not extend to commercial logging - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal agreed with Bernard and acquitted him - The court stated: (1) (a) Bernard had a treaty right to earn a moderate livelihood from certain resource harvesting activities, and (b) Bernard satisfied the Marshall moderate livelihood test where he had only once before engaged in the communal logging operation; and (2) the Miramichi Mi'kmaq possessed a treaty right to trade in resources or products that were: (a) traditionally gathered in a 1761 Mi'kmaq economy; or (3) in cases where the resource in question was not traditionally gathered, that resource could be regarded as the modern equivalent or a logical evolution of those resources that were - See paragraphs 191 to 207, 466 to 548.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6026

Particular aboriginal or treaty rights - Trade - [See Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6025 ].

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6026

Particular aboriginal or treaty rights - Trade - Bernard, a Miramichi Mi'kmaq Status Indian, was charged with unlawful possession of timber cut from Crown lands, contrary to s. 67(1)(c) of the Crown Lands and Forests Act (N.B.) - Bernard had been participating in an unauthorized commercial wood harvesting operation conducted by aboriginal persons - In defence, Bernard invoked the Peace and Friendship Treaty of 1761 and the interpretation of a similar Treaty in the 1999 Marshall decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, and said that he had a treaty right to harvest and sell trees, subject to the restrictions laid down in the Marshall decisions - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal agreed with Bernard and acquitted him - The court stated that the treaty right to harvest and trade in a natural resource was vested in members of an aboriginal community and was not intended to support joint ventures with non-aboriginals - The law did not require that a member of the Mi'kmaq community obtain community approval before exercising the treaty right to harvest and sell logs, unless the native community had validly imposed such a restriction on all members - See paragraphs 509 to 516.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 8703

Practice - General - Pleading infringement of right - Bernard, a Miramichi Mi'kmaq Status Indian, was charged with unlawful possession of timber cut from Crown lands, contrary to s. 67(1)(c) of the Crown Lands and Forests Act (N.B.) - The timber was cut from a site near the Little Sevogle River, located 7 km from the Red Bank Indian Reserve and 14 km from the Augustine Mound, an archaeological site attesting to the presence of the Mi'kmaq in the Miramichi region for over 2,500 years - In defence, Bernard invoked aboriginal title - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal stated that summary conviction proceedings were not conducive to adjudicating fairly on claims of aboriginal title - The court was not being asked to adjudicate on Bernard's guilt or innocence - It was asked to grant indirectly the kinds of remedial relief that could only be sought in civil proceedings - The court did not issue a majority ruling on the aboriginal title defence - See paragraphs 452 to 465.

Cases Noticed:

Calder v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1973] S.C.R. 313, consd. [para. 2].

Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823), 21 U.S. (8 Wheat) 543, consd. [para. 2].

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, consd. [paras. 7, 231, 356].

R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075; 111 N.R. 241, consd. [paras. 19, 264, 512].

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, consd. [paras. 19, 493].

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, consd. [para. 19].

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, consd. [paras. 19, 493].

R. v. Peter-Paul (T.) (1998), 196 N.B.R.(2d) 292; 501 A.P.R. 292 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 21, 523].

Guerin v. Canada, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335; 55 N.R. 161, consd. [paras. 31, 343].

R. v. Adams (G.W.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 101; 202 N.R. 89, consd. [paras. 35, 537].

Baker Lake (Hamlet) v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development), [1980] 1 F.C. 518 (T.D.), consd. [para. 39].

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. 39].

Mitchell v. Minister of National Revenue, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 911; 269 N.R. 207, consd. [paras. 40, 306].

Stein Estate et al. v. Ship Kathy K et al., [1976] 2 S.C.R. 802; 6 N.R. 359, refd to. [paras. 50, 368].

Minister of National Revenue v. Schwartz, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 254; 193 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Marshall (D.J.), Jr., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 456; 246 N.R. 83; 178 N.S.R.(2d) 201; 549 A.P.R. 201, consd. [paras. 50, 219, 351].

R. v. Paul and Polchies (1988), 90 N.B.R.(2d) 332; 228 A.P.R. 332 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Pelletier (D.) et al. (1996), 175 N.B.R.(2d) 70; 446 A.P.R. 70 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Tomah (E.) et al. (1999), 211 N.B.R.(2d) 59; 539 A.P.R. 59 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Yebes, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168; 78 N.R. 351; 36 C.C.C.(3d) 417, refd to. [paras. 125, 242, 366].

R. v. Biniaris (J.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 381; 252 N.R. 204; 134 B.C.A.C. 161; 219 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [paras. 125, 253, 367].

R. v. Harper, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 2; 40 N.R. 255, refd to. [para. 125].

R. v. Morin (K.M.), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 286; 142 N.R. 141; 131 A.R. 81; 25 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 125].

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. [paras. 167, 266, 357].

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, consd. [paras. 191, 219, 351].

R. v. Nickerson (W.S.) (1999), 178 N.S.R.(2d) 189; 549 A.P.R. 189 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 242].

R. v. Emery (1981), 61 C.C.C.(2d) 84 (B.C.C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1981), 40 N.R. 358 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 250].

R. v. Moir (M.A.) (1999), 213 N.B.R.(2d) 48; 545 A.P.R. 48 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 250].

R. v. Sabine (R.), [2000] N.B.R.(2d) Uned. 28 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 250].

R. v. Côté (F.) et al., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 139; 202 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 253].

R. v. Shalala (R.H.) (2000), 224 N.B.R.(2d) 118; 574 A.P.R. 118 (C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed (2000), 262 N.R. 400; 232 N.B.R.(2d) 200; 598 A.P.R. 200 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 256].

R. v. Warner, [1961] S.C.R. 144, refd to. [para. 256].

Sunbeam Corp. (Canada) Ltd. v. R., [1969] S.C.R. 221, refd to. [para. 256].

R. v. Kent (H.M.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 133; 171 N.R. 231; 134 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 383 A.P.R. 81, refd to. [para. 256].

R. v. Waite, [1965] 1 C.C.C. 301 (N.B.C.A.), refd to. [para. 256].

R. v. B.M., [1996] N.B.J. No. 455 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 256].

United Kingdom v. Ramsden, [1997] O.J. No. 4850 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 256].

R. v. Sheppard (G.B.) (2000), 184 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 101; 559 A.P.R. 101; 2 M.V.R.(4th) 150 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 256].

R. v. Poirier (J.C.) (1997), 147 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 195; 459 A.P.R. 195 (P.E.I.C.A.), affd. [1998] 1 S.C.R. 24; 221 N.R. 371; 160 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 37; 494 A.P.R. 37, refd to. [para. 256].

R. v. Kosterewa, [1985] B.C.J. No. 2506 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 256].

R. v. B.C.W. (1986), 40 Man.R.(2d) 216; 27 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 256].

R. v. Madden, [1985] N.S.J. No. 214 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 256].

R. v. Shand (P.M.) (1998), 166 N.S.R.(2d) 74; 498 A.P.R. 74 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 256].

R. v. Morgan (H.G.) (1995), 136 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 205; 423 A.P.R. 205; 18 M.V.R.(3d) 287 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 256].

R. v. Devitt (M.) (1999), 124 O.A.C. 348; 139 C.C.C.(3d) 187 (C.A.), consd. [para. 258].

R. v. McClelland (B.L.) (1995), 165 A.R. 332; 89 W.A.C. 332; 98 C.C.C.(3d) 509 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 258].

Deraps v. Coia et al. (1999), 124 O.A.C. 73; 179 D.L.R.(4th) 168 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 326].

Deraps v. Labourers' Pension Fund of Central and Eastern Canada - see Deraps v. Coia et al.

R. v. Lavallee, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852; 108 N.R. 321; 67 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 334].

R. v. Molodowic (A.J.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 420; 252 N.R. 250; 145 Man.R.(2d) 201; 218 W.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 334].

Toneguzzo-Norvell et al. v. Savein and Burnaby Hospital, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 114; 162 N.R. 161; 38 B.C.A.C. 193; 62 W.A.C. 193, refd to. [para. 335].

New Brunswick (Minister of Family and Community Services) v. J.V., [2001] N.B.R.(2d) Uned. 26 (C.A.), consd. [para. 335].

Dorval v. Bouvier, [1968] S.C.R. 288, refd to. [para. 336].

R. v. Buhay (M.A.) (2003), 305 N.R. 158; 177 Man.R.(2d) 72; 304 W.A.C. 72 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 338].

R. v. Boak, [1925] 3 D.L.R. 887 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 367].

R. v. Marshall (S.F.) (2002), 202 N.S.R.(2d) 42; 632 A.P.R. 42 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 383].

Labrador Boundary, Re, [1927] 2 D.L.R. 401 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 410].

Doe d. Burk v. Cormier et al. (1890), 30 N.B.R. 142 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 432].

St. Catherine's Milling and Lumber Co. v. R. (1888), 14 App. Cas. 46 (P.C.), affing. (1887), 13 S.C.R. 577, refd to. [para. 432].

R. v. Jacques (1978), 20 N.B.R.(2d) 576; 34 A.P.R. 576 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 432].

R. v. Isaac (1975), 13 N.S.R.(2d) 460; 9 A.P.R. 460 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 433].

Warman v. Francis et al. (1958), 20 D.L.R.(2d) 627 (N.B.Q.B.), refd to. [para. 433].

Canada v. Smith and Ontario (Attorney General) et al. (1980), 34 N.R. 91; 113 D.L.R.(3d) 522 (F.C.A.), revd. [1983] 1 S.C.R. 554; 47 N.R. 132, refd to. [para. 433].

R. v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, [1982] 2 All E.R. 143, affing. [1982] 2 All E.R. 118 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 433].

United States v. Santa Fe Pacific Railway (1941), 314 U.S. 339, consd. [para. 464].

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. 512].

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Paul et al., [1988] 2 S.C.R. 654; 89 N.R. 325; 91 N.B.R.(2d) 43; 232 A.P.R. 43, refd to. [para. 523].

Osoyoos Indian Band v. Oliver (Town) et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 746; 278 N.R. 201; 160 B.C.A.C. 171; 261 W.A.C. 171, refd to. [para. 525].

R. v. Horseman, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 901; 108 N.R. 1; 108 A.R. 1; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 353, refd to. [para. 525].

Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests) et al. (2002), 164 B.C.A.C. 217; 268 W.A.C. 217; 99 B.C.L.R.(3d) 209 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 548].

Statutes Noticed:

Belcher's Proclamation, 1762 [paras. 184, 340, 392].

Royal Proclamation, 1763 [paras. 186, 340, 412].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Augustine, Stephen, A Micmac History of Big Cove, p. 50 [para. 163].

Bartlett, R.H., Indian Reserves in the Atlantic Provinces of Canada (1986), generally [paras. 388, 389].

Cumming, P.A., and Mickenberg, N.H., Native Rights in Canada (2nd Ed. 1980), generally [paras. 388, 389]; pp. 88 [para. 437]; 105 [para. 438].

Dickason, O.P., Canada's First Nations (1993), generally [para. 389].

Flanagan, William F., Piercing the Veil of Real Property Law: Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1998), 23 Queen's L.J. 279, generally [para. 345].

Ganong, W.F., Historic Sites in the Province of New Brunswick, p. 217 [para. 71].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (4th Ed. 1997), c. 27 [para. 38].

Isaac, T., Aboriginal and Treaty Rights in the Maritimes (2001), generally [paras. 38, 388, 389].

McNeil, Kent, Comment (2001-2002), 33 Ottawa L. Rev. 301, generally [para. 346].

McNeil, Kent, Common Law Aboriginal Title (1989), pp. 201 to 204 [para. 77]; 202 [para. 87]; 203 to 204 [para. 304]; 204 [para. 88].

Slattery, Brian, The Land Rights of Indigenous Canadian Peoples (1979), pp. 204 [para. 416]; 248 [para. 435]; 249 to 250 [para. 436].

Slattery, Brian, Understanding Aboriginal Rights (1987), 66 Can. Bar Rev. 727, generally [para. 28].

Counsel:

Bruce H. Wildsmith, Q.C., for the appellant;

J.T. Keith McCormick, Sylvain Lussier and Pierre Castonguay, for the respondent;

Daniel R. Theriault, for the intervener, Union of New Brunswick Indians;

Alexander M. Cameron, for the intervener, Attorney General for the Province of Nova Scotia;

D. Bruce Clarke, for the intervener, Aboriginal People's Council of New Brunswick.

This appeal was heard on September 16, 2002, by Daigle, Deschênes and Robertson, JJ.A., of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal.

The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered in both official languages on August 28, 2003, and the following reasons were filed:

Daigle, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 211;

Deschênes, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 212 to 347;

Robertson, J.A. - see paragraphs 348 to 553.

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 practice notes
  • Sources of Authority: Federal-Level Powers and the Constitution Acts
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Land-use Planning
    • 23 d5 Junho d5 2017
    ...Kitkatla Band v British Columbia (Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture) , 2002 SCC 31 (law held applicable). 111 R v Bernard , 2003 NBCA 55; R v Sappier , 2004 NBCA 56. 112 R v Powley , 2003 SCC 43. 113 See Evelyn J Peters, ed, Aboriginal Self-Government in Urban Areas , Proceedi......
  • R. v. Marshall (S.F.) et al., (2003) 218 N.S.R.(2d) 78 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Nova Scotia Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • 10 d5 Outubro d5 2003
    ...N.S.J. No. 246 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 35]. R. v. Bernard (J.) (2001), 239 N.B.R.(2d) 173 ; 619 A.P.R. 173 (Q.B.), revd. (2003), 262 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 688 A.P.R. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 54, R. v. Adams (G.W.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 101 ; 202 N.R. 89 , refd to. [para. 68]. Delgamuukw et......
  • R. v. Sappier; R. v. Gray, 2006 SCC 54
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • 7 d4 Dezembro d4 2006
    ...Peet, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507 ; referred to: R. v. Badger, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 771 ; R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075 ; R. v. Bernard (2003), 262 N.B.R. (2d) 1, 2003 NBCA 55 ; Mitchell v. M.N.R., [2001] 1 S.C.R. 911 , 2001 SCC 33 ; R. v. Adams, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 101 ; R. v. Powley, [2003] ......
  • Judicially Licensed Unconstitutionality.
    • Canada
    • University of British Columbia Law Review Vol. 55 No. 2, November 2022
    • 1 d2 Novembro d2 2022
    ...General), 2003 BCCA 251 [Barbeau]; Halpern v Canada (Attorney general), [2003] 225 DLR (4th) 529, 65 OR (3d) 161 (ON CA); R v Bernard, 2003 NBCA 55 (89) See Walsh, supra note 88; R v Parker, supra note 88; Clay, supra note 88; Figueroa, supra note 88; Powley, supra note 88; British Columbia......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
33 cases
  • R. v. Marshall (S.F.) et al., (2003) 218 N.S.R.(2d) 78 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Nova Scotia Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • 10 d5 Outubro d5 2003
    ...N.S.J. No. 246 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 35]. R. v. Bernard (J.) (2001), 239 N.B.R.(2d) 173 ; 619 A.P.R. 173 (Q.B.), revd. (2003), 262 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 688 A.P.R. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 54, R. v. Adams (G.W.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 101 ; 202 N.R. 89 , refd to. [para. 68]. Delgamuukw et......
  • Joyce v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General),
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • 27 d4 Janeiro d4 2022
    ...that summary conviction proceedings are not conducive to adjudicating fairly on claims of aboriginal title: R. v. Bernard (2003), 262 N.B.R. (2d) 1, 2003 NBCA 55 (N.B. C.A.), at paras. 450-60. See also Daigle J.A.'s reasons, at para. 144      The......
  • R. v. Sappier; R. v. Gray, 2006 SCC 54
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • 7 d4 Dezembro d4 2006
    ...Peet, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507 ; referred to: R. v. Badger, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 771 ; R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075 ; R. v. Bernard (2003), 262 N.B.R. (2d) 1, 2003 NBCA 55 ; Mitchell v. M.N.R., [2001] 1 S.C.R. 911 , 2001 SCC 33 ; R. v. Adams, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 101 ; R. v. Powley, [2003] ......
  • R. v. Marshall (S.F.) et al.; R. v. Bernard (J.), (2005) 235 N.S.R.(2d) 151 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • 20 d3 Julho d3 2005
    ...A.P.R. 173 , dismissed the appeal. Bernard applied for leave to appeal. The New Brunswick Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported (2003), 262 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 688 A.P.R. 1 , granted leave. The court, Deschênes, J.A., dissenting, allowed the appeal and acquitted Bernard. The majority accepted ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Sources of Authority: Federal-Level Powers and the Constitution Acts
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Land-use Planning
    • 23 d5 Junho d5 2017
    ...Kitkatla Band v British Columbia (Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture) , 2002 SCC 31 (law held applicable). 111 R v Bernard , 2003 NBCA 55; R v Sappier , 2004 NBCA 56. 112 R v Powley , 2003 SCC 43. 113 See Evelyn J Peters, ed, Aboriginal Self-Government in Urban Areas , Proceedi......
  • Judicially Licensed Unconstitutionality.
    • Canada
    • University of British Columbia Law Review Vol. 55 No. 2, November 2022
    • 1 d2 Novembro d2 2022
    ...General), 2003 BCCA 251 [Barbeau]; Halpern v Canada (Attorney general), [2003] 225 DLR (4th) 529, 65 OR (3d) 161 (ON CA); R v Bernard, 2003 NBCA 55 (89) See Walsh, supra note 88; R v Parker, supra note 88; Clay, supra note 88; Figueroa, supra note 88; Powley, supra note 88; British Columbia......
  • What Side Do You Come From? Borders in R v Desautel
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Transnational and Cross-Border Criminal Law. Canadian Perspectives Part III
    • 12 d2 Setembro d2 2023
    ...v Marshall , [1999] 3 SCR 456, (selling eels without a licence). See also R v Morris , [2006] 2 SCR 915 (hunting at night); R v Bernard , 2003 NBCA 55, and R v Sappier , 2006 SCC 54 (harvesting timber on Crown land). 7 Libman v he Queen , [1985] 2 SCR 178 at para 11. 214 What Side Do You Co......
  • The adjudication of historical evidence: a comment and an elaboration on a proposal by Justice LeBel.
    • Canada
    • University of New Brunswick Law Journal No. 55, January 2006
    • 1 d0 Janeiro d0 2006
    ...[Marshall (logging) cited to N.S.R.]. (2) [2005] 3 C.N.L.R. 214 , 2005 SCC 43 [Marshall and Bernard cited to C.N.L.R.], rev'g (2003) 262 N.B.R. (2d) 1, [2003] 4 C.N.L.R. 48 (C.A.) cited to N.B.R.]; rev'g (2001) 239 N.B.R. (2d) 173 , [2002] 3 C.N.L.R. 141 (Q.B.) cited to N.B.R.]; aff......
  • 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