R. v. Bernard (S.C.), (2010) 365 N.B.R.(2d) 207 (PC)

• Judge: Brien, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of New Brunswick (Canada)
• Case Date: August 16, 2010
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (2010), 365 N.B.R.(2d) 207 (PC);2010 NBPC 30

R. v. Bernard (S.C.) (2010), 365 N.B.R.(2d) 207 (PC);

    365 R.N.-B.(2e) 207; 939 A.P.R. 207

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Temp. Cite: [2010] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. SE.008

Renvoi temp.: [2010] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. SE.008

R. v. Stephen Charles Bernard

(2010 NBPC 30; 2010 NBCP 30)

Indexed As: R. v. Bernard (S.C.)

Répertorié: R. v. Bernard (S.C.)

New Brunswick Provincial Court

Brien, P.C.J.

August 16, 2010.

Summary:

Résumé:

The accused, a status Indian of a Mi'kmaq band in Nova Scotia, was charged with unlawfully hunting deer in the Saint John, New Brunswick, area without a valid licence, contrary to s. 32(1)(b) of the Fish and Wildlife Act. He asserted an aboriginal right to hunt for food in the area, which he asserted was a traditional Mi'kmaq area.

The New Brunswick Provincial Court convicted the accused.

Fish and Game - Topic 809

Indian, Inuit and Métis rights - General principles - Aboriginal or treaty rights - Proof of - The accused, a status Indian of a Mi'kmaq band in Nova Scotia, was charged with unlawfully hunting deer in the Saint John, New Brunswick, area without a valid licence, contrary to s. 32(1)(b) of the Fish and Wildlife Act - He asserted an aboriginal right to hunt for food in the area, which he asserted was a traditional Mi'kmaq area - The New Brunswick Provincial Court convicted the accused - The court applied the approach outlined in R. v. Van der Peet (D.M.) (1996 S.C.C.), under which an aboriginal right was not lost by abandonment or cessation of exercise if a traditional connection with the land had been substantially maintained by observance of the custom, tradition or practice, including a link to the resource in question - Here, the evidence showed that the Mi'kmaq had occupied the area at the time of contact with the French and continued to do so for at least a century afterward - There was presently no Mi'kmaq reserve in or near Saint John and no organized Mi'kmaq group there - There was no direct evidence of what became of the Mi'kmaq people who had actually hunted there - Under Van der Peet, the community that had left the area and the exercise of the practice (here, hunting) could resume the practice where the necessary connection was established - The court considered the effect of the return to Saint John by the accused's grandfather and the activity by the accused and his father - However, apart from the accused's personal presence in Saint John, there was no evidence of a modern day community of Mi'kmaq in the area - Neither the movement of the accused's grandfather to the area nor the accused's own exercise of the practice established the necessary connection as the accused had failed to establish that he was a member of the original right-bearing Mi'kmaq community - Therefore, the accused failed to establish that he had a right to hunt in the area - See paragraphs 126 to 144.

Fish and Game - Topic 843

Indian, Inuit and Métis rights - Right to hunt - Extent of right - [See Fish and Game - Topic 809 ].

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6005

Aboriginal rights - Nature and scope of - [See Fish and Game - Topic 809 ].

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6012

Aboriginal rights - Evidence and proof - [See Fish and Game - Topic 809 ].

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6018

Aboriginal rights - Extinguishment - [See Fish and Game - Topic 809 ].

Chasse et pêche - Cote 809

Droits des Indiens, des Inuits et des Métis - Principes généraux - Droits ancestraux ou issus de traités - Preuve - [Voir Fish and Game - Topic 809 ].

Chasse et pêche - Cote 843

Droits des Indiens, des Inuits et des Métis - Droit de chasser - Étendue du droit - [Voir Fish and Game - Topic 843 ].

Indiens, Inuits et Métis - Cote 6005

Droits ancestraux - Nature - [Voir Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6005 ].

Indiens, Inuits et Métis - Cote 6012

Droits ancestraux - Preuve - [Voir Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6012 ].

Indiens, Inuits et Métis - Cote 6018

Droits ancestraux - Extinction - [Voir Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6018 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Marshall (S.F.) et al.; R. v. Bernard (J.), [2005] 2 S.C.R. 220; 336 N.R. 22; 287 N.B.R.(2d) 206; 750 A.P.R. 206; 198 C.C.C.(3d) 29, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Bernard (J.) - see R. v. Marshall (S.F.) et al.

R. v. Powley (S.) et al. (2001), 141 O.A.C. 121; 152 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Paul (V.) et al. (2003), 261 N.B.R.(2d) 177; 685 A.P.R. 177 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Sockabasin (L.) - see R. v. Paul (V.) et al.

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, appld. [para. 23].

Mitchell v. Minister of National Revenue, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 911; 269 N.R. 207, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Adams (G.W.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 101; 202 N.R. 89, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Sappier (D.M.) et al. (2006), 355 N.R. 1; 309 N.B.R.(2d) 199; 799 A.P.R. 199; 214 C.C.C.(3d) 161 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Gray (D.J.) - see R. v. Sappier (D.M.) et al.

R. v. Sappier (D.M.) et al. (2004), 273 N.B.R.(2d) 93; 717 A.P.R. 93; 2004 NBCA 56, refd to. [para. 33].

Mabo v. Queensland (No. 2) (1992), 175 C.L.R. 1 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Blais (E.L.J.) (2003), 308 N.R. 371; 180 Man.R.(2d) 3; 310 W.A.C. 3; 2003 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Acker (K.J.) (2004), 281 N.B.R.(2d) 275; 736 A.P.R. 275; 2004 NBPC 24, affd. 2006 NBQB 77, dist. [para. 67].

R. v. Lavigne (G.), Jr. (2007), 319 N.B.R.(2d) 261; 823 A.P.R. 261; 2007 NBQB 171, dist. [para. 67].

R. v. Chiasson (O.) (2005), 291 N.B.R.(2d) 156; 758 A.P.R. 156; 2005 NBCA 82, dist. [para. 67].

R. v. Hopper (R.) (2008), 331 N.B.R.(2d) 177; 849 A.P.R. 177; 2008 NBCA 42, dist. [para. 67].

R. v. Côté (F.) et al., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 139; 202 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Bernard (J.) (2003), 262 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 688 A.P.R. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. Walker (D.W.) (2005), 230 N.S.R.(2d) 193; 729 A.P.R. 193; 2005 NSPC 1, refd to. [para. 105].

R. v. Bernard (A.) (2002), 200 N.S.R.(2d) 352; 627 A.P.R. 352 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 105].

R. v. Isaac (1975), 13 N.S.R.(2d) 460; 9 A.P.R. 460 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 105].

R. v. Denny et al. (1990), 94 N.S.R.(2d) 253; 247 A.P.R. 253 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 105].

R. v. Toney (B.J.J.) (1993), 127 N.S.R.(2d) 322; 355 A.P.R. 322 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 105].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (2003), p. 621 [para. 69].

Counsel:

Avocats:

J.T. Keith McCormick and William Richards, for the Crown;

Defendant, for himself.

This case was heard at Saint John, New Brunswick, by Brien, P.C.J., of the New Brunswick Provincial Court, who delivered the following reasons for decision on August 16, 2010.