R. v. Morris (I.) et al., (2006) 234 B.C.A.C. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 21, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2006), 234 B.C.A.C. 1 (SCC);2006 SCC 59

R. v. Morris (I.) (2006), 234 B.C.A.C. 1 (SCC);

    387 W.A.C. 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: [2006] B.C.A.C. TBEd. DE.042

Ivan Morris and Carl Olsen (appellants) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) and Attorney General of Canada, Attorney Geneeral of Ontario, Attorney General of Quebec, Attorney General of New Brunswick, Attorney General for Saskatchewan, Attorney General of Alberta, Eagle Village First Nation (Migizy Odenaw), Red Rock Indian Band, Conseil de la Nation huronne-wendat, Te'mexw Treaty Association, Chief Allan Claxton and Chief Roger William (intervenors)

(30328; 2006 SCC 59; 2006 CSC 59)

Indexed As: R. v. Morris (I.) et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ.

December 21, 2006.

Summary:

The two aboriginal accused were charged with hunting wildlife with a firearm during prohibited hours (count 1), hunting wildlife by the use or with the aid of a light (count 2) and hunting without reasonable consideration for the lives, safety or property of others (count 3). The accused Olsen was also charged with discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle (count 4).

The British Columbia Provincial Court found both accused guilty on count 1. Proceedings under count 2 were stayed because of the rule against multiple convictions. Both accused were acquitted on count 3. Olsen was convicted on count 4. The accused appealed their convictions.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2002] B.C.T.C. 780, dismissed the appeal. The accused appealed, with leave.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Lambert, J.A., dissenting, in a judgment reported (2004), 194 B.C.A.C. 107; 317 W.A.C. 107, dismissed the appeal. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache and Fish, JJ., dissenting, allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and substituted acquittals.

Constitutional Law - Topic 6360

Federal jurisdiction (s. 91) - Indians and lands reserved for Indians - Provincial laws of general application - [See Fish and Game - Topic 805.1 ].

Fish and Game - Topic 805.1

Indian, Inuit and Métis rights - General principles - Scope of rights - Limitations - Safety - The Crown conceded that the accused, members of the Tsartlip Band of the Saanich Nation, had a treaty right to hunt on unoccupied Crown lands - The accused were arrested while exercising the historic aboriginal practice of hunting at night with an illuminating device (done since time immemorial) - Section 27(1)(d) of the Wildlife Act prohibited hunting during prohibited hours (including night) and s. 27(1)(e) prohibited hunting at night with the aid of an illuminating device - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the accused had a treaty right to hunt at night with the aid of an illuminating device - Although the prohibition in s. 29 of the Act against dangerous hunting did not infringe the treaty right (valid provincial law of general application), the complete ban on hunting at night with an illuminating device (ss. 27(1)(d) and (e)) was overbroad because it prohibited both safe and unsafe hunting - Since ss. 27(1)(d) and (e) significantly impaired the treaty right, they did not apply to the accused - It could not have been the common intention of the parties to completely ban night hunting - If a particular night hunt violated these safety limits, it could be prosecuted under s. 29 - The court disagreed that nothing short of a complete ban on hunting at night with a light could address safety concerns (i.e., rejected submission that night hunting inherently unsafe) - See paragraphs 1 to 61.

Fish and Game - Topic 806

Indian, Inuit and Métis rights - General principles - Scope of rights - Limitations - Hunting seasons or times - [See Fish and Game - Topic 805.1 ].

Fish and Game - Topic 843

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

Fish and Game - Topic 2391

Hunting offences - Hunting at night - General - [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 4409.1

Treaties and proclamations - General - Limitations on - [See Fish and Game - Topic 805.1 ].

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 4418

Treaties and proclamations - General - Incompatibility with provincial legislation - The Supreme Court of Canada, per McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache and Fish, JJ., dissenting in the result, stated that "provincial regulatory authority over Indian treaty rights may be summarized as follows: 1. Provincial laws directed at the regulation of treaty rights are ultra vires; 2. Valid provincial laws of general application that do not affect or infringe treaty rights apply to Indians either: (a) ex proprio vigore; or (b) through incorporation under s. 88, if they nevertheless touch upon core Indianness in some other manner; Valid provincial laws that fall outside of the scope of the treaty right, by virtue of an internal limit on the treaty right, do not go to 'core Indianness,' and thus apply ex proprio vigore. They do not need to be incorporated by s. 88; and 3. Valid provincial laws of general application that constitute a prima facie infringement of treaty rights trigger the treaty exception in s. 88 and are constitutionally inapplicable. Provincial laws that impose only an insignificant burden on a treaty right (see Côté) do not trigger that exception and are therefore incorporated by s. 88." - See paragraph 100.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Kienapple, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729; 1 N.R. 322, refd to. [para. 12].

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, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. White and Bob (1964), 50 D.L.R.(2d) 613 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Bartleman, [1984] 3 C.N.L.R. 114; 55 B.C.L.R. 78 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Saanichton Marina Ltd. v. Claxton - see Saanichton Marina Ltd. et al. v. Tsawout Indian Band.

Saanichton Marina Ltd. et al. v. Tsawout Indian Band (1989), 36 B.C.L.R.(2d) 79 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

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

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; 2005 SCC 43, refd to. [para. 30].

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. 31].

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. 31].

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. 36].

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. 36].

Kitkatla Indian Band et al. v. British Columbia (Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture) et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 146; 286 N.R. 131; 165 B.C.A.C. 1; 270 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 31, refd to. [para. 41].

Four B Manufacturing Ltd. v. United Garment Workers of America and Ontario Labour Relations Board and Brant et al., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1031; 30 N.R. 421, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Dick, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 309; 62 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Côté (F.) et al., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 139; 202 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 45].

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. 50].

R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075; 111 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 51].

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. 52].

Paul v. Forest Appeals Commission (B.C.) et al., [2003] 2 S.C.R. 585; 310 N.R. 122; 187 B.C.A.C. 1; 307 W.A.C. 1; 2003 SCC 55, refd to. [para. 85].

R. v. Francis, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 1025; 85 N.R. 3; 85 N.B.R.(2d) 243; 217 A.P.R. 243, refd to. [para. 85].

City National Leasing Ltd. v. General Motors of Canada Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 641; 93 N.R. 326; 32 O.A.C. 332, refd to. [para. 86].

Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. v. Saskatchewan et al., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 188; 331 N.R. 116; 257 Sask.R. 171; 342 W.A.C. 171; 2005 SCC 13, refd to. [para. 89].

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. 90].

R. v. Myran, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 137; 5 N.R. 551, refd to. [para. 94].

R. v. Sutherland, Wilson et al. and Canada (Attorney General), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 451; 35 N.R. 361; 7 Man.R.(2d) 359, refd to. [para. 94].

R. v. Moosehunter, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 282; 36 N.R. 437; 9 Sask.R. 149, refd to. [para. 94].

R. v. Paul (D.) et al. (1993), 142 N.B.R.(2d) 55; 364 A.P.R. 55 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 111].

R. v. White and Bob (1965), 52 D.L.R.(2d) 481 (S.C.C.), affing. (1964), 50 D.L.R.(2d) 613 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 118].

R. v. Prince, [1964] S.C.R. 81, refd to. [para. 119].

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. 128].

R. v. Pariseau, [2003] 2 C.N.L.R. 260 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 128].

R. v. Southwind, [1991] O.J. No. 3612 (Prov. Div.), refd to. [para. 128].

R. v. King, [1996] O.J. No. 5458 (Prov. Div.), refd to. [para. 128].

R. v. Harris, [1998] B.C.J. No. 1016 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 128].

R. v. Ice, [2000] O.J. No. 5857 (C.J.), refd to. [para. 128].

R. v. Stump, [2000] 4 C.N.L.R. 260 (B.C. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 128].

R. v. Barlow (N.) and Barlow (N.) and Polches (W.B.) (2000), 228 N.B.R.(2d) 289; 588 A.P.R. 289 (T.D.), leave to appeal refused [2001] N.B.R.(2d) Uned. 30; 2001 NBCA 44, refd to. [para. 128].

Turner et al. v. Manitoba (2001), 160 Man.R.(2d) 256; 262 W.A.C. 256; 2001 MBCA 207, refd to. [para. 128].

R. v. Augustine (F.J.) et al. (2001), 232 N.B.R.(2d) 313; 598 A.P.R. 313 (T.D.), leave to appeal refused [2001] N.B.R.(2d) Uned. 42; 2001 NBCA 57, refd to. [para. 128].

R. v. Maurice, [2002] C.N.L.R. 273; 2002 SKQB 68, refd to. [para. 128].

R. v. Pitawanakwat, [2004] O.J. No. 2075; 2004 ONCJ 50, refd to. [para. 128].

R. v. Yapput, [2004] O.J. No. 5055; 2004 ONCJ 318, refd to. [para. 128].

R. v. Maple, [1982] 2 C.N.L.R. 181 (Sask. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 128].

R. v. Machimity, [1996] O.J. No. 4365 (Prov. Div.), refd to. [para. 128].

R. v. Polches (R.) (2005), 289 N.B.R.(2d) 72; 753 A.P.R. 72; 2005 NBQB 137, refd to. [para. 128].

Statutes Noticed:

Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-5, sect. 88 [para. 44].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Wilkins, Kerry, Of Provinces and Section 35 Rights (1999), 22 Dal. L.J. 185, generally [para. 89].

Counsel:

Louise Mandell, Q.C., Ardith Wal'petko We'dalx Walkem, Bruce Elwood and Michael Jackson, Q.C., for the appellants;

Lisa J. Mrozinski and Paul E. Yearwood, for the respondent;

Mitchell R. Taylor and Mark Kindrachuk, Q.C., for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada;

Ria Tzimas and Elaine M. Atkinson, for the intervener the Attorney General of Ontario;

René Morin, for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec;

John G. Furey, for the intervener the Attorney General of New Brunswick;

P. Mitch McAdam, for the intervener the Attorney General for Saskatchewan;

Sandra C.M. Folkins and Angela Edgington, for the intervener the Attorney General of Alberta;

Diane Soroka, for the intervener the Eagle Village First Nation (Migizy Odenaw);

Harley I. Schachter, for the intervener the Red Rock Indian Band;

Michel Beaupré and Simon Picard, for the intervener Conseil de la Nation huronne-wendat;

Written submissions only by Robert J.M. Janes and Dominique Nouvet for the intervener Te'mexw Treaty Association;

Written submissions only by Jack Woodward and David M. Robbins for the intervener Chief Allan Claxton;

Written submissions only by David M. Rosenberg and Patricia Hutchings for the intervener Chief Roger William.

Solicitors of Record:

Mandell Pinder, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appellants;

Ministry of the Attorney General, Victoria, British Columbia, for the respondent;

Department of Justice, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada;

Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener the Attorney General of Ontario;

Department of Justice, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec;

Attorney General of New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick, for the intervener the Attorney General of New Brunswick;

Saskatchewan Justice, Regina, Saskatchewan, for the intervener the Attorney General for Saskatchewan;

Alberta Justice, Calgary, Alberta, for the intervener the Attorney General of Alberta;

Diane Soroka Barrister and Solicitor Inc., Westmount, for the intervener the Eagle Village First Nation (Migizy Odenaw);

Langlois Kronström Desjardins, Québec, Quebec, for intervener Conseil de la Nation huronne-wendat;

Cook Roberts, Victoria, British Columbia, for the intervener the Te'mexw Treaty Association;

Duboff Edwards Haight & Schachter, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the intervener the Red Rock Indian Band;

Woodward and Co., Victoria, British Columbia, for the intervener Chief Allan Claxton;

Rosenberg & Rosenberg, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the intervener Chief Roger William.

This appeal was heard on October 14, 2005, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On December 21, 2006, the judgment of the Court was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

Deschamps and Abella, JJ. (Binnie and Charron,  JJ.,  concurring)  -  see   paragraphs 1 to 61;

McLachlin, C.J.C., and Fish, J. (Bastarache, J., concurring), dissenting - see paragraphs 62 to 140.