R. v. Morris (I.) et al., 2004 BCCA 121

• Judge: Lambert, Huddart and Thackray, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: March 04, 2004
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 2004 BCCA 121;(2004), 194 B.C.A.C. 107 (CA)

R. v. Morris (I.) (2004), 194 B.C.A.C. 107 (CA);

    317 W.A.C. 107

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MR.051

Regina (respondent/plaintiff) v. Ivan Morris and Carl Olsen (appellant/defendant)

(CA029851; CA029852; 2004 BCCA 121)

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

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Lambert, Huddart and Thackray, JJ.A.

March 4, 2004.

Summary:

The two Indian 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 for the same delict. 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, dismissed the appeal.

Editor's Note: see also a related case at [2001] B.C.T.C. 1520.

Fish and Game - Topic 805.1

Indian, Inuit and Métis rights - General principles - Scope of rights - Limitations - Safety - The 1852 North Saanich Treaty (or Douglas Treaty) provided, inter alia, that its beneficiaries were "at liberty to hunt over the unoccupied lands and carry on our fisheries as formerly" - Two Indians charged with, inter alia, hunting at night and hunting with a light (Wildlife Act, s. 27(1)) were benefici­aries of the Treaty - The British Columbia Court of Appeal affirmed that the Act applied to the Indians as a law of general application, either of its own force or pursu­ant to the Indian Act, s. 88 - The impugned provi­sions of the Act, being reasonable safety regulations, did not conflict with the Indians' Treaty right to hunt for food or ceremonial purposes - See paragraphs 89 to 198, 200 to 221.

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 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Horseman, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 901; 108 N.R. 1; 108 A.R. 1; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 353; [1990] 4 W.W.R. 9, refd to. [paras. 13, 72, 208].

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; 133 D.L.R.(4th) 324; [1996] 2 C.N.L.R. 77, refd to. [paras. 13, 92, 213].

R. v. Dick, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 309; 62 N.R. 1; 23 D.L.R.(4th) 33; 22 C.C.C.(3d) 129, consd. [paras. 18, 98, 200].

R. v. White and Bob (1964), 50 D.L.R.(2d) 613 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 20].

R. v. Myran, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 137; 5 N.R. 551; 58 D.L.R.(3d) 1; 23 C.C.C.(2d) 73, consd. [paras. 21, 72, 210].

R. v. Felawka, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 199; 159 N.R. 50; 33 B.C.A.C. 241; 54 W.A.C. 241; 85 C.C.C.(3d) 248, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Sundown (J.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 393; 236 N.R. 251; 177 Sask.R. 1; 199 W.A.C. 1; 170 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 132 C.C.C.(3d) 353, refd to. [paras. 35, 152, 214].

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; 177 D.L.R.(4th) 513; 138 C.C.C.(3d) 97; [1999] 4 C.N.L.R. 161, refd to. [paras. 39, 151, 214].

R. v. Bartleman, [1984] 3 C.N.L.R. 114; 55 B.C.L.R. 78; 12 D.L.R.(4th) 73 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 42, 94].

Saanichton Marina Ltd. et al. v. Tsawout Indian Band (1989), 36 B.C.L.R.(2d) 79 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

Mitchell v. Minister of National Revenue, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 911; 269 N.R. 207, refd to. [para. 45].

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; 153 D.L.R.(4th) 193; [1999] 10 W.W.R. 34, refd to. [paras. 45, 97].

Connolly v. Woolrich (1867), 11 L.C.J. 197; 17 R.J.R.Q. 75; 1 C.N.L.C. 70 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 45].

Casimel et al. v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia (1993), 30 B.C.A.C. 279; 49 W.A.C. 279; 82 B.C.L.R.(2d) 387 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Napoleon, [1986] 1 C.N.L.R. 86; [1985] 6 W.W.R. 302; 21 C.C.C.(3d) 515 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 53, 112].

R. v. Seward (J.L.) et al. (1999), 119 B.C.A.C. 306; 194 W.A.C. 306; 66 B.C.L.R.(3d) 49; 133 C.C.C.(3d) 437; 1999 BCCA 163, consd. [paras. 54, 74].

R. v. Mousseau, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 89; 31 N.R. 620; 111 D.L.R.(3d) 443; 52 C.C.C.(2d) 140, consd. [para. 55].

R. v. Côté (F.) et al., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 139; 202 N.R. 161; 138 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 122, refd to. [paras. 61, 120, 207].

R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075; 111 N.R. 241; 70 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 263, refd to. [para. 72].

R. v. Prince and Myron, [1964] S.C.R. 81; [1964] 3 C.C.C. 2; 46 W.W.R.(N.S.) 121, refd to. [para. 72].

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; 113 D.L.R.(3d) 374; 53 C.C.C.(2d) 289, refd to. [para. 72].

R. v. Seward (J.L.) et al., [1998] 3 C.N.L.R. 237 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 74].

R. v. Francis, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 1025; 85 N.R. 3; 85 N.B.R.(2d) 243; 217 A.P.R. 243; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 217; 51 D.L.R.(4th) 418; [1988] 4 C.N.L.R. 98, refd to. [para. 97].

Four B Manufacturing Ltd. v. United Garment Workers, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1031; 30 N.R. 421; 102 D.L.R.(3d) 385; [1979] 4 C.N.L.R. 21, refd to. [para. 97].

R. v. Frank, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 95; 15 N.R. 487; 4 A.R. 271; 34 C.C.C.(2d) 209; [1977] 4 W.W.R. 294, refd to. [para. 98].

R. v. Alphonse (W.), [1993] 5 W.W.R. 401; 29 B.C.A.C. 161; 48 W.A.C. 161; 80 B.C.L.R.(2d) 17; 83 C.C.C.(3d) 417 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 100].

Delgamuukw et al. v. British Columbia et al., [1993] 5 W.W.R. 97; 30 B.C.A.C. 1; 49 W.A.C. 1; 104 D.L.R.(4th) 470 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 106].

Cardinal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1974] S.C.R. 695; 40 D.L.R.(3d) 553; 13 C.C.C.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 107].

R. v. Kruger, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 104; 15 N.R. 495; 75 D.L.R.(3d) 434; 34 C.C.C.(2d) 377, consd. [para. 107].

R. v. Dick (1982), 41 B.C.L.R. 173; 3 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 108].

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; 137 D.L.R.(4th) 648; 109 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [paras. 160, 213].

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; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 133 D.L.R.(4th) 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. 175].

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) 390; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 238, refd to. [paras. 175, 212].

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; [1996] 4 C.N.L.R. 177, refd to. [para. 208].

R. v. Sioui, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1025; 109 N.R. 22; 30 Q.A.C. 280; [1990] 3 C.N.L.R. 127, consd. [para. 216].

Statutes Noticed:

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 35(1) [para. 82].

Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-5, sect. 88 [para. 16].

Wildlife Act, S.B.C. 1982, c. 57, sect. 27(1)(d), sect. 27(1)(e) [para. 8].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Borrows, J., With or Without You: First Nations Law (in Canada) (1996), 41 McGill L.J. 629, generally [para. 45].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (4th Ed. 1997) (Looseleaf), vol. 1, pp. 16-7 to 16-12 [para. 125]; 16-13 [paras. 123, 125]; 16-14, 27-15 [para. 123]; 27-16 [paras. 112, 123, 220].

Counsel:

L. Mandell, Q.C., and A. Walkman, for the appellant;

B. Rendell, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on October 22, 2003, before Lambert, Huddart and Thackray, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

On March 4, 2004, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered and the following judgments were filed:

Lambert, J.A., dissenting - see para­graphs 1 to 63;

Thackray, J.A. - see paragraphs 64 to 197;

Huddart, J.A. - see paragraphs 198 to 222.