R. v. Smallboy (P.F.) et al., 2005 ABQB 89

• Judge: Verville, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: January 24, 2005
• Citations: 2005 ABQB 89;(2005), 373 A.R. 187 (QB)

R. v. Smallboy (P.F.) (2005), 373 A.R. 187 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] A.R. TBEd. FE.059

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Paul Francis Smallboy and Randall Arthur Badger (appellants)

(006930770-S-1; 020546206-S-1; 2005 ABQB 89)

Indexed As: R. v. Smallboy (P.F.) et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Verville, J.

February 8, 2005.

Summary:

The accused pleaded guilty to trafficking in rocky mountain sheep contrary to s. 61(1) of the Wildlife Act. The trial judge fined each accused $6,000 and imposed a number of conditions under s. 93.4(i) of the Act to monitor their future hunting activities. The accused appealed the conditions, submitting that the judge had no jurisdiction to impose conditions that interfered with their treaty right to hunt.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal.

Fish and Game - Topic 2655

Offences - Sentence - General - Conditions to secure good conduct and prevent future offences - The accused aboriginals were fined $6,000 for illegal trafficking in rocky mountain sheep - Additionally, the judge imposed conditions under s. 93.4(I) of the Wildlife Act (see paragraph 7) which were designed to monitor the accused's hunting activities - The accused submitted that the judge could not impose conditions that interfered with their treaty right to hunt - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench affirmed the conditions - The purpose of the conditions was to protect the public interest in the management of a wildlife resource - The conditions did not interfere with the treaty right to hunt - The conditions were reasonable, did not impose undue hardship on the accused and permitted the accused to hunt using their preferred means - Even if the conditions interfered with the right to hunt, they were justified under the R. v. Sparrow justification test - See paragraphs 18 to 43.

Cases Noticed:

Eaton v. Board of Education of Brant County, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 241; 207 N.R. 171; 97 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 14].

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. 18].

R. v. Horseman, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 901; 108 N.R. 1; 108 A.R. 1, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075; 111 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 18].

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. 18].

R. v. Lamouche (K.W.) et al. (1998), 236 A.R. 69 (Prov. Ct.), revd. in part (2000), 267 A.R. 347 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 18].

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. 18].

R. v. Steinhauer, [1997] A.J. No. 131 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 18].

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. 18].

R. v. Adams (G.W.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 101; 202 N.R. 89, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Johnson (G.) (1994), 48 B.C.A.C. 93; 78 W.A.C. 93; 91 C.C.C.(3d) 21 (Y.T.C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Norn (I.) (1992), 129 A.R. 341 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 19].

Statutes Noticed:

Wildlife Act, S.A. 1984, c. W-9.1, sect. 93.4(I) [para. 8].

Wildlife Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. W-10, sect. 97(i) [para. 8].

Counsel:

Robert E. Marr, agent for the Attorney General Crown Prosecutor's Office, for the respondent;

Robert A. Joly, for the appellant, Badger;

Ronald A. Morin, for the appellant, Smallboy.

This appeal was heard on January 24, 2005, before Verville, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on February 8, 2005.