R. v. Paul

R. v. Paul

The court found insufficient and non‑persuasive evidence that night hunting with illumination was an element integral to Mi'kmaq culture or a preferred historical method; therefore s.68 of the Wildlife Act did not meaningfully diminish the Aboriginal right to hunt for food and was not a prima facie infringement. The provision pursues valid objectives (public safety, conservation, tourism regulation) and its prohibition of hunting with light is a reasonable limitation; accordingly the accused were guilty of hunting with light contrary to s.68.

Citation
2013 NSPC 75
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Aaron Stephen Paul; Accused: Charles Francis
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Decision (guilt)
Outcome
Guilty (convicted under s.68 of the Wildlife Act)
Legal Topics
Aboriginal Rights — Hunting, Section 35(1) Analysis, Wildlife Act S.68 (hunting With Light), Infringement and Justification (sparrow/van Der Peet), Public Safety and Conservation, Applicability of Treaty Jurisprudence (morris/polches)
Source Language
English
Aboriginal Law Wildlife Law Constitutional Law Criminal Law Aboriginal Rights — Hunting Section 35(1) Analysis Wildlife Act S.68 (hunting With Light) Infringement and Justification (sparrow/van Der Peet) +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Aaron Stephen Paul

Accused

Charles Francis

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Decision (guilt)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.68 of the Nova Scotia Wildlife Act infringed the accuseds' s.35(1) Aboriginal right to hunt for food and ceremonial purposes
  2. 2 Proper characterization of the claimed Aboriginal right (general right to hunt for food v. specific method: night hunting with illumination)
  3. 3 Whether night hunting with a light was an integral, preferred, or historical method of Mi'kmaq hunting practice

Ratio Decidendi

The court found insufficient and non‑persuasive evidence that night hunting with illumination was an element integral to Mi'kmaq culture or a preferred historical method; therefore s.68 of the Wildlife Act did not meaningfully diminish the Aboriginal right to hunt for food and was not a prima facie infringement. The provision pursues valid objectives (public safety, conservation, tourism regulation) and its prohibition of hunting with light is a reasonable limitation; accordingly the accused were guilty of hunting with light contrary to s.68.

Court Disposition

Guilty (convicted under s.68 of the Wildlife Act)

Orders

  • Accused found guilty of contravening s.68 of the Wildlife Act (hunting with light); sentencing to be scheduled