This decision was heard before the New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench, Trial Division.

The applicants in this decision, the New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council and Betty Ann Lavallée, applied to quash a decision that had been made on behalf of the Minister of Natural Resources, in which the Minister refused to discuss or provide information that had been requested by the New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council. This information concerned territorial boundaries between Indigenous groups that the provincial government had used in law-enforcement activities taken against Indigenous harvesters. The Council also sought to have a declaration that it had not been adequately consulted before decisions that adversely affected Aboriginal or treaty rights had been made, along with a declaration stating what the duty to consult would entail in the circumstances, as well as a declaration ordering the Minister to engage in meaningful consultation with the New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council.

The provincial government responded with an affidavit challenging the claim advanced by applicants, arguing that portions of the affidavit by Betty Ann Lavallée should be struck out. On that latter point, the Court found sufficient admissible evidence in Ms. Lavallée's affidavit to indicate that the issues raised were substantive and deserving of consideration. The Court concluded that there was a substantial disagreement between the parties on the facts, and, on that basis, it would be best for the issue to proceed to trial. For those reasons, the Court ordered that the matter proceed to trial. Additionally, the Court ordered that all fifteen Indigenous communities in New Brunswick, including all Mi'kmaw and all Wolastoqiyik (Maliseet) communities, and the Union of New Brunswick Indians and the Mawiw Council be given the opportunity to act as intervenors if they wished.

View the Decision on CanLII: https://www.canlii.org/en/nb/nbqb/doc/2001/2001canlii3890/2001canlii3890.html

Disclaimer:
Case briefs in our Resource Library are drafted by law students who work or volunteer with East Coast Environmental Law, and East Coast Environmental Law does not guarantee their fullness or accuracy. Library users should not rely on case briefs as comprehensive accounts of the issues, facts, reasoning, or outcomes at stake in any given case. 

If you require more detailed information about a court decision or legal issue, please consider using our Environmental Law Inquiry Service to request information from our staff.