This appeal was heard in the New Brunswick Court of Appeal, following the decisions in Peter-Paul v R, 2007 NBQB 65, R v Peter-Paul, 2007 CanLII 7511 (NB CA), and R v Peter-Paul, 2007 CanLII 36616 (NB CA).

At trial, David John Peter-Paul and Adam Peter-Paul had been found guilty of possessing a deer carcass contrary to section 58 of New Brunswick's Fish and Wildlife Act. In their defence, the accuseds had argued that they had a treaty right to hunt as they had done. Their argument failed at trial and also failed in an appeal before the New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench.

Following the decision of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, two motions were heard by the Court of Appeal in the lead-up to this appeal. In those motions, the appellants were released and the fines levied against them were stayed, pending the decision reached in this appeal.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal agreed with the decision of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, and it dismissed the appeal. 

The accuseds applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, but in David John Peter-Paul and Adam Peter-Paul v Her Majesty the Queen,2008 CanLII 39160 (SCC), their application was dismissed.

View the Decision on CanLII: https://www.canlii.org/en/nb/nbca/doc/2008/2008nbca22/2008nbca22.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.